Monthly Archives: October 2015

On Faith and Politics: Towards a Pentecostal political praxis in Zambia

By Elias Munshya, LLM, MBA, M.Div.

The pentecostal movement is here to stay. Dismissed as a passing fad, its resiliency has baffled many critics. With several streams expressing its identity the time has come for Pentecostalism to define and redefine its attitude towards the state, particularly in a country like Zambia which claims to be a Christian nation. President Lungu’s religious conduct in the past month has received the most praise from Patriotic Front cadres and many Pentecostals. I submit that once pentecostalism has had a deep search into its own theology, it will find plenty fodder for principles that must guide its attitude towards politics in general and the state in particular. What are the principles that should guide a pentecostal political praxis?

First, as a movement that hates human suffering and poverty, pentecostals could become vocal advocates for national economic transformation. Pentecostals claim that suffering is not from God. In fact, this is one point that African traditional religions find unanimity with pentecostalism, a detest for suffering. Since this is what Pentecostals believe, it should not be difficult then for them to confront social and political causes of that suffering and poverty. Unfortunately, Pentecostals are not as keen in confronting social and political causes of poverty. Pentecostal pulpits teach how that it is God’s will to be rich, but there are not enough messages trying to prophetically call out political corruption. Perhaps, Pentecostals in Zambia would do well to shift their theology a little bit so as to bring the political arena into the mix of what they understand to be sources of human suffering.

Political ethics in a Christian nation

Political ethics in a Christian nation

Second, from its “transnational prophetism” Pentecostalism can hew-out some principles to guide its attitude towards politics in Zambia. Through transnational prophetism, Pentecostals envision themselves beyond the limits of the national borders. This can be seen from the names of Pentecostal churches and ministries which emphasize their transnational character. Leading Pentecostal churches in Zambia frequently add “international” or its variation in their names to emphasize transnationalism. Both Grace Ministries Mission International and Bread of Life Church International are good examples. The Bible Gospel Church in Africa (BIGOCA) shows its transnational character by infusing “Africa” in its name. Zambian Pentecostals need to reimagine their attitude towards politics in ways that remain faithful to their transnational character and vision. If Pentecostals are transnational, then it should follow that they must respect and consider the Pentecostal character of their brothers and sisters in other countries. It is this transnationalism that must tamper Zambian Pentecostals’ unbridled nationalism which may lead to absurd political results in Zambia. In Nigeria, for example, the Pentecostal community there would go to war to preserve their federal republic as a “secular state”. In Zambia, however, Pentecostals almost without a second thought believe that Zambia must be a “Christian state”. Pentecostal trans-nationality therefore challenges some assumptions among Zambian Pentecostals that for Zambia to be evangelically viable, it must be a “Christian nation”.

Third, Pentecostals are a people of renewal. They live in an atmosphere of constant spiritual innovation. They do emphasize that there is always a “new thing” that God is doing among the people. This is important and it must be highly commended. However, statecraft and statesmanship demands that people consider a little bit of history. History is oftentimes not very important to a Pentecostal worldview. When President Edgar Lungu takes several steps that seem to advance the Pentecostal faith, Pentecostals believe it is a “new thing”. They quickly forget, and would not want to be reminded of the past interaction between church and state under the leadership of President Chiluba. If Pentecostals are to be relevant politically, they must realise that Zambia is a history. In politics, actions of political leaders should be interpreted within the past practices. When President Chiluba declared Zambia as a Christian nation in 1991, he was flanked by two of the most influential Pentecostal figures of that time: Chawuska M.M. Chihana and Ernest Chelelwa. When Chiluba chose to include the “Christian nation” declaration in the preamble to the constitution of Zambia in 1996, Pentecostals were the most vocal supporters of this constitutional enactment. Chiluba’s favorite scripture was 2 Chronicles 7:14, the same scripture that President Lungu is quoting to justify his evangelical crusade today. Pentecostals would do very well to interrogate the history of what happened the last time a president went to church in their name. Such an enquiry would help current Pentecostal leaders hone their message and re-evaluate their attitude towards President Lungu’s seemingly praiseworthy biblical pronouncements. Pentecostal Chiluba ended up facing the most vicious of corruption charges. Is there anything Pentecostals can learn from that history? It is time to move beyond the comfort of slogans!

