LUSAKA – Prominent Zambian opposition figure, Linda Kasonde, has voiced strong concerns regarding the state of democratic freedoms in the country, specifically alleging a curtailment of the freedom of assembly under the incumbent United Party for National Development (UPND) administration. Kasonde's remarks, which resonate with sentiments expressed by various civil society organisations and opposition factions, suggest a growing apprehension over the operational space for political expression and public gatherings.
The freedom of assembly is a cornerstone of any democratic society, enshrined in Zambia's Constitution and various international human rights instruments to which the nation is a signatory. It allows citizens to gather peacefully to express their views, protest, or advocate for change. However, Kasonde's assertion implies that this fundamental right is increasingly being restricted, potentially through administrative hurdles, selective application of public order laws, or an overly cautious approach by law enforcement agencies when opposition groups seek to convene.
Historically, Zambia has had a complex relationship with the Public Order Act, a colonial-era law that has often been criticised for being used by successive governments to suppress dissent. While the UPND, then in opposition, championed reforms to this Act, its application under the current government remains a point of contention. Critics argue that despite promises of reform, the spirit of the law continues to be leveraged to limit opposition activities, thereby creating an uneven playing field in the political arena.
Such restrictions, if indeed prevalent, could have far-reaching implications for Zambia's democratic health. They could stifle public discourse, limit accountability, and potentially lead to increased political polarisation. For a nation that prides itself on its democratic credentials, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their political affiliation, can freely and peacefully assemble is paramount to fostering an inclusive and vibrant political landscape. The government's response to these concerns, and its commitment to upholding constitutional freedoms, will be closely watched by both local and international observers.
Observers note that the government's narrative often emphasizes maintaining law and order and preventing public disturbances, particularly in the wake of past instances of political violence. However, critics argue that these justifications are sometimes used to disproportionately target opposition gatherings, while ruling party events face fewer obstacles. This perceived double standard further fuels the debate about the impartiality of state institutions and the true extent of democratic space under the new dawn administration.
