….“Progress is impossible without change, and those who can not change their minds can not change anything.” — George Bernard Shaw
By EditorZambia
The passage of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 marks a defining moment in the country’s democratic evolution. 
While critics have rushed to declare the process illegitimate and the outcome dangerous, a calmer, more honest reading of events shows that Members of Parliament acted within their mandate and in the national interest.
Bill 7 is not a coup against democracy; it is a pragmatic attempt to modernise governance, improve representation, and unblock constitutional bottlenecks that have constrained development for years.
Much noise has been made about the suspension of certain Standing Orders to allow Parliament to complete the bill in one sitting. Yet Standing Orders are not sacred scripture; they are internal rules designed to facilitate business, and they explicitly allow for suspension under exceptional circumstances.
Parliament exercised a power it lawfully possesses. To suggest that MPs somehow acted unconstitutionally by using rules provided for in the same parliamentary framework is to confuse political disagreement with legal impropriety.
Critics such as Professor Cephas Lumina argue that Bill 7 is void ab initio because of alleged defects in its initiation. That view, however learned, is not gospel. Constitutional interpretation in a democracy is not the preserve of one academic opinion, no matter how eloquently argued. Zambia has courts precisely because constitutional questions are contested.
Parliament is entitled to weigh competing views and proceed where it believes the national interest lies. To insist that MPs must abandon legislation simply because one expert says so is to elevate technocracy above democracy.
Equally troubling is the growing culture of political intimidation masquerading as moral authority. Calls by opposition politician figures like Dr. Fred M’membe urging MPs to boycott Parliament were not acts of principle; they were acts of avoidance.
Democracy is not defended by empty seats. MPs were elected to debate, vote, and take responsibility for their decisions, not to hide from them. Those who stayed away forfeited their right to complain about outcomes they refused to influence.
Bill 7’s opponents have also relied heavily on fear-mongering. We are told the amendments will “entrench incumbency,” “expand executive power,” and “destroy democracy.” These claims are repeated so often that they are beginning to sound like slogans rather than arguments.
In reality, many of the proposed changes are administrative and corrective: aligning electoral timelines, rationalising by-elections, and addressing representation gaps created by population growth. These are not sinister plots; they are governance necessities in a country whose population and political complexity have outgrown an outdated constitutional framework.
The proposed increase in constituencies, for example, is framed as a scheme to manipulate elections. Yet every serious democracy periodically revisits constituency boundaries to ensure fair representation.
Zambia is no exception. If anything, failing to adjust constituencies in the face of demographic change would itself be undemocratic.
Concerns about the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) should be addressed through oversight and transparency, not by paralysing reform altogether.
Some critics, including Mr. Sakwiba Sikota (who was recently defeated on the subject in a televised debate) weakly argued that the government should focus on economic hardships rather than constitutional amendments. This is a false choice. A functional constitutional order is not a luxury to be postponed until all problems are solved; it is the foundation upon which solutions are built.
Governance reforms and economic reforms are not competitors—they are partners. Countries that develop sustainably do so because their institutions are fit for purpose.
It is also telling that the loudest opposition to Bill 7 comes from familiar faces who oppose nearly every initiative of the current administration.
Dr. M’membe and others, the likes of Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa, one Professor Lumina, turned the constitutional debate into a perpetual protest movement.
While dissent is healthy, reflexive opposition is not. Zambians should ask whether these voices are offering constructive alternatives or simply resisting change because it does not originate from them.
Members of Parliament who voted for Bill 7 demonstrated political maturity and courage. They understood that leadership sometimes requires making unpopular decisions in the face of noise and pressure. They chose engagement over boycott, reform over stagnation, and responsibility over theatrics. History tends to be kinder to such choices than the headlines of the moment.
Zambians should, therefore, resist the temptation to be swept up by alarmist rhetoric.
Constitutional reform is never neat, never universally loved, and never free of controversy. But it is often necessary. Bill 7 is not the end of democracy; it is part of its ongoing negotiation.
Those who disagree are free to challenge it in court, campaign against it, and argue their case to the public. What they should not do is delegitimise Parliament itself simply because it exercised its lawful authority.Progress is rarely announced with applause from all sides.
Sometimes, it arrives amid protests, petitions, and pessimism. Bill 7 is such a moment.
Zambians would do well to judge it not by the loudness of its critics but by the seriousness of its intent: to improve governance, strengthen representation, and move the country forward.
