1. INTRODUCTION
THIRTY years of multiparty politics is not a mean achievement. It is truly a big milestone in our aspirations of how we want to govern ourselves. The political foundations we build today will determine who we shall be in generations to come. The political systems we envy today took generations to build. We are on that path.
Thirty years of multiparty politics is a big achievement that calls for some kind of celebration. However, party politics being what it is such an event is beyond the thoughts of those in various political party leadership.
It is unthinkable to bring different political parties together and make them celebrate what is supposedly their making, namely the multiparty system.
I have taken a bit of time to reflect on our 30 years of multiparty politics because of a comment posed to me by a colleague from another African country I interacted with for several years at the Pan African Parliament.
The comment was, “We are not getting the feelings of Zambians over the country’s 30 years of multiparty politics. Do the brothers and sisters in Zambia realise the importance of this achievement given the reality of most African countries today?”
We had a long discussion on this comment and ended up making serious reflections on the state of political instability in many African countries today. Before I delve a little bit on the reflections we shared let me give a brief background of the Pan African Parliament for the benefit of readers who may not be aware of this Pan African institution.
2. THE PAN AFRICAN PARLIAMENT
The Pan African Parliament is one of the 11 organs of the African Union formally established in 2004 with its headquarters in Midrand, South Africa. The objectives of the institution as set out in the protocol establishing it are:
“1. Facilitate the effective implementation of the policies and objectives of the OAU/AEC and, ultimately, the African Union.
2. Promote the principles of human rights and democracy in Africa.
3. Encourage good governance, transparency and accountability in member states.
4. Familiarise the peoples of Africa with the objectives and policies aimed at integrating the African continent within the framework of the establishment of the African Union.
5. Promote peace, security and stability.
6. Contribute to a more prosperous future for the peoples of Africa by promoting collective self-reliance and economic recovery.
7. Facilitate cooperation and development in Africa.
8. Strengthen continental solidarity and build a sense of common destiny among the peoples of Africa.
9. Facilitate cooperation among regional economic communities and their parliamentary fora.”
The motto of the Pan African Parliament is “ONE AFRICA, ONE VOICE.”
The Parliament of each AU member state appoints five Members of Parliament to represent it on the Pan African Parliament. Members participating in the Pan African Parliament have a great opportunity of interacting with fellow colleagues from the 55 AU member states.
It is an opportunity to learn and understand what is taking place in many other countries on the continent. The continental institution affords the members an opportunity to develop a Pan African view of the issues and development challenges facing the continent. This is the context of the discussion we had.
Our discussion centred on the political instability being experienced in many African countries. Examples are many but the major ones include: Ethiopia, Mozambique, DRC, Sudan, Mali, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia, and Guinea.
The political instability in these countries arise from causes centrering on ethnicity, regionalism, insurgence, and religion. The introduction of multi-party politics founded on democratic principles has not assisted much in solving political instability.
Our discussion ended on the observation that Zambia’s 30 years of multiparty politics in peace is a good achievement and an inspiration to other African countries. It is against this background that the reflections on 30 years of multiparty politics in Zambia is made.
3. ZAMBIA’S 30 YEARS OF MULTI PARTY POLITICS.
Multiparty politics is a system in which multiple political parties which have the capacity, compete to be considered for the governance of a country either on their own or in an alliance with other parties.
This system came into being in 1991 after UNIP’s ono-party rule which was declared in 1971. To those who were old enough to witness the re-introduction of multiparty politics in the country it was indeed a breath of fresh air of significant change.
The one-party rule was given all types of descriptions such as tyrannical, dictatorial, autocratic, authoritarian, despotic, and so on. The jubilation that followed the October 31, 1991 general elections, was truly ground breaking.
The point to note however is that Zambia has witnessed significant growth in its multiparty politics since 1991. In all, seven general elections have taken place. The country has since 1991 witnessed six elected Presidents taking office peacefully.
Further, three political parties have taken the platform of governance of the country. The numbers of registered political parties wanting to be considered for governance has increased in numbers over the years.
Parliament has witnessed a mix of people’s representatives at various points. It is important to highlight these developments in statistical terms to appreciate what has happened in the country since 1991.
