logo
#

Latest news with #institutionalresilience

Why Zambia insists on bringing former president Lungu's body home
Why Zambia insists on bringing former president Lungu's body home

Mail & Guardian

time07-07-2025

  • Politics
  • Mail & Guardian

Why Zambia insists on bringing former president Lungu's body home

Edgar Lungu. The legal and diplomatic standoff over Zambia's former president Edgar Lungu's final resting place has captured headlines across Africa and the world. But beneath the political theatre lies a more fundamental question about how modern African states assert their authority and maintain institutional continuity. When President Hakainde Hichilema speaks about bringing Lungu home, he is not merely voicing personal sentiment or party politics. He is channeling something far more enduring: the institutional imperative of the Zambian state itself. This distinction matters more than many observers realise. Hichilema serves as the current vessel through which decades of institutional memory flow — a spokesperson for systems that have outlasted six presidential transitions since independence. The demand for Lungu's repatriation comes not from the ruling United Party for National Development, but from the permanent bureaucracy that sustains the republic regardless of who occupies Zambia's State House. Understanding the architecture of state power helps explain why this matters. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama has written extensively about 'state capacity' — a government's ability to make and enforce rules regardless of leadership changes. Strong states maintain continuity despite political upheaval; fragile ones bend to the whims of personalities. Zambia's insistence on repatriating Lungu demonstrates precisely the kind of institutional resilience that developing nations must cultivate for long-term stability. What critics dismiss as political vindictiveness actually represents the state apparatus functioning as designed. The broader African context makes this particularly significant, as post-colonial nations work to strengthen their institutions and maintain protocol across administrations — even amid political tensions. The question of precedent looms large in this legal and diplomatic standoff. South Africa finds itself in a delicate position, with President Cyril Ramaphosa understanding that hosting the burial of a former Zambian president without his home government's consent could set a dangerous precedent for interstate relations across the continent. The concern extends beyond this single case. When former leaders are buried abroad without their home government's approval, it can undermine the careful diplomatic architecture that African nations have built since independence. Zambia has buried all its former presidents within its borders, creating what amounts to a physical chronicle of national leadership. These moments of collective mourning have historically provided rare opportunities for unity beyond partisan divides. Moving beyond personality politics reveals the deeper currents at work. Much of the current discourse focuses on Hichilema's perceived emotional detachment — a superficial reading that misses the institutional forces driving this situation. Political parties may come and go, but the Zambian state endures, maintaining protocols that ensure national continuity. Hichilema's measured approach reflects his background as a business person who prioritises process over performance. His restrained demeanor represents not a deficiency but a different style — another step in Zambia's political evolution. Each of the country's leaders has brought distinct qualities: Kenneth Kaunda's emotional appeals, Frederick Chiluba's populist charisma, Levy Mwanawasa's technocratic precision, Rupiah Banda's diplomatic statesmanship, Michael Sata's sharp-tongued populism and Lungu's approachable dignity. The weight of sovereignty adds another dimension to this dispute. For African nations still building institutional frameworks, asserting state autonomy marks the difference between countries governed by rules and those governed by personalities. When Zambia insists on following protocol for its former leaders, it demonstrates institutional maturity that strengthens democratic foundations. This transcends the immediate political moment. The state's position on Lungu's repatriation isn't about the man himself but about establishing precedents that future generations will inherit. In an uncertain global order where institutionally weak states often find themselves vulnerable to external pressures, such assertions of sovereignty carry particular weight. The challenge now lies in finding common ground that respects all parties involved. As negotiations continue between the Lungu family and the Zambian government, both sides face the task of balancing competing imperatives. The state must maintain its protocols and sovereign prerogatives while the family deserves respect for their grief and personal wishes. A solution that acknowledges both institutional requirements and familial concerns would demonstrate the kind of mature statecraft that builds rather than divides nations. The current standoff ultimately reflects larger questions about state-building in contemporary Africa. When Zambia insists on bringing former president Lungu home, it reaffirms not just its sovereignty but its commitment to institutional continuity — a foundation increasingly crucial for the continent's future stability. This isn't merely about one former president's final resting place. It's about cementing the institutional foundations that distinguish enduring states from fragile ones. In that sense, Zambia's position represents something larger than politics: it represents the ongoing work of building lasting democratic institutions in post-colonial Africa. Dr Mundia Kabinga teaches post-graduate and executive education modules in business, government and society at the University of Cape Town's Graduate School of Business. He also serves as visiting faculty and research fellow at the Fernfachhochschule Schweiz in Brig, Switzerland.

