Kaunda’s intellect has been blunted by time!
Jan 17, 2006
SIR — I approached Mr. Kenneth Kaunda’s article “Third term good but let Besigye campaign— Kaunda†with very high expectations. It is understandable. Is this not the African statesman to whose praises our history and political education lessons sometimes turned?
SIR — I approached Mr. Kenneth Kaunda’s article “Third term good but let Besigye campaign— Kaunda†with very high expectations. It is understandable. Is this not the African statesman to whose praises our history and political education lessons sometimes turned?
But what a disappointment I encountered! The best argument he could give why Museveni should be president for more than 20 years was that Obote’s ministers were drunkards and ineffective, and Museveni’s are sober and active!
This is great but does it really nullify the need for change? How does Obote come into a Third Term question of 2006? I suppose Kaunda was, himself, a good president with a sober cabinet, but did Zambia collapse when his presidency ceased?
If the third term bid cannot be defended without referring to Obote’s failures, which belong to the last millennium, then it is really indefensible! On closer reflection, one realises that it is not too surprising that Kaunda’s logic is now a little imperfect. It is long, long ago that some of us studied history and political education.
And if, even in that distant past, he featured in studies of the past, isn’t it to be expected that his intellectual faculties are no longer as sharp as they used to be? It is the course of nature! What if the tired man were still President, where would poor Zambia now be headed? Therefore, Kaunda, unintentionally made the very opposite of the point he thought he was making.
The real message in his article is that even the best among us are vulnerable to the decay wrought by longevity, and should overstay at the steering wheel.
Nick Twinamatsiko
Kampala
But what a disappointment I encountered! The best argument he could give why Museveni should be president for more than 20 years was that Obote’s ministers were drunkards and ineffective, and Museveni’s are sober and active!
This is great but does it really nullify the need for change? How does Obote come into a Third Term question of 2006? I suppose Kaunda was, himself, a good president with a sober cabinet, but did Zambia collapse when his presidency ceased?
If the third term bid cannot be defended without referring to Obote’s failures, which belong to the last millennium, then it is really indefensible! On closer reflection, one realises that it is not too surprising that Kaunda’s logic is now a little imperfect. It is long, long ago that some of us studied history and political education.
And if, even in that distant past, he featured in studies of the past, isn’t it to be expected that his intellectual faculties are no longer as sharp as they used to be? It is the course of nature! What if the tired man were still President, where would poor Zambia now be headed? Therefore, Kaunda, unintentionally made the very opposite of the point he thought he was making.
The real message in his article is that even the best among us are vulnerable to the decay wrought by longevity, and should overstay at the steering wheel.
Nick Twinamatsiko
Kampala