1. Define the concept of government.

Using practical examples, demonstrate how adherence to

the tenets of good governance may help resolve current governance issues in Zambia.
Government may be seen as a set of institutions that share functions to direct the affairs of a particular
country. It involves the activity of giving direction and controlling the peoples behaviour. Peoples
behaviour in any country may refer to how they will:

Participate in business ventures

Travel and use road network
Travel to and from other countries
Conduct agricultural activities
Acquire land for various uses
Conduct public activities
Conduct games and other forms of entertainment
Defend themselves as a nation etc.

It sets and administers public policy and exercises executive, political and sovereign power through customs,
institutions and laws within a state. A government can be classified into many types some of these being
democracy, republic, monarchy, aristocracy and dictatorship.
On the other hand governance may be defined as the transparent and accountable management of human,
natural, economic and financial resources for the purposes of equitable and sustainable development.
Governance may be good or bad. A functioning public sector that respects principles such as transparency and
participation and is accountable to its citizens, a dynamic civil society that can express and respond to the
needs of the poorest members of society, and a justice system that provides legal security all contribute to
human security, poverty reduction, protection of the environment and is an example of good governance.
Good governance is thus a theme of fundamental importance for all areas of activity.
Governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented. Some of
the major characteristics of good governance are participation, consensus orientation, accountability,
transparency, responsive, effectiveness and efficiency, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It
assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the
most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs
of society.
These tenets of good governance are explained below.
Participation
Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either
direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point out that
1

representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society
would be taken into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organized. This
means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other
hand.
Rule of law
Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection
of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent
judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.
Transparency
Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and
regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be
affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means that enough information is provided and that
it is provided in easily understandable forms and media. There should also be clear explanation of legal
constitution, governance and funding arrangements. There should also be

Open and clear policies and procedures, and clear criteria for decision making
Clear and proper recording of decisions and actions
Free availability of information and publication of decisions, consistent with statute, contract and

good practice
Clear delegation arrangements, including levels of authority
Register of interests, to apply to the oce holder, appropriate staff members and members of any
governing body

Responsiveness
Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable
timeframe.
Consensus oriented
There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of
the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the
whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is
needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only
result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community.
Equity and inclusiveness
2

A societys well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not
feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable,
have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.
Effectiveness and efficiency
Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while
making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good
governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and

the protection of the environment.

Accountability
Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the
private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional
stakeholders. Who is accountable to who varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal
or external to an organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those
who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and
the rule of law.
Ensuring that all members of the scheme, including the oce holder staff members and members of any
governing body are seen to be responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions, including the
stewardship of funds (with due regard to the independence of the oce holder):

Subject to appropriate public or external scrutiny

Accountable to stakeholders for operation of scheme
Financial accountability, and appropriate internal controls to demonstrate the highest standards of

financial probity
Robust mechanism for review of service quality
Clear whistle-blowing policy

Integrity
Ensuring straightforward dealing and completeness, based on honesty, selflessness and objectivity, and
ensuring high standards of probity and propriety in the conduct of the schemes affairs and complaint
decision making:

Impartiality in all activities

Identify, declare and deal with conflicts of interest (including oce holder, staff members and

members of any governing body)

Compliance of all those involved in the governance or operation of the scheme with relevant
principles of public conduct
3

Arrangements for dealing with conflicts about governance issues

Effectiveness
Ensuring that the scheme delivers quality outcomes eciently and represents good value for money:

Leadership which defines and promotes the values of the scheme

Keeping to commitments
Good internal planning and review processes
Quality assurance and a process for review of service
Quality outcomes for complainant, organisation complained about, scheme and all other stakeholders
Recommendations accepted by bodies in jurisdiction
Effective risk management controls
Cost effectiveness and value for money