Fourth, Pentecostals are men and women of war. One of the most dramatic characteristics of Pentecostalism is the belief in a cosmic war taking place between good and evil and between God and satan. Very frequently Pentecostals engage in spiritual warfare in which they “bring down” strongholds of vices such as poverty, prostitution or gambling. Pentecostals would very easily bind and take spiritual authority over the stronghold that controls an institution such as the Copperbelt University and ZESCO Ltd. This spiritual ethic of prayer and warfare is a positive thing. Nevertheless, Pentecostals might need to intervene more proactively in bringing down these strongholds not only by spiritual prayer, but by political action as well. Bizarre that on the same weekend that President Lungu was dedicating the building of a state funded church in Lusaka, the state police were beating and assaulting Copperbelt University students who had gathered to protest government policy. There has so far been no word from a single Pentecostal leader condemning the brutality of President Lungu’s police. But if President Lungu were to call for a prayer and fasting to resolve CBU problems, Pentecostals would be among the first people to respond to that prayer.

In conclusion, with a small shove in the right direction, Pentecostalism could be a good political force in Zambia. They already have what it takes in their theology. It is time to domesticate that theology into a viable political praxis.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Citation:

Munshya, E. (2015) On Faith and Politics: Towards a Pentecostal political praxis in Zambia. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (29 October 2015)

God and Politics: An analysis of Niebuhr’s typologies in the Zambian context

By Elias Munshya, LL.M., MBA, M.Div.

 On Sunday October 18, 2015 President Edgar Lungu did something that was quite consistent with the practices of many of his predecessors: associate the Zambian state with the Christian religion. From its founding to the present, Zambia has wrestled with the question of what should be the correct relationship between faith and politics in general and between church and state in particular. This article seeks to join that conversation by assessing Helmut Richard Niebuhr’s typologies within the context of a nation, like Zambia, that has proclaimed itself to be a “Christian nation”. Niebuhr (1894 – 1962) was one of the most influential Christian political theologians of the 20th Century. His five typologies are discussed in turn.

In the Christ against Culture typology, Niebuhr saw a radical opposition between Christ and culture. This position holds that it is virtually impossible to be faithful to both Christ and culture and consequently, loyalty to the Christian community implies rejection and repudiation of popular culture, including its politics. Consequent to this idea is the belief that faithfulness to Christ suggests that believers discern Christian principle out of the cultural milieu of the Jewish law and the proceeding Christian culture.

Philosophers Tertullian and Tolstoy are among several that have typified this typology. During Zambia’s independence struggle, Prophetess Alice Mulenga Lenshina’s Lumpa church arose with the Christ against culture worldview. Accused of insurgency and treason, the church was crashed by the government of Prime Minister Kenneth David Kaunda.

The Christ of culture typology is the opposite of the first typology. In this typology Christ is seen to be the saviour of the society and the culture. Christ is the fulfiller of the hopes and aspirations of all cultures. According to this typology, there can be no conflict between the community of faith and the society and its politics. A believer should be welcome in both communities. The teachings of Christ are regarded not as radically opposed to the culture and its politics but rather as restatements of the cultural and societal values.

The late Dr. Kwame Bediako, a Ghanaian theologian is a typical representative of the Christ of culture typology. Another African scholar who taught this typology is Professor John S. Mbiti, who stressed that African Traditional Religions have salvific value and acted as preparation for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) leader, Pastor Nevers Mumba’s synthesis of faith and politics seem to derive from this typology.

In the Christ above culture typology Niebuhr characterises it to be somewhat a middle position. It is almost like a fusion of Christianity and the cultural political milieu. In this typology, Christian living is like a pilgrimage. It is living as Christians in the culture tainted with sin and yet what God calls believers to not abandon culture but rather infuse themselves into the culture.

The Christ above culture typology recognizes that the two sets of values, the Christian values on one hand and the cultural milieu on the other. The ethos of the gospel and Christianity cannot just be transferred into the popular culture and vice versa. The two worldviews are important but they are not interchangeable with each other. They can both be used to arrive at a synthesis where Christ is still above culture, but without demonizing culture. Philosopher Thomas Aquinas is a typical example of this typology.

The Christ and culture in paradox typology offers a critical tension between Christ and culture. Culture is an indispensable milieu for preaching the gospel and yet it is not religious by itself. In this typology values of Christianity and Christian living cannot be translated into the imperatives of culture and vice versa. While being exclusively existent, both Christ and culture do work inclusively to the promotion of the reign of God and that is where the paradox lies.

