THE President is perhaps the most coveted executive position or office in any country, whether it is referred to as Prime Minister, Chancellor or other executive titles as guided by the laws of that country.
It is notoriously complex and without apology the highest office in the land. Enshrined in and el evated by the constitution, it con notes the very highest of institu tional authority conceived by law. It is power.
Since 1964 our Constitutions have reserved a section aptly titled “The Executive” which expands on the height and depths of this most unique office. The opening paragraph of this section has always read that “There shall be a President of the Republic of Zambia who shall be the Head of State…”
The 1991 Constitution amended that definition so that it includes and immediately shows the President as “the Head of the Government and the Commander in-Chief of the Defence Forces.” Secondly, they expanded the definition to also show the incumbent as a repository or custodian of all executive power in the country. These amendments were moved from being under the Functions of the President in the 1964 Constitution, to becoming part of the core definition of President as per Article 33 (1) and (2) of the 1991 Constitution.
In other words, the very idea of President is incomplete if it does not capture the President’s con nection and authority over the administration, legal framework and function of government in all its sphere. Even more, the definition of President is only complete once it captures the President’s authority over the defence forces as a sworn protector of the nation and its people to the extent of using force where necessary.
The second portion of the definition reinforces the first two tenets but adds a veiled layer of authority over the unseen and un mentioned functions of the office. Every amendment to the Republican Constitution since 1991 has kept these two coredefinitions of President. So, what does all this mean?
It entails that if democracy is in deed about people power, then the 1991 Constitution did a good job at reminding future Presidents that their mandate came from the electorate. The 1991 Constitution witnessed the rebirth of a people-centric Constitution which honours the electoral process and the elec torate as the reason for the existence and purpose of President.
This is the first noticeable deliberate shift between the 1964 and the 1991 Constitutions. The 2016 Constitution makes this critical note a preamble of the executive section, which is important, but work was already done in 1991.
The founding fathers of Democracy in Zambia led by Dr. Frederick Chiluba have not been recognised enough for legally transferring power back to the people. These tenets now rest in Article 90 and Article 91 (1) and (2) of the 2016 Constitution.
After 1991, the voter was no longer a servant of the elected. Elections were not anymore, a repetitive exercise to maintain the status quo. The President was not equal to an Emperor or King any more, they could be voted out.
It is out of this awareness that people now freely demand reforms and that government is compelled to listen and, more importantly, act. The President is important because it is here, we deposit our hope in the incumbents to embody and exemplify the dignity of the sovereign.
It is in the transient custodians of this office that we place our hope in their fortitude to improve, protect and serve the country in every respect possible – to lead the nation to a promised future.
Therefore, if the President derives positional authority from the people, and if people constantly change, then incumbents must change. This reasoning was not in the 1964 Constitution, let alone the 1972 amendment to become a one-party state.
Indeed, every Constitution we have had, has been a result of an era of either hope or rejection. For instance, 1963-1964: rejection of colonialism and the hopeful transition to independence and the birth of a new nation; 1972-1990: One-party state, nay autocracy; and 1991 being the reintroduction of democracy.
And yet for all this, there is one critical flaw in this Constitutional arrangement of the Executive President. The history of our country at any given time is told by the incumbent.
If for example, the incumbent admires a given predecessor, they can name endless monuments after that predecessor. And the opposite is true; if the President in office dislikes one predecessor or more, it is easy to negate and altogether work to erase their legacy. There is no balance. In the civil service, a President’s word is taken as a directive – an order needing only formalisation for record. In the public sphere, the President’s word, even loosely spoken can communicate the mood, intention and direction of government.
It can galvanise, inspire or cause worry in the nation. This soft fric tion works well for an incumbent President, but this same soft friction turns hard and combustible for an ex-President.
Let us conclude this way for now: that to overcome this complexity of the executive, which is loyal only to the incumbent, there is need for us, in our Constitution to go further and synergise the relationship between the President and voters, on one hand; and the government bureaucratic struc ture on the other.
Hopefully, this will make a government of the people through their vote, and of the people through government action; ultimately creating a President of the people’s power.
