QUALITATIVE GAPS IN PRESIDENT’S LOGIC TO DIVIDE SOME CONSTITUENCIES INTO TWO – A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CHIKANKATA AND KANYAMA CONSTITUENCIES
The president’s remarks that those who oppose his government’s constitutional amendments are doing it out of hate because of the region of Zambia he hails from is a concern, especially on the progress that has been made against regional political rhetoric evidenced by the 2021 general elections where 2.8 million Zambians, from different regions of the country voted for the president and his party in a landslide election victory. This article presents a qualitative analysis that validates some concerns raised against the constitutional amendments by exposing the flawed logic of dividing some constituencies on the basis of geographical size. A comparative analysis of Kanyama and Chikankata constituencies will be used to explain implications of the constitution amendment approach being sought by the current regime.
KEY DETAILS OF THE TWO CONSTITUENCIES
Chikankata constituency has a population of 98,671 people (Census, 2022), and a geographic square area of 2500km^2.
Kanyama constituency has a population of 525,902 people (Census, 2022) and a geographic square area of 98km^2
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS BASED ON THE STATISTICS OF THE TWO CONSTITUENCIES
Both constituencies receive K40 million a year according to the recent budget.
For Chikankata, this means K405.39 per person and for Kanyama, K76.06 per person.
The parliamentary representation ratio of the two constituencies by population:
1:5.33 for the MP of Chikankata and Kanyama respectively.
DATA INTERPRETATION
The MP for Kanyama has more than 5 times more people to worry about than the MP of Chikankata.
The people of Chikankata have 5 times more money from CDF allocation than the people from Kanyama constituency.
The people in Chikankata have 0.025km^2 (25,000m^2) per person, and the people of Kanyama have 0.00019km^2 (190m^2) per person.
DISCUSSION
Clearly, it can be seen that if equal opportunities of CDF allocations is what the UPND government is pursuing, then Kanyama should be receiving more than K200 million Kwacha per year to match the K405.39 per person of Chikankata.
If the constituency of Chikankata were to be divided into two, then the MP to person ratio between the two constituencies that will split the 98,671 population in two will mean the Kanyama MP will have more than 10 people to worry about for each person that the two MPs of the divided constituencies will have. This means even much lower parliamentary representation for people of Kanyama than the current levels.
While it can be argued that people in Kanyama are in the City, and are closer to the social economic and political amenities that the city has to offer, but most people are barely getting by and watch these amenities from a distance. Just an example, my qualitative analysis reflected in my book, “Building a More Inclusive Zambian Financial Sector,” shows that less than 10% of the Zambian population have a bank account due to account opening barriers that many people living in Kanyama face. More importantly, it can even be argued that a person born and raised in Chikankata constituency is better positioned, economically and politically to get a bank account than someone born and raised in Kanyama.
In conclusion, dividing the constituencies merely by their geographical sizes so that more CDF money can be allocated is a social injustice of neglect to the constituencies are more densely populated and would even require more attention to manage. The president and the UPND government must reflect on the content of this article and acknowledge the merits of arguments raised here than merely relegating the valid opposition they are facing to amend the constitution as mere tribalism against the president.
Manson Mutumba
Author, Business Consultant, Researcher
It’s not only money or resource allocation but management also. Some Constituencies are too big to manage effectively by one MP.
A big constituency geographically requires more resources to build comparative infrastructure such as roads and bridges, health and educational facilities. This comparison of just amounts per person in each constituency is what people would call lame duck analysis!!
In my view this analysis holds water. Development is meant for people and geographical space just another variable for consideration in the development process.You can not give one loaf of bread each to two families with different number of members, one with two people the other with five people. I think equity must apply here. On the other hand there are clearly constituencies that are way to vast for one MP to manage. The same reason Sata delimited some districts can still be applicable in this argument. Look at Chongwe, Munali? It would be prudent to delimit such constituencies for quality development and timely oversight. For me such issue must remain in Bill 7.
One size fits all way of looking at issues is very narrow. As a researcher you ought to know development needs are not the same and hence not linear.
Your outlook doesnt address the fundamental aspect of CDF or development.
I appreciate the argument being put forward. Logically the gentleman is not saying CDF is bad, in fact he supports it.
What is insightful is his ability to show the inequality it created when using geographical mapping as a standard of CDF distribution as opposed to the population with the respective areas of concern. If we use population as a unit of measure it guarantees an equitable distribute the funds.
These are positive arguments which need consideration for effective and efficient distribution of the much needed developmental funds.
However, it should be also understood that population increase is usually triggered by economic opportunities. Therefore an area previous less populated can become over populated over a shot period of time hence changing the dynamics of perceived population distribution.
I feel these funds should be channelled to developmental projects that enhance productivity in these areas.
Eventually with efficiency of operations the economic perimeters in these areas will grow allowing for the much needed development through private investments. lets make these areas attractive to live in and eventually the population will be well spread.
We articulated and thoughtout. If anything this is one of the issues the last census brought out.
What drive the population into urban areas and how can it be addressed.
These are the kind of discussions and inputs we need.
Wish the discourse about the constitution could proceed in this manner. But oh no. Its vague generalisation without concise points of view about what exactly is wrong with the amendments.
ArchBishop Banda does not help the matter either apart from just seeking to add fire to the discussion in a trajectory that is hardly productive or benefit to anyone but those that just want to be disruptive.
Thank you @Mate for your perspective
Compare also proportion of productive people in the 2 constituencies. There are more people doing nothing in Kanyama and this has forced them to engage in crime. They came to town because they are looking for jobs leading to urbun migration. If rural and vast constituencies like Chikankata as you rightly said are subdivided, they will also start developing and attract more people from areas like Kanyama, Mandevu and Matero to go there seeking employment and thereby decongesting these areas. If that is not done, more people will continue congesting Kanyama and contribute to ecological disasters like TB and cholera outbreaks, more crime that even the police are scared to follow criminals there.
Cholera is more common in Kanyama because of congestion. Sanitary conditions can not be achieved easily in such areas. You will soon hear about outbreaks of diarrheal diseases in Kanyama as usual, something you don’t hear every time in Kabulonga, woodlands, Gwembe Chikankata and other less congested areas. Planners will tell you that we need to open up other areas and decongest cities. There is less space in these areas and they are getting saturated because development is concentrated in cities. Imagine if more money was allocated to places like Kaputa Shangombo, Chama and other less populated areas. People would rather want to go there because there will be more jobs, cleaner air, less road congestion, better services to the communities than here in Lusaka.
There’s no evidence that Chikankata constituency is one of those to be divided. Geography and population are already considered in the creation of constituencies. Urban constituencies tend to have higher earning voters than rural ones. It’s the reason you see more children attending school without shoes in rural areas. The business consultant is not applying his wits to all the variables properly.