The Editor Zambia
Some members of civil society organisations are deliberately distorting the healthy democratic debate on the presidential term limit in line with Article 106(2) and (3) of the Zambian Constitution.
Linda Kasonde and some civil society organisations have applied for a permit to protest on the streets over the debate on the presidential limit. 
Analysts observe that Linda Kasonde and her allies have directed their energies at the wrong discourse of the debate because neither the United Party for National Development (UPND) nor President Hakainde Hichilema has announced a third term bid.
Why should Linda Kasonde organise protests against citizens who are simply exercising their democratic right to propose constitutional changes?
A term limit is not the same as the third term, and confusing the two distorts the whole debate. The debate on the table is not about a third term debate but a proposal to remove the presidential term limit. It is about whether the Constitution should continue to bar people from choosing a leader they still want, even after that leader has served a two-five year term limit.
The removal of term limits means democracy shall rest upon the people to decide whether to elect the candidate of their choice. It takes power away from a rigid constitutional clause and returns it to the ballot box. If citizens are tired of a president, they will vote the candidate out. If they still trust and believe that the person is still capable, citizens should be allowed to retain such a candidate.
That is the essence of democracy. The will of the people, expressed freely and regularly, should be the only limit.
Continuing with the status quo of limiting terms is undemocratic and takes away the power from the people to choose a leader of their choice.
It assumes citizens cannot be trusted to judge for themselves. It tells voters that even if they still believe that a leader is still the best person for the job, they are forbidden from retaining such a leader on account of having served as president for two five year term.
That is not protecting democracy. It is restricting it. No clause should be more powerful than the collective will of millions of voters.
The third term is not the same as removing a term limit clause. Therefore, the debate is not about a third term. It is about limitless terms where the people should have the power to decide.
In a system without term limits, every election becomes a referendum on performance. A president who fails will be removed by the voters, not by a constitutional technicality.
A president who succeeds will be rewarded by the voters, not punished by an artificial cut-off.
This is why Linda Kasonde and others who oppose the removal of term limits should stick to debate and not to resort to street protests.
If Linda Kasonde and others believe Zambians do not want limitless terms, let them make that case in public forums, in the media, in the courts, and not on the streets to disrupt public order.
The challenge is on them to convince the Zambian people with arguments, not with fear-mongering propaganda or street protests. Democracy is strengthened when ideas are contested openly.
Linda Kasonde and other civil society organisations should also accommodate views of those proposing five years limitless presidential terms.
Every Zambian should be allowed to debate and contribute to the discourse. If the advocates for keeping term limits are confident that the people will agree with them, they have nothing to fear from a free and open debate.
Who is Linda Kasonde really speaking for? Whose interest is Linda Kasonde serving? To understand whose interests those are, you only need to look at what time Linda Kasonde speaks.
