JIMMY MALISENI WEIGHS-IN ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AT COUNCIL LEVEL

POLITICS

By ZPP Newsroom

Source: Zambian Observer

JIMMY MALISENI WEIGHS-IN ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AT COUNCIL LEVEL
The recent discourse surrounding the allocation of local government proportional representation (PR) seats has drawn sharp commentary from governance stakeholders, with Alliance for Community Action (ACA) Executive Director Jimmy Maliseni stepping forward to clarify the mechanics of the system. Across various local authorities, citizens and political observers have expressed bewilderment as to why the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) has been allocated a dominant share of local PR seats, even in municipal councils where individual ward contests revealed deeply fractured support. Mr. Maliseni emphasized that much of the confusion stems from a broader public disconnect regarding the operational realities of the Electoral Process Amendment Act and the wider constitutional framework. Under the mixed-member proportional representation model introduced via recent legislative reforms, seats designated for marginalized groups—including women, youths, and persons with disabilities—are not calculated based on isolated local government victories in specific wards. Instead, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) allocates these seats in direct proportion to the overall national valid votes garnered by each political party's presidential candidate. This statutory mechanism means that a party with a strong national presidential showing accumulates proportional quotas that translate into council seats, regardless of whether they triumphed in every single local ward contest. While civil society groups have lauded the framework for institutionalizing structural inclusion and expanding the space for underrepresented demographics in governance, critics and ordinary citizens have raised concerns over the transparency of party-list selections. Because voters cast ballots for national figures and party platforms rather than directly vetting the specific individuals occupying the PR slots, questions regarding internal party democracy and accountability continue to