Zambia is once again standing on the precipice of a major constitutional change, but the ground beneath this reform appears worryingly unstable. The Administration has proposed a radical shift in the electoral framework—combining three distinct systems: First Past the Post (FPTP), Proportional Representation (PR), and the Majoritarian model. Each of these models, when applied individually, comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. But combined without prior public understanding or endorsement, they risk throwing Zambia’s democratic process into chaos.
First Past the Post is the current model in most Zambian elections: the candidate with the most votes wins. It is simple, familiar, but often leads to disproportionate outcomes and the marginalization of smaller parties. Proportional Representation, on the other hand, is praised for fairness, as it allocates seats in proportion to the votes received by parties. Yet, it demands high institutional capacity and voter sophistication. The Majoritarian system, often used in presidential elections, requires a candidate to secure over 50% of the vote—potentially necessitating a runoff. When merged, these three create a labyrinthine voting system that risks disorienting the electorate, overwhelming electoral institutions, and distorting the will of the people.
The greatest concern is not even the technical complexity, but the complete absence of consultation. The constitution, the supreme law of the land, should be a product of broad consensus, not elite imposition. Yet, this proposed amendment has been drafted and pushed forward without adequate dialogue with citizens, political stakeholders, or civil society. It is an affront to democratic norms that such a monumental shift in how power is decided should occur behind closed doors.
In countries like Germany and New Zealand, hybrid electoral systems were implemented only after years of civic education, public debates, and referenda. Their experiences underscore a critical truth: systems that govern democratic participation must be understood and owned by the people. Anything less is technocratic overreach.
In Zambia’s case, the dangers are immediate and severe. Introducing a multi-system electoral model without first engaging the people could breed suspicion, discourage participation, and open the door to manipulation. Voters already struggle with low civic literacy in some regions—how then can we expect them to navigate a ballot split across three electoral logics?
Furthermore, the rushed manner in which this amendment is being introduced raises uncomfortable questions. Is this complexity by design? Does it serve the interest of democracy, or merely that of those in power? These are not abstract fears. Zambia’s history shows that when reforms are rushed, opaque, and exclusionary, the outcome is not stability—but strife.
We call on the government to halt this process immediately and engage in an inclusive national dialogue. Reform, especially constitutional reform, must be people-driven, transparent, and guided by consensus—not executive decree. Anything less is not reform. It is regression.
Democracy is not built in silence. It demands participation, understanding, and trust. Let us not abandon these principles for expediency.
