Democracy and Authoritarianism in Zambia - Essay Example

Democracy and itarianism in Zambia Zambia is the country that, until October 1964, was known as Northern Rhodesia. Prior to attaining independence, the country was administered by the British South Africa Company from 1911, later by the United Kingdom government as a British protectorate from 1924. Zambia’s political framework is that of a presidential representative democratic republic. The powers of the head of state, as well as those of the head of government, is vested in the President. Executive power resides in the government, while legislative power is shared by both the government and parliament. Kaunda’s dictatorship Zambia’s constitution, originally promulgated in 1964, was abrogated on August 25, 1973, upon which time the new constitution came into effect. This constitution was significant, in that it officially put into place the “one-party participatory democracy.” A strong President, in the person of Kenneth Kaunda, and a unicameral 138-member National Assembly comprised the executive and legislative branches. The United National Independence Party (UNIP), which was formed in 1959 and held power from 1964 to 1991, was the sole legal party, the Central Committee of which formulated the national policy. The cabinet enforced the central committee’s policy. During this time of single-party monopoly, Kaunda maintained power over the country. While elections were held to install the president, the new constitution provided that the sole candidate for president was whoever the UNIP would select in a general party conference. The constitution also provided that the second-ranking government official would be the UNIP’s secretary general. This Zambian style authoritarian democracy came to an end in 1990 when, after a spate of riots and an attempted coup d’etat, President Kaunda signed legislation that terminated UNIP’s power monopoly and bowed to the public clamor for a multi-party system. Due to this, the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) gained prominence, with a membership that included prominent Zambians, militant labor leaders, and UNIP defectors. A second new constitution was enacted in August 1991, after contentious negotiations between the Kaundan government and opposition reformist groups. The new National Assembly was expanded to 158 members, an electoral commission was formed, and most importantly, the new constitution allowed for more than one presidential candidate, and such candidate need not emanate from the UNIP. In a further amendment to the constitution in 1996, new limits were imposed on the power of the presidency, such as a two-term limit to be applied retroactively. Out of Zambia’s national assembly, 150 representatives are directly appointed by the people, and eight are appointed by the president. As to local governments, Zambia is composed of nine provinces, each of which is governed by an appointed deputy minister. Chiluba’s ascendancy The 1991 elections resulted in MMD candidate Frederick Chiluba assuming the presidency with a landslide 81% of the vote, against a humbled Kenneth Kaunda. The opposition group also won majority of the elective parliamentary seats, with 125 out of 150 going to its members. It was not long, however, before the MMD abandoned its reforms platform and instead pursued propagation in office. Chiluba amended the constitution in time for the 1996 election, to exclude Kaunda and other prominent oppositionists from candidacy. He went on to win the election against 5 other candidates, but exercise was marred by rampant irregularities, and oppositionists and NGOs denounced its results. Upon expiration of his second term Chiluba’s supporters pushed a bid to amend the constitution again to allow for a third term, but protests from civil society and the opposition defeated this move. A succession of authoritarian rulers? Chiluba was succeeded, albeit by a narrow margin, by MMD party mate Levy Mwanawasa, who assumed office in 2002. Mwanawasa went on to win the 2006 election with a wider margin, but he died in office in 2008. This president appeared sincere in his promise to pursue reforms, and to prove it allowed for his flamboyant predecessor Chiluba to be arrested for embezzlement and corruption. However, Mwanawasa still demonstrated an authoritarian streak when he issued in 2004 a deportation order against Roy Clarke, a British citizen and long-time Zambian resident. It was a bid to silence Clarke, who published a satirical attack against the president. Also, Mwanawasa slackened in his second term in his bid to institute reforms, and the charges against Chiluba progressed to nowhere. Zambian vice president Rupiah Banda succeeded the late Mwanawasa upon the latter’s death in 2008, and he still holds office today. Analysis The foregoing narration highlighted the persistent problem of Zambia with authoritarianism and corruption, despite repeated promises of reform and observance of true democracy. After deposing the long-sitting Kaunda, Chiluba who rose on the hope of democratic plurality later transformed into one who, like Kaunda, attempted to propagate himself indefinitely in power. Even Mwanawasa showed a tendency to stifle dissent and employ authoritarian tactics, which may have continued had it not been for his untimely demise. The successive redefinition of what “democratic principles” meant, to be sure, is not true only in Zambia. The report of the Council on Foreign Relations (Democracy Without Illusions, 1997) observed this to be true throughout the nineties particularly in countries that used to form the Soviet Union, as well as the new democracies in all the major continents worldwide. The simple fact is that US style democracy cannot be supplanted in other cultures that had for decades labored under totalitarian regimes. In some cases, it is the US itself that delays the transition, by “favoring friendly tyrants for the wrong reasons – because they appear to be men of action, because they are willing to do its bidding, and because they are good at flattering high-level visitors.” (Democracy Without Illusions, 1997) At other times, it is necessary to subordinate the push towards democracy in favor of other, more urgent, concerns that must be addressed immediately. The case of Zambia can be viewed as a classic case of competitive authoritarianism. These are regimes where formal democratic institutions are viewed as a “contest” or competition by which competing parties vie for power, but in so doing employ fraud, civil liberties violations, and abuse of state and media resources. It is viewed by Levitsky and Way (2007) as a hybrid political system which exhibits mixed characteristics of both democracy and authoritarianism. Applied to Zambia, Levistsky et al observed that financial aid and organizational muscle com from political, economic, and military actors who defected from the governing majority; nevertheless, it is the weakness of the incumbent, not opposition strength, that spells its downfall and drives transition. Will Zambia eventually emerge out of competitive democracy and eventuality evolve complete plurality? Studies express a guarded optimism that such is possible, but because of the cultures involved, may take many more years to mature or a very strong political will in the leadership to push the initiative forwards. In Zambia, the official website shows a confluence of many divergent viewpoints and interests represented. For each succeeding regime, there appears to be a move closer to limiting the powers and prerogatives of the chief executive and more power residing in the representatives of the people. It has only been forty-five years since Zambia gained its freedom. The country may merely be going through its growing pains, and then again there may be aspects of the hybrid democracy that may never be overcome. Even so, Zambia has come a long way since the Kaunda dictatorship, and a gradually strengthening civil society and enlightened citizenry could only help accelerate the process towards true democracy. REFERENCES “Democracy without Illusions (1997)”, Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion, pp. 155-166. The Council on Foreign Relations, through the Carnegie Endowment. Retrieved 1 June 2009 from: Duke, L. (1996) “Zambian Faces Difficult Reelection Campaign; Chiluba, Who Ousted Longtime Strongman, is Now Accused of Backpedaling on Democracy”, The Washington Post, 25 July 1996. Retrieved 1 June 2009 from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-797351.html> Haber, S. & Menaldo, V. (2008) Do Natural Resources Fuel Authoritarianism?A Reappraisal of the Resource Curse. Retrieved 1 June 2009 from: Hutchings, J.D. (2007), The State, Development, and Persistent Authoritarianism. McGill University, Montreal. Retrieved 1 June 2009 from: Kyambalesa, H. (2005) A Message from the President, AFC Party. Retrieved 1 June 2009 from: Levitsky, S. & Way, L. A. (2007) Competitive Authoritarianism: The Origins and Dynamics of Hybrid Regimes in the Post-Cold War Era. Retrieved 1 June 2009 from: Lindberg, S. I. (2006) “Tragic Protest: Why Do Opposition Parties Boycott Elections?” Electoral Authoritarianism, Schedler, A., ed. Retrieved 1 June 2009 from: Read More