PROTECTING THE VOTERS MANDATE: WHY I OPPOSE ARTICLES 57 AND 72(8) IN BILL 7 – THEY Weaken DIRECT DEMOCRACY
A close reading of the gazetted Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 reveals a pivotal issue at the heart of the proposed reforms: the process by which Members of Parliament who vacate their seats are replaced.
An issue, often overlooked, is the double standard the Bill creates between independent candidates and party-sponsored candidates.
Provisions in Articles 57 and 72(8) fundamentally reshape Zambia’s system of representation. They weaken the sovereignty of voters and create a constitutional hierarchy between MPs. I do not support these clauses, and here is why.
1. Independent MPs Face By-Elections, but Party MPs Are Replaced Internally
Article 57 proposes that:
“Where a vacancy occurs in the office of an independent Member of Parliament… a by-election shall be held within ninety days…”
This is democratic and transparent:
if an independent MP vacates a seat, the voters choose a new representative. Citizen sovereignty is upheld.
But Article 72(8) sets a completely different rule for party-sponsored MPs:
“…the political party that sponsored the member… shall elect another person to replace that member…”
This creates a clear disparity:
Independent MPs
1. Seat becomes vacant, then by-election
2. Voters choose new MP
3. Full constituency participation and scrutiny
Party-sponsored MPs
1. Seat becomes vacant, then party selects replacement internally
2. No public participation
3. No campaign, no competition, no voter involvement
This results in a two-tier democracy: one standard for independents, another for party MPs.
Why is this a constitutional problem?
All MPs are elected by citizens, not by political parties. Constituencies do not vote to give parties ownership over parliamentary seats. This provision offends:
a. The principle of equality of representation
b. The sovereignty of voters, who should always decide when a seat becomes vacant
Parliamentary seats belong to the people. They cannot be converted into party property.
2. Party Control Makes MPs More Accountable to Parties Than to Voters
Allowing parties to replace MPs without elections shifts MP loyalty:
a. Upward to party leadership, not outward to the people
b. Constituency interests risk being subordinated to party interests
c. Parties gain potential tools to pressure, discipline, or sideline MPs, including through orchestrated resignations
Meanwhile, independent MPs remain fully answerable to the electorate.
This imbalance weakens the independence of Parliament, which is essential for meaningful national debate and effective oversight. Democracy is anchored on one principle: the people choose their leaders, and only the people must have the power to withdraw that choice.
Against this background, allowing parties to replace MPs without public participation, while independent MPs must face full electoral scrutiny, creates an unequal and undemocratic constitutional arrangement.
Zambia deserves a Constitution where:
(a) every seat belongs to the voter, and
(b) every vacancy returns to the voter.
These two clauses in Bill No. 7 are inconsistent with the spirit of democracy and must be amended as Parliament starts to debate the Bill.
Yours Truly,
HON SUNDAY CHANDA MP
KANCHIBIYA CONSTITUENCY
As a population grows, direct democracy becomes a challenge. Bill 7 recognises this dynamic and says there should be other platforms for representative democracy. Political parties are one such platform. The tricky part is ensuring these platforms adhere to democratic tenets. PF is currently fragmented because it has failed to adhere to democratic tenets in the transfer of power.
The Registrar of Societies is one of the primary guardians of political party democracy.
Representative democracy is already being practiced here in Zambia. Our house of parliamentary representatives vote on behalf of citizens. This is nothing new. So please stop spreading wrong narrative. Even in yowa house, you as the father or mother make decisions on behalf of those those who are not as well informed as you.
I would like to know why we call Zambia a multi-party democracy when it has a provision for independent candidates?? I know that party selected candidates go through primary selections within their party. But do independent candidates go through primary elections before they become candidates. If so who selects the independent candidates? So it seems to me there are different processes a party candidate goes through compared to an independent candidate. I may be wrong, but correct me if I am wrong. If we wanted an independent MP to be replaced by another independent MP what independent institution will suggest a replacement. I think there is a difference between replacing a party sponsored MP to an independent MP?? I may be wrong.
In my opinion, the reason why when an independent MP resigns or dies, a call for by-elections become necessary is that there is no institution called independent who sponsored this independent candidate to select a replacement. For party sponsored MPs, there party who selected this MP during their primaries can replace the MP who resigns or dies or not available for other reasons. Yes this denies all voters in the constituency to elect a replacement, but in a multi-party democracy it can be justified as it just maintains the number of party sponsored MPs each party obtained during the general elections.
Just making up terms, direct democracy, you don’t even know what that means. Go check countries that have it and understand
Why is he making the arguement here? What is the essence of the debate and parliament? Does he not believe in the institution that grants him to provision at law to debate the issue among his peers?
Koma sure Hakainde.
Why is this man so against democracy? People vote for individuals as MPs, not the party they represent. Why would Hakainde even want to change this? Self interest? Self preservation?
To UPND MPs that will vote for this draconian bill 7, Hakainde will replace you at the earliest opportunity. Hakainde does not practice loyalty, ask Gary Nkombo. He will ditch you like a used tissue. Stand your ground. Resist dictatorship for the sake of our country. He will simply replace you with his relatives.
REJECT TRIBALISM, CORRUPTION AND OPPRESSION.
VOTE FOR CHANGE IN 2026.
In a multi-party democracy, MPs are sponsored by the political party they belong to. When they are voted as MPs it means the voters are happy with the policies of the party that sponsor these MPs apart from being happy with the MP the party sponsored. These are the two criteria voters use when voting for an MP sponsored by a political party. If this was not the case, we could not even have a political party choose an opposition MP representing them in Parliament. So HaaIndigo Tyrol stop cheating people. When did HH change the criterial used by voters to elect MPs?? Come 2026 elections, people will vote for MPs most of whom belong to their sponsoring political parties.
Many times people vote for a party not the individual. Infact in most cases, people don’t even know these MPs but vote for them because of the preferred party. Am going to vote for the first time next year and any person who will be on UPND card will carry my vote and any replacement should be in the same route.
It is being opportunistic to bring up such arguments. To start with independent MPs dilute democracy in a Multiparty democracy and in most cases lack the capacity to formulate laws, policies and regulations. They normally vote alongside either the bill sponsors or the opposition. This bill has proposed to do away with bye elections because it is very expensive. Maybe if he had suggested that the person that had scored second to the winner in both cases of independent and party sponsored MP that would make sense. That would be a better proposal. In any case the turnout at most bye elections is so poor that the discrepancy between the bye election and results outcome is not worthy the amount spent and that is what the bill is proposing to move away from in order to serve resources.
Yes I also don’t agree with the choosing of the mp by a political party in case of any vacancy, what if the person was underpeforming ,it means the party underperformed also and there is need to replace using different parties