2. Using practical examples, discuss the notion that separation of powers in Zambia is not
absolute.
Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to
limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration
of power and provide for checks and balances.
Separation of powers means that specific functions, duties and responsibilities of government are allocated to
distinctive institutions with a defined means of competence and jurisdiction. It entails a separation of three
main spheres of government, namely, legislative, executive and judiciary. Within the constitutional
framework the meaning of the terms legislative, executive and judicial authority are of importance:
(a) Legislative authority is the power to make, amend and repeal rules of law.
(b) Executive authority is the power to execute and enforce rules of law.
(c) Judicial authority is the power; if there is a dispute, to determine what the law says and how it should be
applied in the disputes.
The doctrine of separation of powers means ordinarily that if one of the three spheres of government is
responsible for the enactment of rules of law, that body shall not also be charged with their execution or with
judicial decision about them. The same will be said of the executive authority, it is not supposed to enact law
or to administer justice and the judicial authority should not enact or execute laws.
The concept may also mean at least three different things:

(a) That the same person should not form part of more than one of the three organs of government, for
example, that ministers should not sit in parliament;
(b) That one organ of government should not control or interfere with the work of another, for example, that
the executive should not interfere in judicial decisions;
(c) That one organ of government should not exercise the functions of another, for example, that ministers
should not have legislative powers.
Sight should not be lost of the fact that complete separation of powers is not possible -neither in theory nor in
practice. Some overlapping is unavoidable; given the fact that we talk here of spheres of what is in fact one
government.
The main objective of the doctrine is to prevent the abuse of power within different spheres of government. In
our constitutional democracy public power is subject to constitutional control. Different spheres of
government should act within their boundaries. The courts are the ultimate guardian of our constitution, they
are duty bound to protect it whenever it is violated.
The purpose of checks and balances is to ensure that different branches of government control each other
internally (checks) and serve as counter weights to the power possessed by the other branches (balances).29
Simply put, the aim of separation of functions and personnel is to limit the power; the purpose of checks and
balances is to make the branches of government accountable to each other. The most conspious example of a
check is the power of the judiciary to review executive conduct and ordinary laws for the compliance with the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Judicial review in this case constitutes neither executive nor judicial
function; it is a mere check on the exercise of executive and legislative power. It is a power exercised by the
judiciary to ensure constitutional compliance and not to exercise the power of another authority.
The doctrine of separation of powers dictates that the same person should not be a member of both the
legislature and the executive. Simply put, the executive should not make laws and the legislature should not
execute laws, through the same person operating in both spheres. It is however clear under the final
Constitution, especially at the highest level, that there is no separation of personnel between the legislature
and the executive. It so happens, as in almost all parliamentary systems of government, that is, where one
sees an overlap because members of the executive are also members of the legislature. Part of the reason is to
enable the legislative assembly to call on the Ministers, as members of the assembly, to explain and account
directly for the way in which a statute is executed and other executive functions performed.
In principle, the executive should not resolve legal disputes between individuals and the judiciary should not
execute laws or their own orders. In many instances the doctrine of separation of powers is the fountain of the
5

independence of the judiciary. Independence requires that the judges should be impartial in the sense that
requires absence of interference at an institutional level and at the level of decision-making by each judge.
In principle, no one should be a member of a legislature and the judiciary. In addition, a legislature should not
fulfil judicial functions and the judiciary should not make laws. This does not seem to present any particular
problem in Zambia. Members of the legislature are also members of the JSC that appoints judges. Their
participation is accepted as part of the institution of checks and balances. What may be debatable is whether it
is acceptable that they should constitute the majority of the appointed commission or be in a position to
control the decisions of that body.
An examination of the three powers reveals that in practice they are often exercised by persons or bodies
which exercise more than one such power. For example, there is a broad overlap between the legislative and
executive in the Zambian constitution. PM and his cabinet colleagues are members of both bodies i.e. there
was a close union and an almost complete fusion of legislative and executive power in the constitution
Parliament exercises a legislative function and to a lesser extent a judicial function in that it is responsible for
the regulation of its own internal aairs. Government ministers are members of the executive who exercise a
legislative function in Parliament and also when they make delegated legislation. In addition to exercising a
judicial function, courts legislate in the sense that they develop principles of the common law.

