It is impossible to calculate the real costs of a war. Do generals ever give us a balance sheet showing the enormous sums eaten up by armaments and armies?
OSKAR WERMTER SJ
Incalculable and unquantifiable are the human costs: physical injuries that turn strong young men into cripples for life, psychological trauma that haunts women and children until death, and finally all those countless war dead.
Do the surviving elderly generals who send young people to their deaths ever explain to us why our sons and brothers had to die? Their speeches at war memorials give no comfort.
People fight over land, over resources, over production as much as over distribution of wealth. People fight for survival and die in the process.
War is full of contradictions, does not seem very rational though much intelligence is wasted on building up the war machinery. There is rarely a clear-cut winner.
If only leaders were honest they would admit that in the end they are all losers. When they have all bloody noses they have all to sit down round a conference table and talk anyway. Why could they not talk in the first place before sacrificing their children on the altar of pride, greed and prejudice?
The struggle for power is inevitable, but war, especially civil war which has been plagueing this country for so long, seems a rotten way to try and settle such conflicts.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Democratic elections seem to be a non-violent, bloodless alternative. Political systems which acknowledge that power comes from the citizens who are the true owners of the country are a late development.
In elections they delegate that power to their chosen leaders. Such a new order based on participation in elections has to grow from inside, it does not work if merely imposed from outside. It is almost a miracle if people and factions agree to throw down the gun and let the popular vote decide instead.
People must arrive at a consensus that the majority vote will decide what individuals and which party take over control and power for a given time. The benefits are enormous, but they come at a price.
Firstly, whoever takes part in this contest, while striving for victory and power, must be prepared to lose and give way to the winner. Democrats must be good losers and be prepared to move to the opposition benches. Secondly, the power that is given to the winner is never unlimited or absolute.
The elected leaders must demonstrate that their power comes from the people by going back to them — and not only at election time! — and give an account to them of what they have achieved or failed to achieve.
Quite correctly the “separation of powers” has been written into our draft constitution. The head of government (Executive) must respect the law-giving powers of Parliament (Legislative). The law courts must be independent of politicians and judges must apply the law, without giving way to pressure from powerful interests (judicative). This limitation of powers protects us from abuse of state authority. That is the ideal picture.
Practically all countries, political regimes and leaders on our planet wish to be able to call themselves “democratic”. We take it for granted that modern states follow a democratic order.
In fact, we must be suspicious if a country calls itself explicitly “democratic”. There must be a reason for this special emphasis. Some autocrats take popular support for granted, but do not allow it ever to be put to the test.
Some claim divine sanction for their endless rule which is plain blasphemy.
The written law and the political reality are often far apart. Leaders boast of their democratic credentials, while refusing to pay the price.
What is the point of holding elections which costs millions, and denying voters the right even to “vote wrongly”? Why give people ballot papers if the outcome is predetermined? If the winners of the war have won for all times why bother with a charade of an election?
If the “gun is mightier than the voter’s pen” why should anyone risk being beaten up on the way to the polling booth? The whole point of elections is indeed that the voter’s pen replaces the gun once and for all.
People obsessed with power easily deceive themselves, lie to themselves and others. They pay young hooligans to threaten and intimidate people so they give them their votes, and then they are proud of their “election victory”. They persuade themselves that they have the support of the “masses” (an ugly expression of contempt for their fellow citizens) when in fact they have merely managed skillfully to eliminate potential “wrong” voters from the rolls.
Many concerned citizens care very much about clean elections and a ‘free and fair’ process. Election observers from inside and outside the country wish us well and want us to have a democratic future. Perhaps the word “democratic” is somewhat worn out and has lost its meaning due to misuse. Personally I would like to speak about governance by participation.
This means more than just balloting. This means any form of partaking in public affairs: being able to freely speak at citizens’ assemblies about the affairs of the local community (water, public health, shelter, education etc). This means freedom of information (eg running a local citizens’ radio). This means being able to ask your local MP questions about public finance, the job market, housing and whatever else.
The Church hopes for peaceful, non-violent elections and is present in the process through its observers. The Church does not itself compete for power and is non-partisan in terms of party politics. But it is concerned with creating a non-violent political style and promoting tolerance and respect for the life and integrity even of the opponent in political strife.
Even top leadership is now advocating non-violence. Let us hope that army and police get the message. The draft constitution says they must be non-partisan. No need for bullets once the ballot decides the outcome of our struggles.
