By Daily Revelation Editor
Zambia stands at a constitutional precipice. The Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 advanced by the government has ignited a firestorm, placing the nation before a critical choice: will it take a step toward a more robust, inclusive democracy, or will it retreat into a model of governance that centralizes power and risks future instability?
At the heart of this controversy are several proposed changes that, while presented as measures for efficiency and easy administration, strike at the very foundations of the constitutional order Zambians painstakingly built.
According to the opposition and Oasis Forum, the government’s narrative of cost-saving, rings hollow when weighed against these profound alterations to our governance structure. “A nation’s constitution is not a balance sheet; it is a social contract,” they argue.
We do understand that the primary goal of any amendment should be to enhance democracy, accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights, not merely to trim a budget line. The potential long-term cost of a weakened democracy – manifested in corruption, poor governance, and social unrest – far outweighs any short-term fiscal savings.
The process itself has drawn justified criticism. Rushing such significant changes through parliament without a comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue betrays the spirit of the Constitution, which must be a product of widespread public participation. A constitution belongs to the people, not to the government of the day. To amend it without genuine, good-faith consultation is to treat it as a party manifesto rather than the nation’s supreme law. Most Zambians and opposition parties have argued that the process fails any meaningful measure required for constitutional amendment.
However, much as we understand the cries of many Zambians, criticising Bill 7 without providing tangible alternative measures is mere hallucination; it does not cure a problem at all. As the country faces a potentially irreversible Bill 7, some, especially several opposition commentators have so far provided alternatives. They all just shout without providing a clear direction.
The recent convergence of opposition leaders at State House to present their objections to the proposed constitutional amendments was a necessary and visible exercise in democratic engagement. It is right and proper that such a significant piece of legislation is met with rigorous scrutiny. Their condemnation of the bill has been noted, and it resonates with a segment of the populace that shares their concerns.
However, condemning without a way forward, is not a strategy. It is the easy part of political opposition. The far more difficult – and infinitely more valuable – task now lies before them: to transition from merely pointing out the flaws in Bill 7 to articulating a clear, coherent, and practical alternative.
Simply stating that Bill 7 is “unacceptable” or “a power grab” etc., does little to advance the national conversation. The public, weary of political grandstanding. The government has presented its blueprint; the opposition’s responsibility is to present a competing vision that is not only principled but also workable.
We therefore urge the opposition leaders and the Oasis Forum to build upon the momentum of their State House visit by doing the following:
a) Go beyond soundbites. Release a comprehensive document that outlines their specific objections to each contentious clause in Bill 7, supported by legal and constitutional reasoning.
b) If the principle of a constitutional amendment is not itself the issue, then what specific changes would make the bill palatable? They should draft and publish the exact language of the amendments they would support, providing a tangible basis for the way forward.
They must hep provide a clear framework for what a legitimate and inclusive constitutional review process should look like.
The currency of effective opposition is not just criticism, but credible alternatives. In providing practical solutions, the opposition and civil society organisation, including the Oasis Forum would elevate their stance to constructive statesmanship.
The delivery of the letter by the opposition and Oasis Forum meeting with the Head of State was good. But delivery of a well-argued, practical counter-proposal would be a legacy-defining contribution to the nation’s democratic development.
As for the opposition, the country has been through this situation where opposition leaders promise people heaven on earth but do the exact opposite when they come to power. President Hakainde Hichilema is the perfect example on this topic. And we are sure there are those in the opposition who are salivating to benefit from the retrogressive clauses he’s trying to push through. Zambians must demand for each opposition leader to guarantee them that they would immediately start working on undoing what Hichilema is seeking to establish if they were elected into office. They must also commit to assuring Zambians about their honest plans on the constitution.
Related
By Daily Revelation Editor
Zambia stands at a constitutional precipice. The Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 advanced by the government has ignited a firestorm, placing the nation before a critical choice: will it take a step toward a more robust, inclusive democracy, or will it retreat into a model of governance that centralizes power and risks future instability?
At the heart of this controversy are several proposed changes that, while presented as measures for efficiency and easy administration, strike at the very foundations of the constitutional order Zambians painstakingly built.
According to the opposition and Oasis Forum, the government’s narrative of cost-saving, rings hollow when weighed against these profound alterations to our governance structure. “A nation’s constitution is not a balance sheet; it is a social contract,” they argue.
We do understand that the primary goal of any amendment should be to enhance democracy, accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights, not merely to trim a budget line. The potential long-term cost of a weakened democracy – manifested in corruption, poor governance, and social unrest – far outweighs any short-term fiscal savings.
The process itself has drawn justified criticism. Rushing such significant changes through parliament without a comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue betrays the spirit of the Constitution, which must be a product of widespread public participation. A constitution belongs to the people, not to the government of the day. To amend it without genuine, good-faith consultation is to treat it as a party manifesto rather than the nation’s supreme law. Most Zambians and opposition parties have argued that the process fails any meaningful measure required for constitutional amendment.
However, much as we understand the cries of many Zambians, criticising Bill 7 without providing tangible alternative measures is mere hallucination; it does not cure a problem at all. As the country faces a potentially irreversible Bill 7, some, especially several opposition commentators have so far provided alternatives. They all just shout without providing a clear direction.
The recent convergence of opposition leaders at State House to present their objections to the proposed constitutional amendments was a necessary and visible exercise in democratic engagement. It is right and proper that such a significant piece of legislation is met with rigorous scrutiny. Their condemnation of the bill has been noted, and it resonates with a segment of the populace that shares their concerns.
However, condemning without a way forward, is not a strategy. It is the easy part of political opposition. The far more difficult – and infinitely more valuable – task now lies before them: to transition from merely pointing out the flaws in Bill 7 to articulating a clear, coherent, and practical alternative.
Simply stating that Bill 7 is “unacceptable” or “a power grab” etc., does little to advance the national conversation. The public, weary of political grandstanding. The government has presented its blueprint; the opposition’s responsibility is to present a competing vision that is not only principled but also workable.
We therefore urge the opposition leaders and the Oasis Forum to build upon the momentum of their State House visit by doing the following:
a) Go beyond soundbites. Release a comprehensive document that outlines their specific objections to each contentious clause in Bill 7, supported by legal and constitutional reasoning.
b) If the principle of a constitutional amendment is not itself the issue, then what specific changes would make the bill palatable? They should draft and publish the exact language of the amendments they would support, providing a tangible basis for the way forward.
They must hep provide a clear framework for what a legitimate and inclusive constitutional review process should look like.
The currency of effective opposition is not just criticism, but credible alternatives. In providing practical solutions, the opposition and civil society organisation, including the Oasis Forum would elevate their stance to constructive statesmanship.
The delivery of the letter by the opposition and Oasis Forum meeting with the Head of State was good. But delivery of a well-argued, practical counter-proposal would be a legacy-defining contribution to the nation’s democratic development.
As for the opposition, the country has been through this situation where opposition leaders promise people heaven on earth but do the exact opposite when they come to power. President Hakainde Hichilema is the perfect example on this topic. And we are sure there are those in the opposition who are salivating to benefit from the retrogressive clauses he’s trying to push through. Zambians must demand for each opposition leader to guarantee them that they would immediately start working on undoing what Hichilema is seeking to establish if they were elected into office. They must also commit to assuring Zambians about their honest plans on the constitution.
Related
You can share this post!
MARIA ZALOUMIS SUED OVER K400,000 RENTAL ARREARS
What do ministers in Hichilema’s Cabinet really stand for?
Related Articles
Jito’s observation on chaos in Middle East threatening…
Electoral Promises
PS Kabeta’s urge for TIZ to continue providing…