The Editor Zambia
Chris Zumani Zimba’s proposed conditions for persuading the UPND New Dawn government to avoid a presidential election petition do not amount to dialogue, reconciliation, or a national unity government.
They instead amount to political blackmail dressed up in the language of peace because the mere proposition that the UPND should surrender cabinet positions, diplomatic appointments, permanent secretary positions, parastatal chief executive positions and dozens of district commissioner positions to the defeated NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance as the price for not challenging the election results is not only constitutionally troubling but politically insulting to the millions of Zambians who voted. 
There is nothing wrong with dialogue after an election, and there is nothing wrong with reconciliation, political tolerance, or discussing electoral reforms.
But dialogue cannot become a bargaining mechanism in which a victorious political party is effectively told that it must purchase the peace of the country from a losing party.
That is not national unity but an attempt to convert an electoral defeat into political entitlement.
The August 13 election produced a clear mandate for President Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND from all parts of Zambia, including the so- called strongholds of the NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance.
Zambians from all tribes and regions across all ten provinces participated in the election and gave the President another mandate to govern.
The democratic principle is straightforward because parties contest elections, citizens vote, and the candidate who wins assumes the responsibility of governing.
The defeated candidate does not subsequently become entitled to a share of government simply because he threatens to petition the result.
The most troubling aspect of Zumani Zimba’s proposal is its implied linkage between appointments and the decision to challenge the election.
If the NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance genuinely believes that the election was rigged, it has a constitutional avenue available to demonstrate that allegation.
It should take the matter to court and present evidence. But if it is prepared to abandon the petition in exchange for cabinet positions, diplomatic posts, permanent secretary positions, parastatal appointments, and district commissioner positions, what exactly is being negotiated?
That arrangement would create the dangerous impression that the election was not really about the people’s mandate but about what political parties could extract from one another after the votes were counted.
It would also create tacit admission by the ruling party that it has something to hide. Why should an electoral winner give government positions to an opponent in exchange for an undertaking not to challenge the result if the winner is completely confident that the election was free and fair?
The same problem applies to the demand for appointments for NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance members. Government appointments are not compensation for electoral defeat.
Cabinet ministers and other senior public officials are appointed on the basis of constitutional responsibilities, competence, trust, and the President’s assessment of what is required to govern effectively.
They cannot be distributed as political ransom.
The demand for the unconditional release of more than 60 NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance members is equally problematic.
Political reconciliation does not mean abolishing the rule of law.
If individuals have been arrested and charged, their cases must be determined according to the law. If they are innocent, the courts should establish that.
If there are procedural violations, those issues can be addressed through the appropriate legal mechanisms. But a presidential amnesty negotiated as part of a political pact would send the message that political affiliation places people above the law.
The cases involving Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu should likewise not become bargaining chips. If there are charges against them, let the courts deal with them.
If the prosecution has no sustainable case, the law provides remedies. The President should not be expected to interfere with judicial processes simply to manufacture a political settlement.
It is particularly difficult to understand why a party that claims to have won hundreds of seats should simultaneously demand government positions from the party that won the presidential election.
If NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance candidates won particular parliamentary or local government seats, their mandate comes from the voters in those constituencies. It does not require incorporation into the executive branch.
Zambia must be careful about creating a precedent in which every defeated presidential candidate can threaten litigation and then demand a negotiated portion of government in return for abandoning the challenge.
Such a system would destroy the meaning of elections. Elections would become opening bids in a post-election negotiation rather than a mechanism through which citizens choose who should govern.
There is also a fundamental contradiction in asking NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance to accept the election result while simultaneously demanding enormous political concessions from the winner.
Genuine acceptance of defeat means accepting the consequences of losing. It does not mean saying, in effect, “we accept the result provided we receive four cabinet positions, four diplomatic posts, four permanent secretary positions, four parastatal chief executive positions and 30 district commissioner positions.”
If the NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance believes the election was stolen, it should petition it. If it does not have sufficient evidence to sustain a petition, it should accept the result.
What it should not do is attempt to hold the country hostage by presenting the ruling party with a political price for allowing democracy to proceed.
President Hichilema and the UPND did not win a mandate from one region or one province. They won a national election. That mandate belongs to Zambians, not to the UPND as a political possession.
The government’s obligation is, therefore, to govern all citizens, including those who voted for NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance. But governing everyone is very different from handing over portions of the executive government to an electoral opponent as a reward for not going to court.
Zambia certainly needs peace, reconciliation, and political maturity. It also needs electoral reforms where genuine weaknesses are identified. But reconciliation cannot be built on blackmail, and national unity cannot be purchased through political appointments.
The most dignified course for NRPUP/ Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance is, therefore, simple. If it has compelling evidence that the presidential election was unlawfully conducted, it should present that evidence before the courts.
If it does not, it should accept the verdict of the electorate and provide a responsible opposition. That is how democracy matures.
The UPND should likewise resist the temptation to negotiate away the people’s mandate. It should govern inclusively, respect the rights of its opponents, and allow the courts to function independently.
But it should not surrender public offices, interfere with prosecutions, or create a political pact merely to prevent an opponent from exercising or threatening to exercise a constitutional right.
Peace in Zambia should never be held for ransom. Neither should the people’s vote.