4. GROWTH OF ZAMBIA’S MULTIPARTY POLITICS SINCE 1991.
The contest in the general elections of 1991 was between two political parties namely MMD and UNIP. The elections were a watershed in Zambia’s political history. President Frederick Chiluba won with a landslide victory getting 75.8 percent of the votes (972, 605). The founding father of the nation, President Kenneth Kaunda, managed to get 24.2 percent of the votes (311, 022).
The MMD took 125 seats in Parliament and UNIP ended up with 25 seats. This was truly a movement for political change. The message of the need for multi-party politics was loud and clear and it was widely accepted by most of the citizens. Zambians wanted to see a multi-party system of governing themselves institutionalised.
In 1996 UNIP fell off after it boycotted the elections following the constitutional changes which were viewed as targeted at President Kaunda. However, the Zambian political scene witnessed the emergence of four new political parties which contested the elections. These were Zambia Democratic Congress (ZADECO), National Party (NP) and Agenda for Zambia (AZ) and Movement for Democratic Process (MDP).
The election results still favoured the MMD which took 72.6 percent of the Presidential votes. ZADECO had 12.8 percent of the Presidential votes. The NP took 6.7 percent. AZ and MDP ended up with
4.7 percent and 3.3 percent of the Presidential votes respectively.
The seats in Parliament were MMD 131, ZADECO 2, NP 5, AZ 2 and 10 Independents. The election of 10 Independents was an interesting development because it signified that the voters could make a choice of an individual and not necessarily a political party.
In the 2001 general elections Zambia witnessed 10 political parties contesting for elections. These were MMD, UPND, FDD, UNIP, HP, ZRP, PF, NCC, SDP, and NCD.
The election results saw a major shift in people’s choices. MMD took 29.6 percent of the Presidential votes with 69 seats in Parliament. UPND had 27 percent of the Presidential votes with 49 seats in Parliament. FDD took 13.1 percent of the Presidential votes and 12 Parliamentary seats. UNIP had 10.1 percent of the Presidential votes and 13 Parliamentary seats. Heritage Party managed to get 8.1 percent of the Presidential votes with four Parliamentary seats. ZRP and PF had 4.9 percent and 3.4 percent Presidential votes respectively with one Parliamentary seat each.
NCC, SDP and NCD scooped 2.2 percent, 0.6 percent and 0.5 percent of the Presidential votes but with no seat in Parliament. There was only one Independent Member of Parliament.
A new political development took place in the 2006 general elections where a number of political parties came together to form an Alliance, the UDA. This was a new development and it is a normal practice in a multiparty system, that is, political parties can come together in an alliance and present themselves to the voters for support to govern.
It is a common practice in many countries both developed and developing. Germany is going through this process now. India does it at various times. The numbers of political parties that contested in the 2006 general elections were seven namely; MMD, PF, UDA, HP, ACD, ULP and NDF.
MMD ended up with 42.9 percent of the Presidential vote and 72 Parliamentary seats. PF had 29.4 percent Presidential votes with 43 Parliamentary seats. The third position was for UDA with 25.3 percent of the Presidential votes and 26 seats in Parliament. The Parliamentary seats for ULP and NDF were three and one respectively. There was one Independent seat.
In 2011 the tables turned in favour of PF. Ten political parties participated in the 2011 general elections and these were: PF, MMD, UPND, ADD, FDD, NRP, NMP, HP, ZED and UNIP.
PF was able to get 42.8 percent of the Presidential votes with 60 Parliamentary seats followed by MMD with 36.1 percent of the Presidential votes and 55 seats in Parliament. UPND came third with 18.5 percent of the Presidential votes and 28 Parliamentary seats. ADD and NRP ended up with one Parliamentary seat each. There were three Independents.
In 2016, the constitutional amended requirement was that a Presidential candidate had to get 50+1 percent of the valid votes to be declared winner.
Several Parties entered the contest and these were PF, UPND, MMD, FDD, UPP, RP, GP, PAC and DP. The PF was able to get 50.35 percent of the Presidential votes and 80 seats in Parliament. UPND was in the second position with 47.6 percent of the Presidential votes with 58 Parliamentary seats. MMD managed to get three seats in Parliament and FDD ended up with 1 Parliamentary seat. There were 14 Independent Members of Parliament, the largest number since 1991.
