There has been a list that has been
making its round on social media lately. This list has been compiled by
ummm.... ummm. I do not know who but that is besides the point. It is a list
nonetheless. It has been called Zambia's Top 20 Under 35 Young Rich and Influential
2015. Now the issue is not so much the list but who appears on the list.
I am sure some are familiar with
other lists around the world such as Time Magazine's 100 Influential People
list, or Forbes Rich list, I am assuming this was supposed to be such a type of
list. I must state a disclaimer right away, I personally know some of the
people who appear on the list. Some of the people on the list are doing some
pretty amazing stuff. They are taking Zambia forward and making differences in
their communities and sectors. Despite this the question that a list of this
kind raises is what was the criteria used in the selection of the people who
made the list and were they worthy to be on it.
The reason the selection criteria has
been brought into question is that there are certain people who are not on the list
who many feel should have been on it. A friend mentioned that Pastor Choolwe of
Gospel Envoys Church should have been on it or B-Flow who has been influential
towards his fight for women's rights. There will always be someone who people
would prefer to be on the list. This brings the debate, what criteria did they
use to come up with the list? How did they determine that the individuals are
rich or influential? Was there some kind of score sheet that they used? How did
they define being rich and influential? How far spread is their influence? Did
they take a poll?
If this was a list of young Zambians
doing some pretty amazing stuff, I doubt few would have argued but the moment
they placed it under the banner of Top 20 Rich and Influential it introduced a
different ball game. I do, however, acknowledge that many people will have
their own ideas of who can be considered rich and influential because these are
relative terms. Hence, it would have helped if the people who came up with this
list shared with us what they meant when they use the term. I think though that
they liked how it sounded hence they decided to go with it, someone has been watching too much E! or
reading Forbes magazine.
I will applaud them for one thing,
they came up with a list, however, flawed it was. It also let me know some
individuals who I had not previously known about. This was not the first and neither
will it be last list that we shall see, I hope that the next one that surfaces will
be an improved version. Firstly, it would be nice to know who actually made the
list and also what criteria was used to choose the individuals on that
list. It will help make the process more
transparent and few can argue with it.
P.S. Whoever is cooking up the
next list add Frustrated Brotha on it, even at number 20.
Great list! However, the compilers would have done well to go extensive and explain the individual's net worth, number of employees etc.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to that, there's a focus mostly on media and entertainment. Abit of diversification would do.
I am not sure whether at this stage in Zambia we can have a list that actually knows individuals net worth. The reason is that it is not public knowledge. And it is highly unlikely that individuals publicly say their individual net worth. You are right that the list is biased towards media and entertainment
DeleteSo, it's a list. Just a list. It doesn't mean much, really because it's pretty subjective, but it brings some attention to people doing, as you said, amazing things in Zambia. I don't think it's a fact-based list because I find it hard to believe that the creators did the research and found concrete evidence of said wealth. Also, something fundamentally wrong with this list -- wealth and influence are two different things. Malala is influential, I don't think she's wealthy. Paris Hilton is wealthy, I don't think you can consider her influential in society.
ReplyDeletePerhaps what actually makes this list rather questionable is the banner in which they put it under. Young Rich and Influential may a different heading would have been more appropriate
DeleteIf it's about influence I would also be of the view that Pastor Choolwe would have been there. But at the end of the day everything will point back to criteria. It's unfortunate that in Zambia we hardy have numbers ( quantitative data) on a number of things. We tend to reason and debate with umwela!
ReplyDeleteMichael you are right finding data on Zambia is a huge challenge. All we survive on is speculation.
DeleteYou are so right, using Rich is the wrong word for this list. The only valid guys if such a list existed might be the Spax Guy and the Dot Com guy. But its all speculative, although the Dot Com Guy has been in the media so much this year with his awards and projects and raising a lot of money for his company, So I can see him on a proper list like this, but even the Spax guy is all rumors. But all these people are doing good things and have some type of influence, but rich, I dont think so. And in spirit, this is a good idea, just needs to be better next time.
ReplyDeleteAt this moment I do not think we can have a rich list. The closest we get to one is when politicians want to stand for president. One to find out what young people are doing looks a more likely option
DeleteAs the author said... its a list non the less. I myself looked at it last week and am like Rich and Influential?! You must be kidding me! Some dude on that list was just asking for credit (kaloba) a while ago from me! Then like maybe the person who created the list here in after refereed to as the lister (let's sound more like lawyers here) meant to say "Rich OR Influential" not "Rich AND Influential" bt like the author said.. its a list non the less... we all have the the right to make a list if we feel we can make a list.
ReplyDelete