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

The irony provided in the Christ and culture in paradox typology can be summarised as follows: first, humanity is both good and evil, both spirit and body, both material and immaterial. Humanity is in revolt against God and in revolt against humanity. This is referred to as homo duplex: as spirit and body, as transcendent person and as empirical individual. Second, God is deus duplex in that while He provides grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, there is wrath and darkness in the world, as epitomized by culture and nature. Third, the world is equally a paradox. It is mundus duplex. It is both created and fallen, both good and corrupt and has the potential for good and for evil. At the same time God can still do good in the evil world and culture. Martin Luther, Reinhold Niebuhr, Emil Brunner, and Karl Barth are some of the forerunners of this typology.

The Christ transforming culture typology is perhaps Niebuhr’s preferred typology of the relationship between Christ and culture. This typology synthesizes the Christ above culture and the Christ and culture in paradox typologies. It does not overtly reject culture and nature. In fact, the conversion and transformation of culture by Christ is the most important motif of this typology. Christ has come to restore those elements in culture that had lost the “glory of God.” Therefore, Christian revelation does not function as an alternative to reason, but rather its proper perspective is in its attempt to redeem both reason and knowledge. After the October 18 prayers, the challenge remains for all Zambians to see how they can help transform the political culture of this nation beyond shouting religious slogans.

H. Richard Niebuhr

H. Richard Niebuhr

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Citation:

Munshya, Elias (2015). God and Politics: An analysis of Niebuhr’s typologies in the Zambian context. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (23 October 2015).

After We Have Said “Amen”: Towards a Pentecostal theology of politics in Zambia

Elias Munshya, LL.M, MBA, M.Div.

Bishop Kaweme

Bishop Kaweme

Pentecostal church leaders in Zambia are almost unanimous. They will heed President Edgar Lungu’s call to prayer, fasting and reconciliation on Sunday, October 18, 2015. Bishop Johnny Kaweme of the Fire Baptised Church released a statement on 11 October 2015 stating that, “it is our considered view that the National Day of Prayer, Reconciliation and Restoration as called upon by our Republican President be observed by all our churches.” Capital Christian Ministries International president and founder Bishop George Mbulo quoted 2 Chronicles 7:14 and requested that “ALL peace loving Zambians who love the Lord and believe prayer answers all things, to a special National Day of Prayer and Fasting Service, to be held on the 18th of October as declared by our Republican President HE Edgar Chagwa Lungu.” Gospel Envoys Church leader, Pastor Choolwe stated emphatically that, “we encourage all to know that we will unwaveringly support any public nationwide recognition of our Lord Jesus Christ by any government both now and in the future. Political affiliation of governing authorities is inconsequential to the basis for our stance; we are Jesus driven.” Bishop Safwali and countless others have echoed similar sentiments. There is a general consensus among Pentecostal believers that Zambia needs to pray and President Lungu has decided correctly to call for a day of prayer.

Kaunda, Chiluba and Banda

Kaunda, Chiluba and Banda

The sentiments expressed by these church leaders are not very unusual for Pentecostals. Theologically, Zambian Pentecostals are a very diverse bunch with various streams. The first stream is what I would call the classical Pentecostals. These are denominations such as the Pentecostal Assemblies of God Zambia (PAOGZ) and the Pentecostal Holiness Church (PHC). Classical Pentecostal churches are spread throughout the nation. They also have a very centralized leadership structure. The next stream is the “Word of Faith” movements which has some sentiments of classical Pentecostals but also emphasize some form of a “prosperity gospel”. Churches such as Dr. Nevers Mumba’s Victory Ministries would fit this category. The third stream in the Pentecostal movement are the newer independent churches with strong emphasis on “prophetism”. Of all the streams, this is the one that is closest to Zambian traditional religions and worldviews. This stream has basically blurred the distinctions between the traditional Zambian spiritism and the evangelical Christian praxis. This stream is the most syncretic of all the streams. This third stream can be found among some churches with prophets who encourage their members to say slogans such as “go deeper Papa”, as they perform divinations, foretell their followers’ fortunes and perform miracles.