3. Discuss the merits and demerits of federalism.

Federalism is a political system in which the powers are divided between the central government and
numerous regional governments. There is a written constitution which formulates this power sharing
arrangement between the state and its units. These units referred to as the provincial or regional governments
have the power to act independently in certain areas of governance. Federalism has both merits and demerits.
The merits of federalism include the following.
Federalism permits diversity. Local governments may deal directly with local problems. The entire nation is
not straitjacketed with a uniform policy to which every state and community must conform. State and local
governments may be better suited to deal with specific state and local problems. Washington bureaucrats do
not always know the best solution for problems in Commerce, Texas.
Federalism helps manage conflict. Permitting states and communities to pursue their own policies reduces the
pressures that would build up in Washington if the national government had to decide everything. Federalism
permits citizens to decide many things at the state and local levels of government and avoid battling over
single national policies to be applied uniformly throughout the land.

Federalism disperses power. The widespread distribution of power is generally regarded as a protection
against tyranny. To the extent that pluralism thrives in the United States, state and local governments have
contributed to its success. State and local governments also provide a political base for the survival of the
opposition party when it loses national elections.
Federalism increases political participation. It allows more people to run for and hold political office. Nearly
a million people hold some kind of political office in counties, cities, townships, school districts, and special
districts. These local leaders are often regarded as closer to the people than Washington officials. Public
opinion polls show that Americans believe that their local governments are more manageable and responsive
than the national government.
Federalism improves efficiency. Even though we may think of eighty thousand governments as inefficient,
governing the entire nation from Washington would be even worse. Imagine the bureaucracy, red tape, delays,
and confusion if every government activity in every community in the nation - police, schools, roads, fire
departments, garbage collections, sewage disposal, street lighting, and so on - were controlled by a central
government in Washington. Even in the Soviet Union, where centralized discipline and party control are a
matter of political ideology, leaders have been forced to resort to decentralization simply as a practical matter.
Moreover, federalism encourages experimentation and innovation in public policy in the states.
Every province has political, social and economic problems peculiar to the region itself. Provincial
government representatives live in proximity to the people and are most of the time from the same
community, so that they are in a better position to understand these problems and offer unique solutions for
them. For example, traffic congestion in Oahu, Hawaii is a problem that can be best solved by the local
government, keeping local factors in mind, rather than by somebody living in New York.
Federalism offers representation to different populations. Citizens of various provinces may have different
aspirations, ethnicity and follow different cultures. The central government can sometimes overlook these
differences and adopt policies which cater to the majority. This is where the regional government steps in.
While formulating policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration by the state
governments. Rights of the minorities are protected too. For example, in states like Arizona where there is a
large Hispanic population and therefore, a large number of schools provide bilingual education.
Federalism has room for innovation and experimentation. Two local governments can have two different
approaches to bring reforms in any area of public domain, be it taxation or education. The comparison of the
results of these policies can give a clear idea of which policy is better and thus, can be adopted in the future.
Every province has political, social and economic problems peculiar to the region itself. Provincial
government representatives live in close proximity to the people and are most of the times from the same
7

community, so that they are in a better position to understand these problems and offer unique solutions for
them. For example, traffic congestion in Oahu, Hawaii is a problem that can be best solved by the local
government, keeping local factors in mind, rather than by somebody living in New York.
Federalism offers representation to different populations. Citizens of various provinces may have different
aspirations, ethnicity and follow different cultures. The central government can sometimes overlook these
differences and adopt policies which cater to the majority. This is where the regional government steps in.
While formulating policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration by the state
governments. Rights of the minorities are protected too. For example, in states like Arizona where there is a
large Hispanic population and therefore, a large number of schools provide bilingual education.
State governments have the freedom to adopt policies which may not be followed nationally or by any other
state. For example, same sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government of USA but they are
given legal status within the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts.
Division of work between the central and the regional governments leads to optimum utilization of resources.
The central government can concentrate more on international affairs and defense of the country while the
provincial government can cater to the local needs.
Federalism has room for innovation and experimentation. Two local governments can have two different
approaches to bring reforms in any area of public domain, be it taxation or education. The comparison of the
results of these policies can give a clear idea of which policy is better and thus, can be adopted in the future.
The demerits of federalism are:
Federalism allows special interests to protect their privileges. For many years, segregationists used the
argument of states' rights to avoid federal laws designed to guarantee equality and prevent discrimination.
Indeed, the states' rights argument has been used so often in defence of racial discrimination that it has
become a code word for racism.
Federalism allows local leaders to frustrate national policy. They can obstruct not only civil right policies but
also policies in areas as diverse as energy, poverty, and pollution.
Federalism allows the benefits and costs of government to be spread unevenly. Some states spend more than
twice as much per capita as other states on education. Even in the same state, some wealthy school districts
spend two or three times as much as poorer districts. The taxes in some states are much higher than in other
states; five states have no state income tax at all.

