BILL 7 AND THE COST OF DISUNITY: LESSONS THE PATRIOTIC FRONT MUST CONFRONTBy Michael Zephaniah Phiri, Political Activist The handling of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 by the Patriotic Front revealed more than a dispute over constitutional procedure. It exposed the internal condition of a party that entered a national legislative contest while struggling to manage its own cohesion.
The outcome of that moment was shaped as much by internal dynamics as by external parliamentary arithmetic. At the centre of the difficulty was a fractured parliamentary caucus. Members of Parliament who belonged to the same political organisation approached the Bill 7 debate without a shared position, a unified command structure, or consistent messaging.
Some MPs publicly distanced themselves from the party presidency under Hon. Given Lubinda. Others openly aligned themselves with preferred future presidential contenders despite the absence of an elective process.
Read Full Article on Lusaka Times
[paywall]
These actions signalled an erosion of internal discipline at a time when the party required coordinated effort. In parliamentary politics, numerical strength is activated through organisation rather than mere headcount. A party’s ability to mobilise votes depends on internal trust, clarity of leadership, and respect for established structures.
During the Bill 7 process, the Patriotic Front struggled on each of these fronts. The lack of a single authoritative centre complicated efforts to hold MPs to a collective position. The absence of consensus weakened negotiations and reduced the party’s ability to project firmness in opposition to the proposed constitutional changes.
The Patriotic Front constitution provides for leadership continuity and recognises the authority of the sitting party president until an elective conference is held. During the Bill 7 period, this provision was tested. Instead of closing ranks around the recognised leadership to confront a national constitutional issue, competing ambitions surfaced.
Internal disagreements that might have been manageable in ordinary times became destabilising under the pressure of a high-stakes parliamentary process. Political history and leadership traditions offer many examples of how internal order shapes outcomes. Stability within an organisation allows disagreements to be managed without undermining collective objectives.
When structures are respected, internal debate strengthens strategy rather than paralysing it. During the Bill 7 episode, the Patriotic Front failed to achieve this balance. Disputes that should have remained internal spilled into the public arena, creating uncertainty among supporters and confusion among allies.
The consequences were visible in Parliament. Messaging lacked coherence. Attendance and voting discipline became uncertain.
The party’s posture appeared reactive rather than deliberate. These factors reduced the effectiveness of opposition efforts against Bill 7, regardless of the substantive legal and constitutional arguments raised. Within this environment, individual leadership styles became more pronounced.
One figure whose conduct attracted attention was Hon. Makebi Zulu. His approach emphasised consultation and outreach rather than factional positioning.
He engaged senior party officials, communicated with colleagues holding divergent views, and extended contact to leaders of other opposition parties. These actions demonstrated an effort to stabilise relationships and preserve channels of cooperation during a period of strain. This form of leadership placed emphasis on process rather than personal assertion.
Engagement across internal and external lines reflected an understanding that opposition politics, particularly on constitutional matters, requires coordination beyond individual ambition. The Bill 7 experience illustrated that the effectiveness of opposition is closely tied to its capacity to operate as a collective entity. The Patriotic Front’s experience during the Bill 7 process underlined a fundamental principle of political organisation.
Discipline, clarity of leadership, and internal loyalty shape outcomes more decisively than rhetoric alone. Titles and informal followings do not substitute for structured unity when legislative decisions are made through recorded votes. For the party, the Bill 7 episode stands as a reference point.
It demonstrated how internal divisions can dilute parliamentary strength and reduce political leverage. It also highlighted the need for adherence to constitutional order within the party itself when confronting constitutional questions at the national level. Future engagements on major legislative or constitutional issues will demand lessons drawn from this experience.
Internal cohesion, respect for established leadership structures, and collective discipline remain central to any effective parliamentary strategy. The Bill 7 process provided a clear illustration of the costs incurred when these elements are absent.
[/paywall]