The fourth stream of Zambian Pentecostals are the charismatic groups which essentially broke away from mainline denominations such as the United Church of Zambia (UCZ) and the Reformed Church in Zambia (RCZ). The Grace Ministries Mission International (GMMI) and the Bible Gospel Church in Africa (BIGOCA) would belong to this fourth stream. Perhaps the only mainline church that has managed to stem any breakaway of its charismatic wing is the Church of Rome. These four streams of Zambian Pentecostals are by no means exhaustive and in many cases these streams intersect and overlap with each other very frequently.

The greatest political breakthrough for Pentecostals came in 1991 when Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba became president of Zambia. Chiluba was a member of the UCZ but was, in his faith practice, very charismatic and as such sympathetic to Pentecostalism. Reports suggest that Chiluba “spoke in tongues” after attending a Reinhard Bonkke crusade in Malawi in the late 1980s. Flanked by Bishop Chawuska M.M. Chihana and Pastor Ernest Chelelwa, President Frederick Chiluba stood between two pillars at State House on 29 December 1991 to declare Zambia “a Christian nation”. Both Chihana and Chelelwa have now changed their first names to Simon and Israel respectively. This is a very common occurrence among Pentecostals.

General Godfrey Miyanda, a Pentecostal, rose quickly within the ranks of Chiluba’s government and the Movement for Multiparty Democracy party (MMD). A few years into Chiluba’s term, Miyanda rose to become Vice-President of the republic. As such, between 1993 and 1996, the top two executive officers of the Zambian republic were members of the Pentecostal movement, giving the Pentecostal movement both visibility and huge political clout. Pentecostals only lost this clout after the infamous fall of Frederick Chiluba. Subsequent presidents have largely ignored Pentecostals.

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

However, after President Lungu’s call for prayer and fasting slated for Sunday October 18, 2015, it is not surprising that Pentecostals were among the first churches to support the prayers. Some are even believing that after October 18, 2015, the local currency will gain in value against the American dollar and the nation will “be blessed”. Pentecostal political theology, however, needs to go beyond the rhetoric of slogans. After we have said “amen” on Sunday, there is a need for all Zambians to continue holding President Lungu accountable to democratic tenets. Pentecostals should not repeat the same mistakes made during the tenure of Frederick Chiluba. Their theology must be informed by equality and the respect for human rights. A Pentecostal political theology must be based on hard work and a commitment to the rule of law. A Pentecostal political theology must refuse the lure of “kaloba” taken from the government of China which bans the free exercise of the Christian faith in its country. A Pentecostal political theology must be informed by a positive outlook that Zambia can change, and that the creator has given the tools necessary for Zambia to change for the better. A Pentecostal political theology must be based on clear commitment to the fight against corruption in both government and the private sector. It is not enough to shout slogans. It is not enough to quote 2 Chronicles 7:14, Zambian Pentecostals must walk the talk and live their devotions. After we have all said “amen” I just hope that it will mark the renewal of a Pentecostal theology of politics in Zambia.

MMD President Nevers Mumba

MMD President Nevers Mumba

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Citation:

Munshya, E. (2015). After We Have Said “Amen”: Towards a Pentecostal theology of politics in Zambia. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (15 October 2015)

Post-Africanist Theory: Deconstructing colonial narratives of African unity

By Elias Munshya, LL.M., MBA, M.Div.

When European colonialists landed on the shores of Africa, they found a continent and a people that were diverse, disparate, and disordered. In order for colonialism to take root, however, colonialists had to dismantle these three characteristics of the African peoples. It had to attack the diversity and the disparity of the African peoples. As a Post-Africanist, I do believe that an attack on African diversity is a huge problem that needs redressing. With the landing of European imperialists came a very popular narrative that Africa was “one country” and its people were only but “one people”. The different shades of African blackness provided the necessary ammunition for imperialism to package Africans as “one people” and the continent as “one huge country”.

Cecil Rhodes is the patron saint of Pan-Africanism

Cecil Rhodes is the patron saint of Pan-Africanism

The initial step that all oppressors take before they impose colonialism, is to attack the disunity and disparity of their targets. Autonomy, personal agency and personal responsibility get overthrown once colonialism takes its root. Colonialism is impossible without unity. All imperial powers throughout the history of human civilization dominated other lands by first imposing some form of unity. Babylonian domination needed some form of unity among the people it claimed to colonize. The same can be said of Greek imperialism and the subsequent Roman colonization of the known world. In fact, the known world only broke away from Roman oppression after the barbarian tribes revolted against Roman colonial rule. With regard to Africa, European imperialists had to first claim to “unite” Africans before they could dominate them.

