Zambia democracy at risk with planned changes

Zambia’s President Hakainde Hichilema dropped a political bombshell when he declared that the nation’s Constitution would be amended before the 2026 general elections, writes media practitioner Kalumbu Lumpa in Zambia African Times. Days later, says Lumpa, he doubled down, promising changes to the Constitution to boost representation and fix electoral ‘gaps’. ‘Today, Zambia finds itself in the throes of a fierce debate, one that pits the promise of progress against the spectre of power plays. This is not just a legal tussle; it’s a reckoning with Zambia’s democratic soul, shaped by its past and shadowed by its future.’ He points out that Zambia’s Constitutional journey has been anything but smooth. ‘Since shedding one-party rule in 1991, the country has wrestled with its foundational document through multiple revisions, most notably in 2003, 2011 and 2016. The 2016 Constitution, born from years of consultation, introduced reforms like the “50% + 1” Presidential vote threshold and a running mate clause. Yet, it also left unresolved tensions: costly by-elections and ambiguous delimitation processes, which have long irked lawmakers and citizens alike. Hichilema’s push for change taps into this frustration, but it also revives memories of past failures; like Edgar Lungu’s ill-fated Bill 10 in 2020, which collapsed amid accusations of self-interest.’

Lumpa notes that the President’s case rests on urgency. ‘He warns of "lacunae" that could snarl the 2026 polls, potentially delaying democracy itself. Proportional representation, youth quotas, and streamlined elections are among his touted fixes. But his vagueness, coupled with the assertion that “we have agreed”, has left Zambians asking: agreed with whom? In a nation where trust in leaders is hard-earned, this opacity is a spark in a tinderbox.’ He states that opposition leaders have wasted no time crying foul, but reflects that their stance isn’t without its own contradictions.’ Many of these leaders once championed constitutional tweaks when it suited them. Are they now defending democracy, or merely their own relevance? Their outrage, while resonant, risks being drowned out by a lack of concrete alternatives, a gap that weakens their moral high ground. Civil society, meanwhile, he says in the Zambia African Times analysis, offers a steadier critique. ‘On 13 March 2025, 14 organisations, led by the Zambia Council for Social Development, rejected Hichilema’s timeline, urging a post-2026 process rooted in national dialogue. Their call echoes Zambia’s 2016 success, when broad input birthed a document, flawed though it was; that most could claim as their own.’

Full Zambia African Times Report