Opinion | Zambia: Beyond election winners and losers

In the wake of Zambia's latest election, the conversation has primarily revolved around the winner and loser. President Hakainde Hichilema claimed victory; the opposition party suffered a setback. Many commentators have echoed similar sentiments, focusing on personal attributes and numerical results. However, such analyses are insufficient and risk undermining the essential role of elections in a democracy.

Elections are far more than mere contests of personalities and numbers; they are the cornerstone of democratic governance, embodying the rights, procedures, and participation that give them meaning. To view elections solely as victories and defeats is to overlook the profound significance of these events and weaken the democratic fabric.

At their heart, elections are about rights. They are not merely about the act of voting but about the recognition and protection of fundamental freedoms. The right to vote, stand for office, and participate freely and fairly are intertwined and indispensable. When these rights are denied or compromised, the legitimacy of the electoral process is compromised.

Beyond rights, elections hinge on procedure. A flawed process can erode trust, irrespective of the outcome. Transparency in administration, impartial oversight, and adherence to legal safeguards are vital. In Zambia, questions have been raised about the handling of critical stages such as vote counting, result declaration, and access to justice for grievances.

If these procedures are shrouded in opacity or manipulated, the credibility of the election is compromised. Participation is equally crucial. Elections are not just about casting a ballot; they are about the broader engagement of citizens in nation-building. Through participation, citizens shape the sovereign state and uphold accountability.

When participation is restricted—through disenfranchisement, exclusion, or suppression of dissent—democracy suffers. The winners-losers narrative fails to address these deeper concerns. Reducing elections to a binary of winners and losers dilutes their true purpose, weakens accountability, and undermines the broader democratic goals of strengthening governance and fostering nation-building.

In Zambia, concerns about procedural integrity, restricted participation, and potential rights violations cast doubt on whether the elections fulfilled their democratic purpose. To truly evaluate the quality of these elections, we must ask whether they secured the enjoyment of rights, whether participation was free and meaningful, whether freedoms were protected, whether the procedure was credible, and whether the process advanced nation-building.

If any of these questions yield a negative answer, then the elections have fallen short of their democratic mandate. Zambia's experience serves as a cautionary tale for other democracies, reminding us that elections are not mere games or trivialities but the lifeblood of democratic progress.