Why Capital Architecture Is Replacing Capital Allocation In The Next Era Of Financial Design
Why Capital Architecture Is Replacing Capital Allocation In The Next Era Of Financial Design

Forbes

time24-06-2025

  • Business
  • Forbes

Why Capital Architecture Is Replacing Capital Allocation In The Next Era Of Financial Design

Alfonso Cahero, Chairman and CEO of Cahero Family Office, focused on sovereign-aligned capital systems and global structuring. In an increasingly fragmented and complex global economy, the traditional approach of capital allocation—dividing assets across equities, bonds and alternatives—is no longer sufficient to meet the demands of institutional resilience and macroeconomic alignment. As financial environments become more jurisdictionally sensitive and structurally constrained, there is a growing need to evolve beyond allocation toward what many in the financial community are beginning to recognize as capital architecture. Capital architecture refers to the deliberate design of investment structures that are tailored to regulatory frameworks, economic mandates and long-duration objectives. Rather than passively allocating capital across existing asset classes, this approach focuses on building bespoke, compliant and interoperable platforms capable of absorbing institutional flows while remaining aligned with broader sovereign or policy-level goals. This distinction is subtle but critical. Capital allocation is tactical; it reacts to market dynamics. Capital architecture is strategic; it anticipates them. It is not simply about where capital goes, but how it moves, why it moves and what structure it moves through. As volatility increases, so does the need for architecture that is jurisdiction-aware, regulation-aligned and purpose-built. One of the most compelling use cases for capital architecture lies in its ability to address liquidity gaps in environments where traditional capital markets may be underdeveloped or inaccessible. By structuring jurisdiction-specific vehicles, such as factoring platforms or asset-backed frameworks, capital architects can enable private capital to participate in public-interest initiatives without relying on retail inflows or market speculation. These mechanisms often serve dual roles: facilitating institutional access while simultaneously enhancing fiscal stability or economic development at a national level. Consider how a well-designed receivables platform can serve both investor and sovereign goals. In many developing or transitioning economies, government contract receivables present a significant yet underutilized asset class. Through structured financial vehicles, these receivables can be transformed into bankable instruments, generating liquidity while reinforcing the credit ecosystem. This is not allocation—it is engineering. Another strength of the architectural approach is its ability to embed regulatory resilience into the investment framework itself. When platforms are constructed with legal, compliance and fiscal constraints in mind from inception, they are more likely to withstand macroeconomic stress or legal scrutiny. This contrasts with retrofitted allocation models, which often attempt to force strategies into jurisdictions they weren't designed for, leading to inefficiencies, regulatory exposure or capital erosion. Geographic diversification further reinforces the value of capital architecture. Operating across multiple financial jurisdictions requires not just access but structural agility. Successful financial architects work within the perimeter of local regulatory environments while designing frameworks that maintain interoperability across borders. The result is a system that performs under legal, fiscal and operational variance without fragmentation. It's important to clarify that capital architecture is not the rejection of allocation but its evolution. Allocation is still necessary—it simply needs to occur within a more intentional and structurally optimized container. Investors and financial professionals who adopt this mindset will be better positioned to align portfolios with both risk tolerance and sovereign macro-objectives. This evolution also calls for a shift in how institutional and high-net-worth capital views risk and opportunity. Traditionally, allocation models have emphasized returns based on volatility, correlation and historical data. Capital architecture introduces a new lens—functional design—in which the structure itself is a determinant of both return and durability. This is especially relevant in long-duration capital frameworks, where preservation, liquidity and compliance are weighted as heavily as yield. For financial professionals navigating today's fragmented environment, the lesson is clear: The structures through which capital flows are now as important as the assets themselves. Designing those structures requires more than portfolio theory—it demands legal fluency, jurisdictional insight and macroeconomic awareness. Capital, when intentionally architected, becomes not just a vehicle for return but a mechanism for continuity, sovereignty and systemic integrity. As the financial sector evolves, the most resilient institutions may not be those who allocate capital the fastest but those who design systems that are built to last. The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation. Forbes Finance Council is an invitation-only organization for executives in successful accounting, financial planning and wealth management firms. Do I qualify?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store