Federalism creates disadvantages in poorer states and communities, which generally provide lower levels of
education, health, and welfare services; police protection; and environmental protection than wealthier states
and communities.
Federalism obstructs action on national issues. Although decentralization may reduce conflict at the national
level, some very serious national issues may be swept under the rug. For many years, decentralizing the issue
of civil rights allowed segregation to flourish. Only when the issue was nationalized in the 1960s by the civil
rights movement was there any significant progress. Minorities can usually expect better treatment by
national agencies than by state or local authorities.
Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for
what. For example, when Hurricane Katrina hit Greater New Orleans, USA, in 2005, there was delay in the
rescue work, as there was confusion between the state governments and the federal government on who is
responsible for which disaster management work. This resulted in the loss of many lives.
It can make state governments selfish and concerned only about their own region's progress. They can
formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions. For example, pollution from a province which
is promoting industrialization in a big way can affect another region which depends solely on agriculture and
cause crop damage.
It promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources, industries, employment opportunities differ from region
to region. Hence, earnings and wealth are unevenly distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and
benefits to its citizens than poor states. Thus, the gap between rich and poor states widens.
Sharing of power between the centre and the states includes both advantages and disadvantages of federation.
Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for
what. For example, when typhoon Katrina hit Greater New Orleans, USA, in 2005, there was delay in the
rescue work as there was confusion between the state governments and the federal government on who is
responsible for which disaster management work. This resulted in the loss of many lives.
The federal system of government is very expensive as more people are elected to office, both at the state and
the centre, than necessary. Thus, it is often said that only rich countries can afford it. Too many elected
representatives with overlapping roles may also lead to corruption.
Other than that, it leads to unnecessary competition between different regions. There can be a rebellion by a
regional government against the national government too. Both scenarios pose a threat to the countries'
integrity.

It is also promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources, industries, employment opportunities differ from
region to region. Hence earnings and wealth are unevenly distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities
and benefits to its citizens than poor states can. Thus, the gap between rich and poor states widens.
It also can make the state governments selfish and concerned only about their own region's progress. They
can formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions. For example, pollution from a province
which is promoting industrialization in a big way can affect another region which depends solely on
agriculture and cause crop damage.
Finally, it does not eliminate poverty. Even in New York, there are poor neighbourhoods like Harlem with a
majority of black population. The reason for this may be that during policy framing, it is the intellectuals and
not the masses who are invited by the local government.
4. Demonstrate how the Trinity concept of government enables you to understand the organic nature
of government.
Zambias government is made up of three autonomous branches: the executive, the legislative, and the
judicial. The Executive Branch is headed by the president, his vice president, and the ministers who are
appointed to fill (currently) 23 positions. Legislative power of Zambia vests in Parliament, which consists of
the National Assembly and the President. The legislature consists of a unicameral body of 150 elected
representatives and up to eight appointed members. The judicature is made up of the Supreme Court, the high
courts, any other lowers courts that the legislature should deem necessary.
The Executive
Ultimately, all of the power of the executive branch rests with the president. In addition to being the head of
government and head of state, he is also the commander-in-chief of Zambias armed forces. Besides these
conventional powers, the president also has the power to dissolve the National Assembly and in turn call for
elections (including his own). Most strikingly, however, the president has the power to appoint the Attorney
General as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions, both of whom serve at the pleasure of the president.
If the president has not dissolved the National Assembly and called for elections himself, then Parliament
(which is comprised of the National Assembly and the president) picks the day for elections. Since 1996 the
president has been limited to serving two five-year terms. Elections are by universal adult suffrage (age 18)
and are done by popular vote. The impeachment of the president involves both the legislative and the judicial
branches of government.
The Legislative
10