The 2021 general election was another historic development in Zambian politics when the country witnessed a change of government. There were for the first time 16 political parties which participated in the elections. This was the highest ever since 1991.
The political parties were: UPND, PF, PNUP, 3rd LM, PEP, PAC, NHP, EFF, ZUSD, LM, SP, DP, NRP UNIP, MMD and UPPZ.
The UPND went into an alliance with other political parties shortly before the general elections. The Presidential vote went to UPND and its alliance partners with 50.02 percent and 82 Parliamentary seats. PF was second with 38.7 percent of the Presidential votes and 60 Parliamentary seats. The PNUP scooped one seat in Parliament. There were 13 Independents.
5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Several observations can be drawn from Zambia’s 30 years history of multiparty politics.
1. The system of multiparty politics is now entrenched in the country. From two political parties in 1991 to 16 in 2021 contesting in a general election is indeed a big development in the expression of political participation. The numbers of new political parties have steadily been on the increase since 1991. Zambians are now used to the formation of political parties. It is part of the culture of the Zambian political landscape.
2. Provision of checks and balances. What is of significant importance is understanding how well the parties are executing their roles as instruments of checks and balances to the party in government.
UPND in its 20 years in opposition and PF in its first 10 years in opposition were very assertive in providing the necessary checks and balances to the party in government. PF is back in opposition and it remains to be seen how effective it will be in providing checks and balances to the ruling Party.
Most political parties have tended to be silent in providing checks and balances to the ruling party.
3. The historical trend arising from the general elections in Zambia is that a ruling political party once out of power is relegated to the political museum. It has been difficult for the former ruling parties to retain power at the Presidential level.
This is the experience that MMD and UNIP have gone through over the past 30 years. It has equally been difficult to get seats in Parliament. These two political parties will have no voice in the current Parliament. Both MMD and UNIP are now in a quagmire of political oblivion. PF has a lesson to learn from what happened to
these former ruling parties.
4. Political change in Zambia has largely been centred on two major factors namely economic survival and happiness of the citizens. UNIP was voted out largely because voters were fed up with the one-party system of governance and the economy had deteriorated to unbearable levels. The cost of living was too high for people to bear.
The MMD lost political power principally on account of perceived corruption which was viewed as unacceptable. MMD tried its best to bring inflation down and economic growth had reached remarkable levels. However, the voices of those who were disenchanted with the perceived corruption won the voters’ hearts and the party inevitably lost power.
The PF faced the same fate of perceived corruption, rising cost of living, high unemployment levels and violation of human rights by its cadres. The successes of PF in infrastructure development was not sufficient to gain the voters’ confidence.
5. The generation factor has played a major role in political change. UNIP after 27 years in power faced the post-independence generation which viewed politics from a different angle. Freedom of democratic choice of political leadership was the new political culture in the 1990s and one-party rule was viewed as dictatorship, autocratic and political anathema.
The UPND appealed to the youth in the 2021 elections. UPND’s message of employment and education opportunities, improvement in the quality of life and getting rid of corruption and fixing the degenerating economy resonated very well with the young people who were the majority of voters.
6. Issue verses personality politics. All those who have keenly followed Zambia’s politics know that inter party political contestation has been characterised by vicious personality attacks.
Political party leaders that have taken the office of President have taken their share of personality attacks from some of their fellow contestants. What is of interest is that Zambian voters have not been persuaded by that line of politics. The voters have focused more on issues that affect their lives. This is a lesson to the current and future political party leaders aspiring to lead this nation.
6. CONCLUSION
Going by the experiences of MMD and PF political leaders have to be on guard when in government because the underlying perception of voters is that “THERE ARE NO OPPORTUNITIES IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THIEVES.”
This perception may not refer to everyone in government at one time. The point is that it is one of the major indexes upon which voters evaluate their leaders. The issue is not whether it is a right or wrong perception. Rather, and more importantly, it is a fundamental basis of losing political power no matter how hardworking or people-centred a team of leaders may think of themselves.
