At the crossroads of democracy: Why Zambia’s 2026 elections matter more than ever
By Jerry Munthali
SINCE attaining independence in 1964, Zambia has built an enviable reputation as a country that resolves political competition through the ballot rather than the bullet.
From the historic 1991 transition from Dr Kenneth Kaunda’s United National Independence Party (UNIP) to Dr Frederick Chiluba’s Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), to subsequent peaceful handovers of power from Levy Mwanawasa to Rupiah Banda, from Mr Banda to Michael Sata in 2011, from Mr Sata to Edgar Lungu in 2015, and from Mr Lungu to President Hakainde Hichilema of the United Party for National Development (UPND) in 2021. Zambia has consistently demonstrated democratic maturity.
These orderly transitions have earned Zambia credibility as a model democracy, an investment destination of choice, and a beacon of peace not only on the African continent but across the world. Investors value predictability. Citizens value stability. And the international community has often pointed to Zambia as proof that competitive politics and peaceful coexistence can thrive side by side.
Yet, as the country prepares for the August 13, 2026 general elections, Zambia stands at a precipice. The next election can either cement these hard-won democratic credentials or trigger a crisis of legitimacy whose consequences could reverberate for years. The stakes could not be higher.
A reform moment under pressure
At the heart of the current debate is the passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 to what has now become Constitution Act No. 13 of 2025. While the amendments were necessary to unlock long-awaited electoral reforms, their late enactment has placed the entire electoral process under severe pressure.
The Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) has raised alarm bells. Its Executive Director, Elijah Rubvuta, warns that “the electoral process is now precariously compressed,” leaving little room for careful design, consultation and public understanding. According to FODEP, the concern is not reform per se, but reform implemented in haste.
Central to this anxiety is the introduction of a Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) system. In principle, MMPR is designed to promote inclusivity and fairness by ensuring that parliamentary representation more accurately reflects the votes cast. However, FODEP argues that Zambia’s version is constitutionally flawed.
“By tying the allocation of proportional representation seats to the presidential vote instead of the parliamentary vote, the system undermines the core principle of proportionality,” Mr Rubvuta observes. He adds that this design “appears politically engineered to guarantee the President’s party a legislative majority and marginalise parties without a strong presidential candidate.”
In essence, what is presented as a proportional system risks becoming a hybrid that sacrifices fair representation for political expediency. FODEP insists that a genuine MMPR system must be anchored in parliamentary results if it is to reflect the true will of voters in choosing their legislature.
Ambiguities and risks
Beyond principle, there are serious operational questions. Linking parliamentary proportional seats to the presidential vote disadvantages parties that contest only parliamentary or local government elections. It also creates confusion in the event of a presidential run-off.
“What happens in a run-off scenario?” Mr Rubvuta asks. “Do you base proportional allocation on first-round results, which exclude most candidates, or on the final winner-takes-all outcome? This contradiction remains unresolved.”
Such ambiguities, left unaddressed, could open the door to legal disputes and political rejection of results, which outcomes Zambia can ill afford.
Delimitation: The transparency deficit
Equally troubling is the lack of transparency surrounding constituency delimitation. The 2019 Delimitation Report proposed increasing constituencies from 156 to 250, creating 94 new seats. However, the amended Constitution permits an increase to only 211 constituencies, creating 55 new seats.
Authorities have indicated they will be “guided” by the 2019 report, but the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has yet to explain how it will reduce the proposed 94 constituencies to the constitutionally sanctioned 55. Which provinces will lose seats? What criteria will be applied?
“The absence of a public formula fosters suspicion and the perception of potential gerrymandering,” FODEP cautions. With the certification of the new Voters’ Register set for April 30, 2026, time is running out for meaningful consultation, boundary validation and public engagement. Rushing delimitation in secrecy risks eroding public trust and undermining the legitimacy of new boundaries.
Lessons from the past
Zambia does not need to look far back to understand the dangers of contested elections. The pre-2021 period was marked by controversy and, in some instances, violence. The relative calm witnessed during recent by-elections, including in Chawama, should not be taken for granted.
“Credible elections are the bedrock of the social contract,” Mr Rubvuta notes. “They ensure public acceptance of outcomes and prevent post-election conflict.” Key to this credibility is the impartial application of the law.
Here, too, concerns persist. The failure to repeal the outdated Public Order Act and replace it with the promised Public Gatherings Bill remains a significant setback. In the absence of reform, the professional and neutral conduct of law enforcement during campaigns becomes even more critical to maintaining a level playing field.
Voices from Transparency International Zambia (T1-Z)
Transparency International Zambia (TI-Z) echoes many of these concerns. TI-Z Governance and Institutional Strengthening Manager, Chimuka Nachibinga, notes that the road to 2026 is marked by “significant institutional and legislative developments that demand urgent attention.”
He points to constitutional amendments, the review of the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016, and constituency delimitation as reforms intended to strengthen democracy, but only if implemented transparently and inclusively.
“The credibility of the 2026 elections hinges on the ability of stakeholders to undertake these processes in a manner that is transparent, accountable, and inclusive,” Mr Nachibinga says. He warns that without a credible, violence-free and fair election, Zambia risks instability, weakened legitimacy of leaders and erosion of democratic progress.
Youth, women and the future
Perhaps the most decisive factor in 2026 will be participation. Youth and women constitute the demographic majority, and the updated Voters’ Roll includes a significant number of first-time voters. Their engagement is not optional; it is indispensable.
For young people, grappling with unemployment and economic uncertainty, turnout will be a powerful barometer of political accountability. For women, the flawed MMPR design represents a missed opportunity for genuine proportional representation.
“Participation must be informed and meaningful,” FODEP stresses. “The system must truly amplify voices, not merely give the illusion of inclusion.”
A defining moment
Zambia stands at a defining moment. The compressed timeline, the complexity of a new electoral system, opaque delimitation and inadequate voter education together form the greatest operational risk to the 2026 elections. Yet within this challenge lies opportunity for stakeholders act with urgency and integrity.
Heightened vigilance from civil society, a responsible media, professional state institutions and genuine engagement by the ECZ and government can still salvage and strengthen the process.
The choice is stark. August 13, 2026 can reaffirm Zambia’s democratic resilience and global standing or plunge the nation into a crisis of legitimacy. Immediate transparency on delimitation, a real commitment to voter education, and impartial conduct from all institutions are not luxuries. They are necessities for the survival of Zambia’s democracy.
