Electoral systems have a direct connection to governance.

In Zambia, the form of governance

followed is democracy, this is the rule of the people by the people themselves. This therefore
means that the electoral system used must be in line with the democratic form of governance.
This academic piece of writing is therefore aimed at critically discussing the Zambian
electoral system in relation to governance and then showing whether electoral governance is
attainable given the Zambian current situation. This essay constitutes an introduction, the
main body- where the actual discussion will take place and lastly, a conclusion which is the
summary of the whole essay.
An electoral system refers to the method that a given country adopts for choosing national
leaders. Gewald (2008) asserts that it encompasses procedures, rules and regulations for the
electorate to exercise their right to vote, determines how elected parliamentarians occupy
their seats in legislature. In other words, electoral systems determine the nature of
representation and governance anchored upon the principle of one man one vote. The value
of an election in a democracy is either enhanced or diminished depending on the nature of the
electoral system being used.
Governance is defined by Brown (2005) as “… the traditions and institutions by which
authority in a country is exercised for the common good. This includes (i) the process by
which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced, (ii) the capacity of the
government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies, and (iii) the
respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social
interactions among them”.
Carothers (2008) defines electoral governance as a set of interrelated activities that involve:
the enactment of rules; the application of these rules; and dispute resolution. Rule-making is
legislative; implementation is administrative; and dispute resolution is judicial. There is also
a preliminary stage in which decisions are made regarding who has the authority to determine
the rules, goals and constitutional dimension.
There are many electoral systems in the world but there is little consensus as to which is best
for democratic governance and political stability. Each country tries to adopt an electoral
system that best suits its own political traditions, culture, history and party system. Globally,
there are four main types of electoral systems and these are: First-Past-the-Post also known as
Single-Member-Plurality (SMP); the Single-Member-Majoritarian (SMM); the Proportional-
Representational (PR); and the Mixed-Member-Proportional (MMP).(Brown, 2005)
Currently, Zambia is using the Single Member Majoritarian System (SMMS). This is the
system that was recently used in the 2016 general elections. In the past, there have been many
recommendations for this system to be adopted in Zambia but it looks like the idea was not
supported by the then leaders. The people of Zambia have been rooting for this system for
many reasons and now that is has finally been adopted, it has brought immerse happiness to
the people. Because this is a system that is supported by many, that is one thing to show that
people will be encouraged to take part in the governance process of voting for their leaders
and so this is good.(Government of Zambia, 2016).
Under this system, a country is divided into several constituencies. The winner of an election
must obtain an absolute majority of votes in the constituency. This means that a candidate
should win over 50 percent of the votes cast in an election. Government of Zambia (2008)
explains that where there happens to be failure by candidates to meet the 50+1 rule, there is
bound to be an election re-run of the two candidates with the highest votes and the candidate
who manages to win over 50% of the votes is declared the winner.
This electoral system has a great advantage over the Single Member Plurality System. Where
a candidate fails to get an outright majority of votes, elections will have to be conducted
again for the two top winners. This is known as an election re-run.(Carothers, 2010).
For example, Zambia used this electoral system in 1991 for presidential elections in the 1991
Constitution of Zambia. However, there was no re run of the elections because Fredrick
Chiluba won the elections with absolute majority. He obtained over 50 per cent of the votes
cast.
Brown (2005) asserts that this electoral system insures that no candidate wins the seat of
presidency by the rule of minority. For example, a candidate may have the highest votes of
38% because the rest of the voters voted for other, different candidates who happen to have
lower percentages than him. If he is declared winner because he is the highest it would mean
that he has been put into office on account of the minority when the majority; the 72% do not
want him in power. Therefore, the 50 plus one electoral system makes sure that a candidate is
voted into office by over 50% of the voters hence the majority and thereby refuting rule by
the minority.
In relation to governance, the Zambian electoral system is highly dependent on the votes of
the people and because of this it pays particular attention to the voters themselves. Gewald
(2008) supports that it does this through sensitization rallies and more other activities that
educate the people on the duty and responsibility they have in the process of elections.
The Zambian electoral system Facilitates and promotes of a competitive political party
system. This enables voters to choose among a number of political parties and leaders the
best one for themselves. This is a very commendable thing because citizens are not forced
into voting for one person but are given a wide choice and hence are able to govern
themselves through their choices of leadership.(Government of Zambia, 2002)
Looking critically at the Zambian electoral system, it has never been so dependable and
efficient, it has major pitfalls and that is why there have been different changes taking place
in the system and that is why electoral governance cannot really be achieved in in Zambia.
