Zambia enters a fresh constitutional crisis, once again facing a democratic crossroads

Hakainde Hichilema’s election in 2021 was widely interpreted as a victory for democracy. Zambia has suffered rising repression under his predecessor, Edgar Lungu, but Hichilema promised democratic accountability. Yet today, there are serious concerns that his government is promoting constitutional changes that would entrench ruling-party dominance.  

The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 would increase the number of Members of Parliament (MPs) by over 60 percent, introduce elements of proportional representation to create a “mixed” electoral system, and create reserved seats for women, youth, and persons with disabilities. The ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) claims the amendments are needed to correct historical exclusion. But many civil society groups believe this is “gender washing” – using inclusive rhetoric to mask an authoritarian agenda.

This scepticism is rooted in recent political developments and the text itself. Bill No. 7 has emerged alongside other legislation that would tighten state control over civic and political space, at a time when infringements on “fundamental freedoms” are growing. Many provisions are vague and some undermine democratic checks and balances, while the progressive aspects are ill-conceived. This makes the proposed reforms, in the words of respected constitutional expert O’Brien Kaaba, “deeply problematic and counterproductive”.

I take no pleasure in saying this. The last time wrote such an article about Zambia, it was to condemn the persecution of Hichilema after he was arrested by Lungu on trumped up treason charges, and I was honoured to receive a letter of thanks upon his release. Like many Zambians and international observers, I was initially hopeful for the new administration.

Yet while the government has kept some campaign promises and negotiated a difficult deal on the country’s debt burden, efforts to restore democracy are now going backwards. It is true that the UPND faces an extremely difficult economic context, but a flawed constitutional review process is not the way to secure more time to deliver on its agenda. The best way to honour the promises made in 2021, and the democratic aspirations of Zambian citizens, is to withdraw Bill No. 7.

Weakening a fragile system

As prominent civil society leaders like Laura Miti and Linda Kasonde have warned, a number of the proposed changes could enable the government to all-but-guarantee itself a majority in the next elections scheduled for 2026.

First, the Bill would add 55 new constituency-based MPs – more than the total number to be elected through proportional representation. There is widespread concern that most of these new constituencies will be created in UPND strongholds, helping the party retain a majority even if it loses support. These fears are magnified by the government’s failure to release the Boundary Delimitation Report, which prevents independent scrutiny of the process – and its motivations.

Second, the rule that parliament must be dissolved 90 days before elections is being revoked on the basis that this unfairly shortens MPs terms of office. Although MPs would not be supposed to conduct parliamentary business after this point, such a change would exacerbate existing problems – such as the use of government resources and vehicles in the ruling party’s campaign.

Third, the constitutional amendment increases the number of MPs the president can appoint from eight to ten. In a system already adding reserved seats for underrepresented groups, this lacks justification.

Taken together, these changes threaten to further empower the government in a political system that already features insufficient checks and balances, and explain why a collective of civil society groups recently demanded “an immediate halt” to the process.

At the same time, the government has not taken the opportunity to remove problematic clauses, such as the right of the President to dissolve the National Assembly if it fails to “reasonably” perform its duties.

Failing on Its Own Terms

In justifying the bill, the government has emphasised the historical underrepresentation of women and marginalised groups. This is a serious problem, but Bill No. 7 will not fix it.

The amendments would only create 20 seats for women, 12 for youth, and 3 for persons with disabilities. In a 256-seat chamber, this does little to address the imbalance and falls well short of the Southern African Development Community target of 30 percent female representation.

Worse, poorly designed quotas can reinforce marginalisation. Parties may push women toward quota seats, limiting their participation in regular constituency races. Rather than empowering women, the amendment may create a new ceiling: if women only run in reserved seats, female representation would almost halve from 15% now to just 8% in the next parliament.

A similar issue arises with the proportional representation system more broadly. When only a small proportion of seats are allocated this way, it fails to deliver the benefits of fairness associated with true proportionality. In other words, the constitutional amendment bill gives the appearance of inclusivity while carefully preserving the government’s incumbency advantage.

A Constitutional Rush-Job

Perhaps the most striking flaw in Bill No.7 has been the process itself. The amendments have seen such scant public consultation that the Law Association of Zambia called for them to be withdrawn.

This concern is shared by the Constitutional Court, which recently found the government had failed to meet constitutional requirements for public participation. The Court also recommended restarting a more inclusive process. President Hichilema, perhaps aware of the likely verdict, pre-empted the ruling by announcing he would pause the process to allow for wider consultation the day before.

This was a welcome development, but is insufficient. As the Law Society has argued, Bill No. 7 is so poorly designed it does not represent a viable foundation for constitutional review. It therefore needs to be withdrawn, not deferred.

The current text of the bill is poorly worded and leaves major questions unanswered. How exactly will reserved seats be allocated? Will there be separate ballots for each group or one ballot for all three? Will MPs not elected via constituency seats be entitled to Constituency Development Funds? These are fundamental questions and demonstrate that continuing on the basis of Bill No. 7, even in a revised from, would not just risky be risky – it would be reckless.

Zambia needs a new constitution, but it deserves one that is rooted in evidence, consultation, and democratic principles. Anything less threatens to undermine both the country’s hard won democratic gains and President Hichilema’s own legacy.

Nic Cheeseman is the Professor of Democracy and the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR) at the University of Birmingham

A shorter version of this article appeared first with our friends at the Conversation. Click here to go there.