Term limits and restricting attempts on the presidency
By Isaac Mwanza
When Zambia attained its Independence in 1964, its first constitution had no law to restrict the number of times one may hold office as President of the Republic, just like there are no term limits for Prime Ministers in Britain, our former colonial master.
Britain does not believe in restricting the number of times one can hold office as Prime Minister provided the party gets the fresh mandate from the people while the American Senate decided to restrict the number of times one may hold office after Franklin D. Roosevelt was popularly elected by the American people for four consecutive times. In Russia, they have a law that allow a person to be benched for one term and come back again to run for Prime Minister for a maximum of two terms.
When Zambia introduced this law to restrict term limits in 1991, some UNIP members and party leaders said it was targeted at Dr. Kaunda. KK however went on to sign the new Constitution into law on 25th August, 1991.
Today, the first debate in Zambia is now about President Lungu’s eligibility to run again in 2021 which the United Party for National Development (UPND) and Heritage Party feel passionate about and have joined the petition to stop him.
The second debate is about an intended law meant to restrict the number of attempts one may run for Presidency during elections. The UPND don’t like anyone discussing this motion at all and have vowed, through its Deputy Secretary General Patrick Mucheleka, to fight this motion in Parliament. We have not yet heard anything from General Miyanda of the Heritage Party.
The common thread of these two debates is the idea of preventing the “wamuyaya” type of leadership on the Zambian political plane.
UPND have no problem spending money to fight Edgar Lungu going standing again but they have a problem against anyone intending to introduce a law that curtails party leaders contesting elections wamuyaya.
I wish the UPND and Heritage Party can offer suggestions on improving the law that is meant to curtail the “wamuyaya” entrenchment syndrome within the leadership of ALL Zambia’s political parties.
Kaunda was magnanimous enough to sign into law the Bill that provided for term limits despite the thoughts by colleagues that it was targeted at him. He could have argued that the practice of 2 terms is not universally accepted in Commonwealth and is not part of the law in Britain.
FTJ Chiluba, had an opportunity when his Parliament had 90% control of Parliament to remove that law but he didn’t. If Edgar Lungu had wanted it removed, he also would have utilised the last amendments to remove it but he didn’t.
UPND must act like Kaunda did by not arguing that no country has a law limiting number of attempts one may run for Presidency but instead support the improvement of a motion that will see our parties harness the potential of other able leaders within the parties to run for Presidency with new agendas than same old messages rejected by the people.
The UPND and Heritage Party ought to support the motion by the Chifubu lawmaker with the same intensity and applying the same resources as they had been applying in to fight Egdar Lungu’s intention to contest elections for the third time.
UPND cannot, in one hand, be championing the fight against Edgar Lungu standing for the third time but, at the same time, supporting the wamuyaya presidency within political parties.
Some of these parties have had their own party constitutions changed just to suit the desires of one leader staying at the helm of the party, a pattern that may replicate itself when such leaders are elected into power. This is one reason such a law cannot be left to party constitutions which are easily altered.