A true liberation of Africans’ minds must take place at a very fundamental level by disputing the popular colonial narrative that Africans are “one people”.

In pre-colonial Africa, there was no such thing as Africans co-existing simply because they had the matching hues of skin. Disparate African tribes fought each other and created alliances with each other based on various values: the colour of the skin was never a consideration. Skin colour became a consideration only after the advent of colonialism. Further, the narrative that Africans lived in a war-free paradise as “one people” until Europeans came is a false narrative that dehumanizes the African. By insulating the Africans from the human condition, this “paradise” narrative perpetuates the same colonial myth that Africans are subhuman.

Imperialists located the various African tribes, projected a monolithic narrative upon them and used that narrative as the basis for colonialism. It was from this projection that people like Cecil Rhodes envisioned a “one united Africa, from Cape Town to Cairo.” The Rhodesian conception of African unity was never born out of African realities. In fact, the Rhodesian conception was a defilement of African realities. However, the major problem is that even after the fall of colonialism, the Rhodesian narratives of African unity abound and have formed the basis for the attitudes underwriting Pan-African institutions such as the African Union (AU) and its predecessor the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

There is a persistent narrative particularly among Pan-Africanists that European imperialism divided Africa. With deceptive memes such as the “Scramble for Africa”, it is very easy to fall for such false narratives. Imperialism did not divide Africa for it is impossible to divide something that was not undivided in the first place. To the contrary, European imperialism united Africans for ease of colonialism. Many of our people, particularly Pan-Africanists, point to the modern nation-states in Africa, as evidence that the Europeans divided Africa. In actual fact, the present nation-states provide the evidence that Europeans united or tried to unite Africa and did a bad job out of it. A united Africa, organized on a continental scale, is what imperialists’ envisioned when they set out to dominate Africa. After they failed to achieve continental monism, they then settled for the next best “unity”, creating territories and uniting disparate tribes in their thousands into feudal territories to be later called “nation-states” after African independence. It is true that colonialism divided many African tribes, but tribes which were united into unviable nation-states are far much more than the tribes that were divided. As such, colonialism did not divide Africa, it united Africans for ease of colonialism and for the sole purpose of European domination. To state this reality is not to be fragmentalist, but to be a realist. By so stating, I am in no way advocating for the abolishment of the present nation-states, I am merely pointing out the fact that the popular narrative about Africa is wrong and needs a reimagination. Perhaps once our narrative is reimagined we can awake the greatness of peoples whose diversity has been sacrificed at the altar of a forced homogeneity.

When Belgian king Leopold II joined his European colleagues in colonizing Africa, he scrambled towards central Africa and used gun powder to “unite” disparate groups of tribes that had no business with each other and imposed upon them his own projected ideal of a personal orchard he later christened “free state”. While it is true that the creation of the Congo Free State (CFS) divided a few tribes along its border, the greater reality is that the CFS united tribes that had no business dealings with each other and had nothing in common with one another – except perhaps the skin colour. Otherwise, the tribes were foreign to each other and had lived thousands of kilometers apart. As such, to keep King Leopold’s personal orchard “united”, the imperialist used brutality and murder. This was true when Leopold first “united” the so called Congolese state, and it remains true to date: imposed unity through brutality and murder. A solution to the Congolese problem could rest in the people of that huge country facing the reality that their so called nation was founded on falsehoods, murder and brutality. Once this reality is acknowledged, the people can then negotiate for themselves a better philosophical narrative to underline their country, should they choose to let it subsist as one state.

For the various African peoples to achieve true liberation, they must denounce the colonial narrative and its trappings. The African peoples must reclaim their diversity and disparity. After reclaiming this diversity, the African peoples must then begin building new narratives that should underline their passage towards integration that respects their own diversity that goes beyond the colour of their skins. This is the goal of Post-Africanism as a theory for African development. African peoples’ development should be borne not out the desire to obliterate diversity by an irrational insistence on race, but rather on shared common visions inspired not by “the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested Citation: Munshya, E. (2015). Post-Africanist Theory: Deconstructing colonial narratives of African unity. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org). 8 October 2015

The Intersection of Ethics and Law in Zambia’s Corporate Sector

By Elias Munshya, LL.M., MBA, M.Div.