The President of the Republic is mandated to appoint members of parliament, even from the
opposition, to ministerial positions. Because of this, the Zambian electoral system is weak
because it does not allow the people to choose which people should be in charge of which
ministries and these positions are very delicate. By doing this, the president can even weaken
the opposition parties by buying their strong members into his party through those positions.
(Government of Zambia, 2009)
Since 1991the country has held a number of general elections which have been hailed as
representing a growth in Zambia’s democracy, including not so impressive or ‘perceived’
fraudulent elections in 1996 and 2001.In the case of the 2001 elections, most local and
international16election observer’s concluded that the Government of Zambia and the
Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) failed both to administer a fair and transparent
election and to address electoral irregularities that may have affected the outcome of what
proved to be a very close race. According to provisional final results, the MMD’s Levy
Mwanawasa defeated Anderson Mazoka of the opposition United Party for National
Development by less than two percentage points (28.7 % for Mwanawasa versus 26.8 % for
Mazoka). The aggrieved parties, mainly Anderson Mazoka, Godfrey Miyanda and Christon
Tembo went to court with a petition. After a long-protracted hearing and ruling, the Court
ruled in favour of Mwanawasa. (Government of Zambia, 2012)
Elections held thereafter have been under close scrutiny amidst allegations of rigging, and in
all fairness Zambia has had to strive to build confidence in the outcomes of recent elections
including those held in 2006, 2008 and 2011. Relentlessly, the Patriotic Front (PF), founded
as a break-away from the MMD in 2001, challenged the MMD in the fourth election,
defeating the previous ruling party in an election which featured a close race between two
main contenders whose mutual distrust occasioned concern especially against a harsh party
polarization that characterized the run-up to the 2011elections. Michael Chilufya Sata
triumphed over Rupiah Banda, to make him the 5th Zambian President, since independence.
The smooth and peaceful handover of power following the announcement of, particularly the
presidential results, following the September 2011 Elections, raised Zambia’s democratic
credentials in a continent that had experienced several election reversals and contestations18.
In the views of many, the outcome of Zambia’s September 2011 elections reflected the
general wide consent of the population to multi-party democracy, which once more received
affirmation. The elections were widely considered free and fair and the shift of power was
nationally and internationally accepted. (soko and shimizu, 2015).
Post 2011 Elections, the country has experienced unprecedented high levels of political
intolerance. The levels of antagonism amongst the political players, civil society
organizations and sections of the media is evident. The intolerance has resulted much from
perceived government manoeuvres to close up space for participation especially for
opposition parties, civil society and media.
The 2016 elections were even worse because many people have not accepted the party in
power even though they won with the majority vote but the issue is still in court to date and
the people of Zambia are still arguing over how free and fair the elections were.
The Zambian electoral process registers people’s views. It does not discard the views of the
people
With a brief background of the Zambian electoral system one may tell that electoral
governance is still very far from being achieved in Zambia and the controversies make it even
harder for the people to believe if their votes even count at all or they are just being governed
by anyone who has power to make himself president through whatsoever means possible.
In conclusion, it would seem that the political culture of Zambia – in which the preservation
of executive power concentrated overwhelmingly in the hands of one powerful leader – will
first have to change before significant constitutional and electoral reform will take place to
provide for meaningful public participation in governance. By the same token, political
parties will also have to inculcate the same values of equal participation in the internal
democratic functioning of their organisations. The challenges posed by the interface between
tradition and democracy as demonstrated by the institution of chieftaincy and its role in local
governance in Africa, also needs to be resolved. It will further require a maturing of
democracy to accept the role of decentralisation and development through local government,
even when these are controlled by rival opposition parties.
 REFERENCE
Brown, S. (2005). “Foreign Aid and Democracy Promotion: Lessons from Africa,” The
European Journal of Development Research, Vol.17, No.2
Carothers, T. (2006). Confronting the Weakest Link: Aiding Political Parties in New
Democracies, Washington D.C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Carothers, T. (2010). “The Elusive Synthesis”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 21, No. 4
Gewald, J.B. (2008). One Zambia, Many Histories, Brill: Holland.
Government of Zambia (2002). National Decentralisation Policy, Ministry of Local
Government and Housing: Lusaka.
Government of Zambia (2009). Zambia State of Governance Report, Ministry of Justice:
Lusaka.
Soko, M. & Shimizu, M.(2011) UNDP; deepening democracy in Zambia citizen’s
participation.Lusaka: UNDP