🇿🇲 INSIGHT | NGOCC opposed Bill 7 but still wants more female MPs
Zambia’s new National Assembly has 63 women, according to the Non-governmental Gender Organisations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC). Twenty-six entered through the proportional representation system introduced by Bill 7. But NGOCC, which opposed the constitutional reform, now says the increase is insufficient.
Its September 20 statement raises a legitimate question about gender parity, but it also invites another: without the reform NGOCC wanted withdrawn, how many women would be sitting in Parliament today?
The arithmetic deserves attention. NGOCC reports 34 women elected directly from constituencies and 26 allocated proportional representation seats. It adds the Vice President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker to arrive at 63 women among 281 parliamentary positions, or 22.4 percent. Without the 26 women admitted through proportional representation, the same count would stand at 37. The new system has therefore contributed more than two in every five women included in NGOCC’s present total.
The remaining elections and presidential nominations may change the final figures, but they cannot erase the contribution already made by the reform.
NGOCC acknowledges the increase. “This represents 22.4 percent of total parliamentary representation, reflecting notable progress from 15 percent in 2021 and surpassing the previous highest level of 18 percent recorded in 2016,” its statement says. It then adds: “While the numbers have relatively increased, National Assembly has also expanded from 168 to 281 seats, meaning these gains still fall far short of expectations.”
Its benchmark is the SADC framework’s 50-50 gender parity commitment. The organisation is entitled to retain that objective. What its statement does not adequately confront is how far the country would have moved towards it through constituency elections alone.
The 2026 constituency results offer a sobering answer. Women won 34 directly elected seats, according to NGOCC’s latest count. Even if the two outstanding constituency elections were both won by women, the figure would rise only to 36. That would remain far below parity in the constituency-based part of Parliament. It would also fall short of the number of women now serving after proportional representation was added. No one can know with certainty how every contest would have unfolded under a different electoral system.
But the actual results show the additional seats made a substantial, measurable difference.
This is not simply a question of whether Zambian women are capable of winning elections. Many have won and served with distinction. The issue is whether the political system gives capable women a comparable opportunity to reach the ballot, secure party support, finance campaigns and persuade voters. Zambia’s electoral choices are made within communities where expectations about leadership, family responsibilities and the public roles of men and women continue to influence political participation.
Education can widen opportunity without immediately removing those expectations. It would be careless to claim every voter rejects female leadership. It would be equally careless to pretend social and cultural barriers play no part in the small number of women elected directly.
Bill 7 addressed one part of this problem by creating a second route into the National Assembly. It did not require voters to abandon constituency elections. It added proportional representation seats for women, youths and persons with disabilities, allowing qualifying parties to bring candidates into Parliament through their lists. The result is visible: 26 women entered through those 40 seats. Whatever one thinks of the wider constitutional amendment process, the representational effect is no longer hypothetical.
This is where NGOCC owes the public a fuller explanation of its earlier position. The organisation opposed Bill 7 alongside other civil society and professional bodies and sought its withdrawal. Its objections included the process of constitutional reform and aspects of the proposed framework. Opposing a Bill containing several amendments is not necessarily the same as opposing every provision within it.
But NGOCC cannot assess the present increase without examining the legislation responsible for much of it. Which parts of the proportional representation model did it support? Which did it reject? What alternative could have delivered comparable gains in the 2026 election? Those questions are more useful than either demanding an apology without examining its original objections or pretending the earlier campaign never happened.
NGOCC’s statement says it has “long advocated for a more representative National Assembly in which women, youth and persons with disabilities (PwDs) can speak to their own issues.” It also congratulates the new female MPs and urges them to “be flag bearers for the issues affecting the marginalised groups that you represent.”
The advocacy is longstanding. The opportunity is now larger. The next responsibility is to help ensure those who enter Parliament can exercise its powers effectively.
A seat is not a qualification in itself. Neither is winning a constituency election. Parliament needs members capable of examining legislation, questioning ministers, scrutinising expenditure and understanding the economic and social consequences of public policy. These standards apply to all 281 positions. A male MP should not escape scrutiny because he won an election, and a female MP should not face a presumption of incompetence because she entered through proportional representation. The relevant questions concern preparation, judgment, integrity and performance.
Political parties have particular responsibility here. They choose candidates, control party lists and determine who receives organisational and financial support. If proportional representation becomes a means of rewarding personal loyalty rather than identifying capable representatives, its promise will be weakened. If parties use it to bring prepared women, young people and persons with disabilities into legislative work, the country gains voices previously excluded from the chamber.
NGOCC can help by developing prospective candidates, examining party selection practices and holding the new MPs to substantive standards rather than treating their appointment as the final achievement.
The 50-50 benchmark remains a measure of representation, not a complete measure of parliamentary quality. NGOCC may continue arguing for parity. But its own figures establish a more immediate fact: direct elections produced 34 women, while the new proportional representation system added 26 more. Without those additional seats, the increase NGOCC now acknowledges would have been substantially smaller.
The question is no longer whether Bill 7 could increase women’s representation. Its first parliamentary results show it has. The questions now concern the quality of representation, the fairness of candidate selection and the ability of the new members to serve the country.
NGOCC’s assessment will carry greater weight if it acknowledges both the gains delivered by a reform it opposed and the work still required beyond counting seats.
-The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu