Before We Debate Presidential Tenure, Let Us First Secure Zambia’s Development Continuity
By Golden Mapulanga – The Diplomat | Political Analyst and Commentator
Zambia may eventually wish to have a national conversation about presidential term limits, the length of presidential tenure and the relationship between political stability and long-term development. Such a conversation is legitimate in any constitutional democracy.
However, perhaps we are approaching the debate from the wrong end.
Before asking how long a President should remain in office, perhaps we should first ask a more fundamental question:
How long should Zambia’s national development vision remain in force?
Zambia already has a system of National Development Plans. The Eighth National Development Plan, for example, covered 2022–2026 and was developed within the framework of the National Planning and Budgeting Act.
This is an important foundation. But perhaps the country should now consider going a step further.
Let the nation establish the destination
Imagine a long-term National Development Blueprint for Zambia, developed through extensive national consultation and ultimately given an appropriate legal or constitutional foundation as the free education policy was done.
Such a blueprint could establish where Zambia wants to be in 20 or 30 years.
It could provide long-term national objectives for economic transformation, agriculture, manufacturing, mining and beneficiation, energy, education, technology, health, infrastructure, tourism, exports, employment, governance and human development.
The critical principle would be simple:
Governments may change. The national destination should not unnecessarily change with them.
This would not mean preventing political parties from having manifestos. Political parties should remain free to offer different ideas and compete democratically.
But their manifestos could increasingly answer a different question:
“How will you achieve Zambia’s agreed national objectives better than your competitors?”
That could potentially elevate the quality of electoral politics.
Presidents would choose the route, not repeatedly redraw the map
One administration might emphasise agriculture and agro-processing.
Another might prioritise manufacturing and mineral beneficiation.
Another might accelerate digital transformation, skills development and innovation.
Another might place greater emphasis on infrastructure, energy or regional trade.
These differences are healthy in a democracy.
What should perhaps become less negotiable is the long-term national destination itself.
In this model, the Zambian people would effectively say:
“This is the Zambia we want to build. We will elect different governments to determine how best to get there.”
Continuity without compromising democracy
This proposal should not be interpreted as an argument for indefinite presidential tenure or for weakening elections.
Quite the opposite.
It could strengthen the distinction between democratic change and developmental continuity.
A President would still be elected. Parliament would still exercise oversight. Citizens would still judge governments at elections. Political parties would still compete vigorously.
But a new administration would inherit a national development framework rather than starting the national conversation from zero.
The principle could therefore be:
Presidents may change; governments may change; policies may be refined; but Zambia’s fundamental development ambition should have institutional continuity.
Then—and only then—let us debate presidential tenure
This is why I believe the debate about presidential term limits should perhaps come after the larger question of national development continuity has been addressed.
Otherwise, the conversation can easily become personalised around the question:
“Should a particular President stay longer?”
That is not necessarily the most useful question for the Republic.
The bigger question is:
“What institutional arrangements can enable Zambia to sustain development for decades, regardless of who occupies State House?”
Once Zambia has established such a framework, the country can calmly and objectively examine whether the existing presidential tenure arrangements are serving the national interest, whether they require reform, or whether they should remain unchanged.
There should be no rush to answer that second question before answering the first.
A proposal for national reflection
Perhaps Zambia now needs a conversation around a simple proposition:
A 20–30-year National Development Blueprint, developed through broad national consultation, endorsed through an appropriate democratic process, protected by law or the Constitution, periodically reviewed by the people, and implemented through successive elected governments.
This would not abolish political competition.
It would give political competition a national developmental framework.
It could move us from:
“What is your party’s vision for Zambia?”
towards:
“How will your party take Zambia further towards the vision that Zambians have collectively established?”
That, in my view, is a conversation worth having before we begin debating how long Presidents should remain in office.
Golden Mapulanga – The Diplomat:
Political Analyst and Commentator