The election of Zambia’s president, Hakainde Hichilema, in 2021 was widely interpreted as a victory for democracy. Zambia had suffered rising repression under former leader Edgar Lungu, but Hichilema promised democratic accountability. However, there are now concerns that his government is promoting constitutional changes that would entrench ruling-party dominance.

Hichilema has proposed a bill that would increase the number of MPs by over 60%. It would also introduce elements of proportional representation to create a “mixed” electoral system, and create reserved seats for women, young people and those with disabilities.

Zambia’s ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) claims the amendments are needed to correct historical exclusion. But many civil society groups believe this is “gender washing” – using inclusive rhetoric to mask an authoritarian agenda.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

This scepticism is rooted in recent political developments and the text itself. The bill has emerged alongside other legislation that would tighten state control over civic and political space, at a time when infringements on fundamental freedoms in Zambia are growing.

Many of the bill’s provisions are also vague and some undermine democratic checks and balances, while the progressive aspects are ill-conceived. This makes the proposed reforms, in the words of well-known Zambian constitutional expert O’Brien Kaaba: “deeply problematic and counterproductive”.

I take no pleasure in saying this. The last time I wrote such an article about Zambia, it was to condemn the persecution of Hichilema after he was arrested in 2017 on trumped up treason charges. I was honoured to receive a letter of thanks upon his release.

Like many Zambians and international observers, I was hopeful for the new administration. Yet, while the government has kept some campaign promises and negotiated a difficult deal on the country’s debt burden, efforts to restore democracy are now going backwards.

Weakening a fragile system

As prominent Zambian civil society leaders like Laura Miti and Linda Kasonde have warned, a number of the proposed changes could enable the government to all-but-guarantee itself a majority in the next elections scheduled for 2026.

First, the bill would add 55 new constituency-based MPs – more than the total number to be elected through proportional representation. There are concerns that most of these new constituencies will be created in UPND strongholds, helping the party retain a majority even if it loses support.

These fears have been magnified by the government’s failure to release the Boundary Delimitation Report, which sets out the redrawing of electoral boundaries. This has prevented independent scrutiny of the process and its motivations.

Second, the rule that parliament must be dissolved 90 days before elections is also being revoked on the basis that this unfairly shortens office terms for MPs. Although MPs would not be supposed to conduct parliamentary business after this point, such a change would exacerbate existing problems. These include the use of government resources and vehicles in the ruling party’s campaign.

And third, the constitutional amendment increases the number of MPs the president can appoint from eight to ten. In a system already adding reserved seats for underrepresented groups, this lacks justification. Taken together, these changes threaten to further empower the government and explain why a collective of civil society groups recently demanded “an immediate halt” to the process.

At the same time, the government has not taken the opportunity to remove problematic clauses from Zambia’s constitution. These include the right of the president to dissolve the National Assembly if it fails to “reasonably” perform its duties.

The government has justified the bill by emphasising the historical underrepresentation of women and marginalised groups in Zambian politics. This is a serious problem, but the bill will not fix it.

The amendments only create 20 seats for women, 12 for young people, and three for those with disabilities. In a 256-seat chamber, this will do little to address the imbalance and falls well short of the Southern African Development Community’s target of 30% female representation.

Poorly designed quotas can also reinforce marginalisation. Parties may push women toward quota seats, limiting their participation in regular constituency races. The amendment may thus create a new ceiling: if women only run in reserved seats, female representation would almost halve from 15% now to just 8% in the next parliament.

A similar issue arises with the proportional representation system more broadly. When only a small proportion of seats are allocated this way, it fails to deliver the benefits of fairness that are associated with true proportionality.

In other words, the constitutional amendment bill gives the appearance of inclusivity while carefully preserving the government’s incumbency advantage.

A constitutional rush-job

Perhaps the most striking flaw in the bill has been the process itself. The amendments have seen such scant public consultation that, in June, the Law Association of Zambia called for them to be withdrawn.

This concern is shared by the constitutional court, which recently found the government had failed to meet constitutional requirements for public participation. The court recommended restarting a more inclusive process.

Hichilema, perhaps aware of the likely verdict, preempted the ruling by announcing shortly before the court’s decision that he would pause the process to allow for wider consultation. This is a welcome, but insufficient, development. As the Law Association has argued, the amendments are so badly designed that they do not represent a viable foundation for constitutional review.

Compounding its other flaws, the legislation is poorly written and vague. In many cases, it also fails to explain how new provisions would actually work in practice. The bill therefore needs to be withdrawn, not revised or deferred.

Zambia needs a new constitution, but it deserves one that is rooted in evidence, consultation and democratic principles. Anything less threatens to undermine the country’s hard-won democratic gains and Hichilema’s own legacy.

Nic Cheeseman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.