By Dr. Field C. Ruwe
O’Brien Kaaba’s recent caustic critique of Sishuwa Sishuwa, a leading figure among Zambia’s scholarly community, exemplifies the internal fragmentation within the Zambian intelligentsia. It points to how autocratic rule neutralizes the academic community’s capacity to establish a unified counter-hegemonic bloc capable of exerting institutional checks and balances. Simply put, it is the reason the academic and intellectual elite have failed to reach a unified technocratic consensus.
Kaaba’s article, “Sympathy Abroad, Deafening Silence Home: Why Sishuwa is not Getting Support from Zambian Academics,” is a good example of a scholar departing from conventional academic impartiality to promote a particular political agenda. The article illustrates that when scholars function exclusively as partisan laudatory commentators, obsequious supporters, and state propagandists, substantive public discourse loses its complexity and devolves into superficial political discourse.
I shall first address the title presented in Kaaba’s article. The assertion regarding international solidarity demonstrated toward Sishuwa Sishuwa indeed presents a marked contrast with the absence of local scholarly engagement. This academic silence reflects an existing schism within the University of Zambia, which has enabled partisan-oriented faculty members like O’Brien Kaaba to prioritize ideological allegiances over the pursuit of rigorous, impartial scholarly inquiry.
During the period preceding the establishment of multi-party democratic governance, the academic community and student body at the University of Zambia demonstrated considerable historical significance through their active resistance to the authoritarian practices of President Kenneth Kaunda. The University of Zambia Student Union (UNZASU) functioned as a critical institutional mechanism for constraining executive authority.
One is prompted to recall the UNZASU committee of the 1970s, which included Ronald Penza, John Chileshe, Jonathan Momba, Ernest Kasula, Gerry Chabwera, and Cosmos Chola. They sent a letter to KK headed “Where are we going?” wherein criticized the president for leaving intellectuals out and trying to be Zambia’s Superman on matters of foreign affairs. “You are not omnipotent,” they told him—a message that conveyed a fundamental assertion.
Since 1990, the University of Zambia has lost its status as the nation’s premier independent intellectual anchor. UNZA has been deeply compromised by partisan actors who exploit their academic titles to rubber-stamp political agendas. Academics like Kaaba expose a systemic vulnerability within the institution, proving that UNZA is currently failing to maintain the academic autonomy required to safeguard Zambia’s democratic values.
It must be stated that Sishuwa Sishuwa, an alumnus of UNZA, stands among the few graduates who have established themselves as dependable, evidence-driven scholars. In a context where an authoritarian administration has fundamentally disrupted the essential relationship between theoretical knowledge and practical application, Sishuwa has established himself as an essential advocate for democratic principles through his evolving contributions to the field.
Throughout the years, Sishuwa has maintained a rigorous analytical and evaluative approach toward consecutive Zambian governments, including those of Edgar Lungu and Hichilema. He has done so with particular emphasis on matters including the expansion of executive authority, the integrity of the electoral process, and the progressive contraction of civic and political freedoms. He wears a badge of honor for his exceptionally courageous acts.
Conversely, Kaaba, whose credentials are most impressive—Doctor of Laws, Master of Laws (LLM) in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lecturer at the University of Zambia, and Senior Research Associate with the Southern African Institute of Policy and Research (SAIPAR)—fails to recognize that the employment of governmental apparatus to revoke passports belonging to political opponents constitutes a deliberate contraction of democratic civic participation and an obstruction of legitimate political diversity.
Regarding Sishuwa’s vocal and trenchant criticism of Hichilema, it must be acknowledged that political discourse frequently transcends the boundaries of diplomatic language, sometimes resulting in unguarded expressions or momentary errors in reasoning. Even individuals of considerable strategic acumen, such as Sishuwa, encounter substantial demands inherent to public service, which may occasionally allow their profound commitment to substantive matters to emerge through unconventional communicative approaches.
In his “There was a Country,” Chinua Achebe writes that the institutionalization of failure “will end only with the dismantling of the present corrupt system and the banishment of the cult of mediocrity that runs, hopefully through a peaceful democratic process.” Achebe’s assertion describes the process of intellectual consolidation and the necessity of transitioning from kakistocracy (government by the least qualified) to a meritocracy (government that rewards intellectuals rather than punishes them).
Author is a Doctor of Education and a multicultural researcher affiliated with Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. His most recent published scholarly work appears in the “Pacific Journal” under the title “Phenomenon of Social Media in Sub-Saharan Africa: Leapfrogging From Traditional Communication to Digital Dialogic Communication.”
Loading read count...