Parliament must not legislate democracy in a hurry  

THE concerns raised by lawyer Jonas Zimba and Chapter One Foundation executive director Josiah Kalala should not be dismissed as routine political alarm.

They go to the heart of democratic governance: whether laws that shape elections, public participation, parliamentary representation and civic freedoms should be pushed through Parliament at great speed, especially in an election year.

The reported presentation of more than 70 Bills before Parliament is, by any democratic standard, extraordinary. Law-making is not a clerical exercise.

It is not merely about tabling Bills, reading titles, voting by numbers and moving on. It is about scrutiny, consultation, debate and national ownership.

When Parliament is asked to process such a heavy legislative load within a compressed period, the danger is obvious: Members of Parliament may pass laws whose full implications they have not properly studied, while citizens and stakeholders are denied meaningful participation.

Mr Zimba’s warning that the process risks setting a dangerous precedent is therefore important. His particular concern over the Electoral Process Amendment Bill speaks directly to public trust in the coming August 13 general election.

Electoral laws must never appear to be designed for the convenience of those in power. Even where government insists its intentions are clean, perception matters.

If reforms affecting constituencies, representation, public gatherings or candidate participation are introduced too close to an election, citizens are entitled to ask whether the playing field is being adjusted after the match has already begun.

Mr Kalala’s intervention adds constitutional weight to the argument. Article 89 of the Constitution requires public involvement in law-making. That obligation cannot be satisfied by hurried notices, token submissions or symbolic consultations. Public participation must be real.

Citizens must have access to the Bills, enough time to understand them, and a genuine opportunity to influence their content. Anything less reduces constitutional democracy to a performance.

The issue is not that Parliament has no power to make laws. It does. The issue is whether that power is being exercised with restraint, transparency and fidelity to democratic principles.

Laws passed in haste often carry hidden defects. Worse, laws passed in a politically charged season can deepen suspicion, provoke legal challenges and weaken public confidence in institutions that should unite the nation.

Particularly troubling are Bills touching on elections, public gatherings and human rights institutions. These are not ordinary administrative matters. They define the conditions under which citizens organise, speak, assemble, campaign and choose leaders.

Elections are not protected only on polling day; they are protected in the months before polling day, when the rules of participation are either fair or manipulated.

Parliament should therefore slow down. It should separate urgent national business from politically sensitive reforms. It should allow proper committee review, full debate, civil society input and public explanation. The ruling party, if confident of its mandate, should welcome scrutiny rather than fear delay.

Democracy is not strengthened by legislative speed. It is strengthened by legitimacy. Zambia does not need laws that are merely passed. It needs laws that citizens can trust.