Contributing to an Old and Asphyxiated Geo-Political Debate: The Barotseland Question― Why Secessionism is not the Answer

This article aims at summarising socio-political research carried out by the author on the Barotseland problem and thereby contribute to a century-old Barotseland-Zambia debate using desk research method, by exploring data from existing documents and previous research. Utilising qualitative research, it explores and provides deeper insight into the Barotseland problem. Previous scholarship has addressed the Barotseland problem in binary terms of political Unitarism or Secessionism. Since the abrogation of the 1964 Barotseland Agreement in 1969, the issue has been discussed in terms of whether Barotseland should continue to remain a part of Zambia or secede and resort to its autonomous state. This article discusses why Lozi secessionism continues to be a thorn in the side of every succeeding Zambian government since independence. This research proposes a federal alternative to secessionism. Advantages of federalism far outweigh disadvantages. These include: better knowledge of the area and its problems by political operatives who live among the people in the states; better and more effective state governance responsive to local problems; freedom to adopt state policies which may not be followed nationally or by any other state; optimal utilisation of local resources while the federal government concentrates on international affairs, such as setting interstate and foreign business regulations, economic and monetary regulation, security and defence of the country.