PARLIAMENT – THE PEOPLE’S VOICE (?) By DARLINGTON CHILUBA

THE strength of any democratic society is that it thrives on protecting and enshrining into law the interaction of politics, economics and social pillars.
In fact, this is the essence of parliament, to reflect and represent progressive society through legislation that is not deliberately punitive to the least among us.
Any observer of history will agree that one of the most difficult things to legislate is human behaviour. Yet interestingly, one of the worst things a law can do is to control and punish the natural dynamics of human behaviour.

The role of parliament in a democracy cannot be overstated. Of the three arms of government, the legislature singularly boasts the most elected representatives of respective constituencies.

The human element of society is embedded in the legislature. The diverse cultures and norms, the acceptable norms and behaviours that push boundaries – whether abortion rights or child rights – all find a place to be fully attended here.
Constituencies constantly change due to migration and other factors, and these influences infuse their evolving ideals through parliament.
When parliament begins to legislate or pass laws for society as if it were the judiciary which operates in a vacuum by design, then it has foregone society and, therefore, its principles.
Democracies protect society while dictatorships protect the leader without question. This disparity is essential to understand that the gift of life is not a reward from (any) government and cannot be minimised as such.
It is important to distinguish public interest from personal interest. The bill of rights, for example, which is found in Article V of Zambian law goes to great lengths to spell the basic attendant rights.
Some of the core guarantees of this law are found in Cap 24(1) and propose that the interpretation of these rights “shall be the basis of Zambia’s social, political, legal, economic and cultural policies and State action.”
Cap 34(1) gets more details and affirms that “A person has the right to freedom of expression which includes – (a) freedom to hold an opinion; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (c) freedom of artistic creativity; (d) academic freedom; and (e) freedom of scientific and technological research, as prescribed.”
To summarise such poignant excerpts of law hurriedly would undermine the value placed on rights. Even so, the law makes clear that nations are founded on the pre-existence of rights.
In other words, basic rights are a precursor to a functional society and largely dictate the interplay between and among different societal layers from legal to cultural norms.
Interpretively, the exchange of ideas is based on evolution of thought about culture, law, the economy and so on. This means restricting a natural gathering of people to share decent ideas becomes a natural affront to human rights.
Lastly, individual freedoms, which were reintroduced in Zambia only 30 years ago. Some of the younger generations have not known a time when an idea would have them arrested without due process.
The fault here is solely on selective memory that has made the fight for democracy appear apologetic so that the abuse of rights from the 70s to 80s is lost in translation. Those born in a democracy fought in their absence have taken the distorted history as a birthright.
When laws become preoccupied with controlling the natural realms of the most enduring resource – which is human capital, perhaps then citizens will understand that independence is not a green flag painted with symbolism.
Real independence exists when people are actually free, when parliament debates what progresses their constituencies above heralding appointing authorities.
The opposite is a precursor to a repressive system that only serve to constrict citizens and lays a platform for implosion.