Ten Years Is Enough: Zambia Should Not Swap Its Term Limit for a Promise of Development

Ten Years Is Enough: Zambia Should Not Swap Its Term Limit for a Promise of Development A whisper is turning into a chorus. President Hichilema won a second term on August 13, and under the Constitution it is his last, ending in 2031. Yet a UPND MP has already argued that women…

Ten Years Is Enough: Zambia Should Not Swap Its Term Limit for a Promise of Development

A whisper is turning into a chorus. President Hichilema won a second term on August 13, and under the Constitution it is his last, ending in 2031. Yet a UPND MP has already argued that women want development rather than democracy and should back him to stay beyond 2031. Chilufya Tayali called the ten-year ceiling retrogressive and bad for Zambia. A party official has even argued that Hichilema’s two terms should only begin counting from 2031. None of this is government policy. But ideas floated as tests rarely stay floating.

The false choice

“Development, not democracy” sounds practical, but it treats the vote as a luxury. Elections and term limits are how a country corrects its mistakes. A leader who cannot be removed has little reason to listen when a road is badly built, a tender is rigged or a hospital runs out of drugs.

What our neighbours show

Uganda is the clearest warning. Museveni has ruled since 1986 and extended his stay by removing term limits in 2005 and the age limit in 2017. Reports say MPs received Shs5m each before voting to scrap the limits. He has now won a seventh term, with his son Muhoozi, the army chief, widely seen as being groomed to succeed him. An Afrobarometer survey found that most Ugandans want presidential term and age limits reinstated.

Zimbabwe shows the same appetite with a modern face. After a 2017 coup ended Mugabe’s near four decades in power, Mnangagwa signed a law extending his term to 2030, stretching presidential terms from five years to seven and ending direct election of future presidents, who will instead be chosen by Parliament. Supporters call it stability. Critics call it capture.

Rwanda, from my own knowledge (please verify before publishing), amended its constitution by referendum in 2015. Kagame can now stay in power until 2034, and he won the 2024 election with about 99% of the vote. A result like that reads more like a coronation than a contest.

The honest pluses

Fairness demands we acknowledge that long rule can deliver. Rwanda is clean, orderly and admired for its efficiency. Uganda’s ruler is praised for restoring stability, growing the economy and improving infrastructure. Continuity can protect long projects, whether mines, power plants or debt restructuring. And in principle, voters should decide how long a leader stays.

But look at the price. In Zimbabwe, the president stands accused of rampant corruption and suppressing rights while ordinary people endure hardship despite a growing economy. Development that depends on one man’s indefinite stay is fragile. When he goes, or tires, the system has no trained successors and no tradition of peaceful handover. Rwanda’s order is real, but so is the silence around it.

What it means for young Zambians

Zambia is a young country, and its young people are told to be patient. The presidency, which as far as I know requires a candidate to be at least 35, is already a distant summit. Remove the limit and the ladder gets shorter still. A 25-year-old today could reach 50 without ever seeing a fresh face at State House.

Hichilema himself is the best argument against the idea. He contested five presidential elections before winning in 2021. He got there because Zambia’s system allowed a defeated incumbent to concede and a persistent opponent to win. Take that possibility away and we close the door he walked through.

Elsewhere, alternation has become a source of pride. Ghana, Malawi and Botswana have all seen governing parties lose and leave peacefully, and Zambia’s own 2011 and 2021 handovers belong on that list. That record is worth more than any single term.

A better path

If the goal is stable development, strengthen institutions rather than personalities: an independent electoral commission, a free press, courts that can rule against the government, and space for the opposition. If the term limit must be debated, do it openly, through a referendum, and with one firm safeguard. In Zimbabwe, opponents argued that no amendment should benefit a sitting president. That principle protects everyone, whichever party is in power.

Bill 7 showed how quickly a large majority can move, since it cleared the two-thirds threshold required for constitutional changes. A big majority in the House is not the same as consent from the people. Let Zambians keep their five-year vote and their two-term limit. Leaders who deliver do not need more time. Their record is their campaign.