A business corporation on the Copperbelt is alleged to have polluted the Kafue River system in Chingola causing death and untold suffering among the local residents. While these remain allegations at the moment, ethical questions are being asked about what should be appropriate relationship between companies, profits and their ethical obligations to the various stakeholders. In Zambia, just like anywhere else, business corporations have a legal relationship with different stakeholders such as government regulators, customers, and shareholders. Additionally, every business corporation has an ethical relationship, which is not necessarily legal, with many more stakeholders in the contexts in which these businesses operate. As such, every business must balance business law and business ethics if it is to survive in the modern world. The idea that businesses only needed to adhere to legal requirements is now passed. A new era now places a demand upon corporations to incorporate ethical practices into their business.

The goal of business cannot be limited to making money only. There is an expectation and a demand being placed on corporations to endeavor to do business and make money in a way that is sustainable to the environment as well as ethical to other stakeholders in the setting that the businesses find themselves. As such, ethics are becoming that fundamental relationship “between business and the society at large” (Weiss, 2003). There are so many stakeholders that are holding companies both great and small to stringent ethical standards.

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

Elias Munshya, LLM, M.A., MBA, M.Div.

In its widest sense, business ethics “refers to the application of our understanding of what is good and right to that assortment of institutions, technologies, transactions, activities, and pursuits that we call business” (Velasquez, 2002). Nelson’s 2006 definition of business ethics is even more appropriate: Business ethics are expectations – other than business laws – regarding acceptable business conduct. With regard to the relationship between ethics and the law, Halbert & Ingulli (2003) put it very well: “law is what we must do; ethics is what we should do”. It is now not enough that corporations should adhere to laws and regulations, but rather they should adhere to non-legal ethics as well. In fact, the idea that the greatest goal of business is to make money is receiving serious challenge in the modern world.

The conflict or apparent contradiction between ethics and law is an obvious one. Most companies are not sure about how they can satisfy both the law and the ethics in their business operations. Some companies have gone on to satisfy only legal requirements while neglecting ethics. This ethical negligence has had adverse impacts on many companies.

Some alleged events about companies, such as NIKE or KCM, not observing safety or fair practices, while running businesses, has brought the matter of ethics and morality to the forefront. There has arisen an expectation upon companies to be more ethical in the way they do business. For example, NIKE faced criticism in the 1990s when its CEO was getting about 1500 times more in salary and allowances than its workers in factories in the developing world. This disparity in pay between the NIKE CEO and its factory workers in China came to light when a “number of nongovernmental organizations demonstrated during the opening of NIKE’s shop in San Francisco” (Holmes, 2002). The action of these demonstrators shows the ever-expanding number of stakeholders in any given business environment.

NIKE faced more criticism when it relocated production to factories in the developing world. NIKE and many other companies are criticized further because they move production to cheap labour and often to countries whose labour records and ethical behaviour is laxer. As stated by Sadgrove (2005) “companies that relocate production to third world countries are often viewed suspiciously by pressure groups, trade unions and the public”. In 1997, an audit of NIKE suppliers found that Vietnamese workers were working in unsafe conditions. In 1998, the CEO of NIKE assured the stakeholders that he would do all he can to make the company more ethical. By this year 2015, NIKE has done a lot to redeem its image. It has implemented a “series of new policies designed to improve working conditions through the elimination of hazardous chemicals in the production process, researching into international manufacturing processes, and starting a program that independently checked the working conditions of the manufacturing plants” (Holmes, 2002). But the challenge for enhanced ethics still remain.

The question really of how companies, such as NIKE, KCM or Mopani, should be more ethical has hinged on several factors. The first has been the call for companies to self-regulate themselves. This is what has led to many companies making corporate social responsibility as a part of their main activities. The second way has been to push for legislation that compels companies to adhere to certain ethical requirements. The third way has been to find a middle ground between self-regulation and legislation. This third way brings a mix of both ethics and law. The future of corporations in Zambia pivots on the balance between self-regulation and regulatory frameworks in encouraging ethics within the business environment.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Suggested citation: Munshya, E. (2015). The Intersection of Ethics and Law in Zambia’s Corporate Sector. Elias Munshya Blog (www.eliasmunshya.org) (2 October 2015)

****** This article is adapted from an assignment  I submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Business Administration degree at the University of Wales – E. Munshya.