THE THIRD-TERM DEBATE: HAVE WE MOVED FROM DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECTING POLITICAL INTERESTS?
Author by; Bill Hamapumbu Jr.
Something about the current third-term debate deserves serious reflection, particularly the position being taken by some young parliamentarians.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, young people were among those who stood firmly against President Frederick Chiluba’s third-term ambitions. They understood that the Constitution was bigger than any individual president, regardless of how popular or influential that person was.
Today, surprisingly, some young political voices are advocating for changes that previous generations fought against. What has changed?
I think we must also look at the Proportional Representation (PR) system. The idea of including women, youths and persons with disabilities in Parliament was progressive and commendable. However, I question whether the selection mechanism was thoroughly thought through.
My view is that representatives should emerge from well-structured organisations representing these groups through transparent and competitive processes, rather than depending largely on political party appointments.
The problem with the current arrangement is that representatives can end up feeling more accountable to the political parties that selected them than to the groups they are supposed to represent.
The youth category also comes with age restrictions, creating uncertainty about the political future of young PR parliamentarians once they age out. They must then find another route into politics, either by competing for constituency seats against established politicians or looking towards political appointments.
Could this partly explain the enthusiasm among some young parliamentarians for extending presidential tenure? Is the argument entirely about constitutional reform, or are some also thinking about their political survival and future opportunities?
I am not suggesting that every young person supporting the proposal has selfish motives. But it is a legitimate question worth asking.
We need young representatives who can question government, challenge decisions and defend the interests of the people they represent, not simply become praise singers for those who gave them an opportunity to enter Parliament.
If the PR system has weaknesses, let us reform the PR system. If young people struggle to compete in constituency politics, let us address those barriers. But we should not confuse individual political ambitions with the constitutional interests of the nation.
The youth of the 1990s fought to protect the Constitution from individual political ambitions. Today’s generation should not abandon that principle simply because the political circumstances have changed.
Inclusion should create independent voices, not political dependants.
Presidents come and go, MPs come and go, political parties come and go, but the Constitution must remain bigger than all of us.