Zambia: Speaker, Discipline, and the Unspoken Perception Inside Parliament
Inside Zambia’s National Assembly, the Speaker’s authority stands uncontested in principle. Every member of Parliament knows the Standing Orders are the foundation of procedure, and the presiding officer wields the final gavel. Yet beneath this formal order, quiet concerns linger.
Several MPs privately believe that some rulings and suspensions appear selective or unevenly applied. These doubts are not voiced on the floor, where any hint of questioning motives could lead to being ruled out of order. Instead, such opinions circulate informally — in corridors, during private talks, or over coffee at the Parliament Motel.
The tension arises not from the rules themselves but from how they are interpreted. What one sees as maintaining discipline, another perceives as partiality. The timing and tone of the Speaker’s interventions can shape how fairness is perceived, leading to the belief that some members face sharper scrutiny than others.
“When the same procedure punishes some very quickly while others appear to get longer rope, MPs translate that as bias.”
This perception gap — between procedural intention and political interpretation — fuels the ongoing sense that certain benches receive different treatment.
Author’s Summary
The article explores how perceptions of selective discipline within Zambia’s Parliament create an undercurrent of mistrust despite official adherence to procedural fairness.