The Editor Zambia
Claims that Zambia’s delimitation exercise is a sinister political plot are long on suspicion and short on evidence.
The recent arguments advanced by netizen evangelist Sishuwa Sishuwa paint a dramatic picture of a government supposedly scheming to manipulate constituencies for partisan gain. 
Yet when stripped of rhetoric, the reality is far simpler and far more democratic: delimitation is about representation, service delivery, and correcting long-standing imbalances in how citizens are served.
Zambia has grown significantly in population, urban expansion, and settlement patterns over the years, meaning communities that were once small have become large population centres.
Rural areas that were sparsely connected now contain thriving settlements spread across vast distances. It is, therefore, entirely reasonable for the government and the ECZ to review constituency boundaries so that Members of Parliament can effectively represent people.
This is not desperation. It is governance.
For years, many constituencies have become too large geographically or too populated numerically for one MP to serve efficiently.
In some urban seats, populations have ballooned beyond manageable levels, while in some rural areas, a constituency may stretch across difficult terrain where communities are separated by rivers, poor roads, and long travel times.
To pretend that the country should remain frozen in outdated electoral boundaries would be irresponsible.
Those attacking delimitation conveniently ignore that constituency creation is not a new idea invented by President Hakainde Hichilema.
Zambia has periodically reviewed boundaries under previous administrations because population shifts demand, it not to mention the fact that no serious democracy keeps electoral maps unchanged forever while citizens multiply and migrate.
The suggestion that delimitation is merely a tool to solve internal UPND adoption battles is particularly weak because every political party in Zambia has internal competition.
That is the nature of democracy from UNIP, MMD, PF, and now UPND. To claim as our good arm-chair critic Sishuwa Sishuwa I arguing that a constitutional and administrative process involving national institutions is designed simply to settle party rivalries gives far too much importance to ordinary political contests.
The argument also underestimates Zambians, who vote according to their convictions rather than blindly following maps.
Equally, misleading is the argument that only certain provinces stand to benefit because delimitation, when properly undertaken, considers several factors, including population trends, accessibility, community cohesion, communication networks, and effective representation.
It is not a crude numbers game because a densely populated urban seat may need division because of population pressure while a large rural constituency may also need division because residents are too dispersed for one office bearer to serve properly.
That means both urban and rural Zambia can legitimately benefit.
Grossly misinformed critics like Sishuwa Sishuwa often cite Lusaka and Copperbelt as if they alone deserve new constituencies.
While fast-growing urban areas require attention, so do remote communities where citizens travel long distances just to reach constituency offices or government services. National development demands fairness to both the crowded township and the distant village.
Another exaggerated claim being peddled by our good academic Sishuwa Sishuwa is that delimitation is part of a grand design to abolish democracy or extend presidential rule.
Such alarmism ignores one crucial fact: constitutional changes in Zambia require institutional scrutiny, parliamentary approval, and public debate.
Zambia is not governed by decree. There are checks and balances, courts, parliament, civil society, and a vocal media environment.
If critics disagree with specific proposals, they should engage the substance instead of predicting dictatorship at every turn as our man from South Africa is hastily concluding at every given time.
President Hichilema’s administration has repeatedly emphasised decentralisation, citizen participation, and improved service delivery.
This means delimitation fits within that broader framework since more constituencies can mean more CDF access points, closer parliamentary oversight, stronger local advocacy, and easier engagement between voters and elected leaders.
For ordinary citizens, the issue is practical. They ask: Can my MP reach us? Can our roads, clinics, and schools receive proper attention? Can our concerns be heard quickly? These are the real questions, not elite conspiracy theories.
It is also worth noting that no constituency guarantees victory for any party. Zambia’s political history is full of surprises where so-called strongholds have shifted. Voters are not prisoners of geography.
They can and do punish poor performance. Therefore, the claim that creating a constituency automatically hands victory to one side is politically convenient but democratically false.
What Zambia needs now is sober debate. If there are concerns about methodology, let stakeholders demand transparency.
If there are disputed figures, let data be published. If communities object to boundaries, let consultations continue. That is a healthy democracy.
But to dismiss the entire process as evil before its completion is neither constructive nor credible.
Delimitation should be viewed as an opportunity to modernise Zambia’s representation system in line with current realities. It can bring government closer to people, ease pressure on oversized constituencies, and strengthen accountability.
The devil is not in delimitation as Sishuwa Sishuwa has concluded but lies in turning every reform into a political scare campaign.
