There are three types of societies manifesting three forms of power, comprise three general social structures of expectations. My special concern is with such societies in the form of states. A state is a formal group that is sovereign over its members and occupies a well defined territory. It is the formal apparatus of authoritative roles and law norms through which that sovereignty is exercised.
There are three methods by which states are classified and these are;
1. Monolithic state
2. Unitary state
3. Federal state
The definitions are as follows;
1. MONOLITHIC STATE
These are which are formed out of single entities which are not linked to some other segments. Examples are, Angola, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Yemen, Romanian, France, Haiti, etc.
One common feature of these states is that they are indivisible because they are unbreakable.
2. UNITARY STATE
These are States which are formed by more than one segment which could be two, three or more which come about due to negotiations which seek to unify their different countries. In a unitary state the local governments (if there are any) have been set up under statute law, and are in effect delegated to run certain services on behalf of a central government. Examples are; The United Arab Emirate, The United Kingdom, Tanzania, etc.
One fascinating prodigy about these States is that they are breaking and divisible if the conditions that brought them up are not followed.
3. FEDERAL STATE
These States are formed out of the desire of the people to amalgamate their States and these could be two, three or more. In a federal state there is a constitutional right for local governments to act in specified areas, such as legislation. Examples are, Nigeria, United States of America, etc.
Like the Unitary States, they are also subject to disintegration if the conditions which brought them into being are not observed.
Zambia's draft constitution has this to say under part II, sovereignty ;
"(3) The Republic is a unitary, indivisible, multiethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural and multiparty democratic State.
(4) The Republic shall not be ceded, in whole or in part.
(5) The Republic may enter into a union or other form of inter-state organisation, which action shall not be construed as ceding the Republic." end of quote.
The above quotes defines why Barotseland is not part of Zambia, if Zambia was a unitary state it would have not mentioned that it is indivisible only monolithic states fits such statement as elaborated under monolithic state in this article. The draft constitution further mentions of the Republic not to be ceded in part or a whole, what a contradiction?
Zambia can not claim to be a unitary state when on the other hand claims to be indivisible, how can it be? This clearly elaborates Zambia's fascism and lack of understanding of international law and politics. How can unitary exist, when it is monolithic state in nature since the abrogation of union treaty (BA64) in 1969, the act that ceded Barotseland from Zambia? There draft constitution even failed to define the extent boundaries of the territory of Zambia! This and other conflicting clauses reflects the high level of intellectual fabric degradation in the Zambian political players and law makers. If their aim was targeted at completely wiping Barotseland's autonomy, it is too late and we are miles ahead of them.
We will not succumb to fake unitary claims, Zambia and Barotseland are different sister countries. Barotseland has moved from just being an instinct nation to a state and is constructing social systems that will bring fortune, power and territorial supremacy -a geo-economic phenomenon.
Tukongote Litunga Ni lyetu. Barotseland ki Naha.
By Saleya Kwalombota