The National Assembly consists of a unicameral body of 150 elected representatives and up to eight
appointed members. Members serve five-year terms after being elected by popular vote. Each member
represents one constituency. The constituencies are periodically redrawn by the National Assembly to more
accurately represent the changing population trends. Each of the nine administrative units must have at least
ten constituencies. The National Assembly can be dissolved at any time by two-thirds vote of National
Assembly members or by the president. Whenever the National Assembly is dissolved the country must hold
elections within three months.
Bills can be submitted by any Zambian citizen. It is then debated by the entire National Assembly. A bill
becomes a law once it is passed by a majority of the National Assembly and assented to by the president. A
bill must be read and debated three times before it is submitted to the president. When a bill is presented to
the president, he shall either assent or withhold consent. If the president withholds his assent, the president
may return the bill to the National Assembly with suggestions for amendments. The National Assembly will
reconsider the bill as amended. However, if the bill is passed once again by the National Assembly by at least
two-thirds of the National Assembly, amendment or no amendment, the president must assent to it unless he
dissolves the National Assembly and calls for his and their elections. Once a bill is passed and assented to, it
does not become technically operational until it has been published in the official Zambian Gazette (in
practice, this can take quite some time).
The Judicial
Part VI of the Constitution organizes the judiciary. It provides for a Supreme Court, the High Court, the
Industrial Relations Court, subordinate courts, local courts, and any other courts that Parliament may
proscribe. The Judicature is autonomous and subject only to the Constitution and laws of Zambia.
The Supreme Court of Zambia is the highest court and the final court of appeal in all matters. It is composed
of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice (whose duties include serving as Chief Justice if the Chief
Justice is temporarily incapacitated) and seven other Supreme Court judges. Parliament can increase the
number of Supreme Court judges, although they are limited as the constitution mandates that there always be
an odd number of Supreme Court judges.
The High Court is the second highest court and has unlimited and original jurisdiction to hear all civil and
criminal matters, with the only exception being cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the Industrial
Relations Court. Although it does hear appeals and rule on interlocutory issues, it is not strictly a court of
appeals.
The Industrial Relations Court is essentially a labour court that has exclusive power to adjudicate
employment law matters which come primarily from Zambias ever-important mining industry. The bench is
11

composed of a Chair, a Deputy Chair and not more than seven other members. The Chair and Deputy Chair
are appointed by the president. The other judges are appointed by the Minister of Labour.
Under the High Court are the subordinate courts, which are situated in each of the 72 districts of Zambia.
Subordinate courts are broken down into classes based on the importance and value of the matter. The
differing authority of the Magistrate sitting determines the class of the court. These courts have original yet
limited jurisdiction to hear some criminal and civil cases. Subordinate courts have the limited appellate power
to hear cases appealed from the local courts.
Local courts have limited jurisdiction to hear local matters in the rural areas. Although all courts (excluding
the Industrial Relations Court) have the discretion to apply or enforce the application of African Customary
Law, the local courts are most likely to be charged with such a task simply by virtue of their being located
where such laws still take precedence. However, the customary laws applied in these courts vary widely
depending on location. The Local Courts Act prevents attorneys from appearing in these courts; claimants and
respondents appear on their own behalf usually before a lay judge. Local court rulings can be appealed to the
appropriate subordinate court.
All judges and justices of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed by the president and assume
their post after being vetted and approved by the National Assembly. Moreover, all judges serve, with good
behaviour, until the age of 65. No court or judgeship can be abolished while there is still someone holding
that office.
Subordinate court judges and local court judges are appointed, on the advice of the president, by the Judicial
Services Commission.
Pursuant to the Constitution, the Chief Justice is charged with the task of drafting the rules with respect to the
procedure and direction of the judicature. The Chief Justice is ex officio judge of the High Court.
The Judicial Services Commission is a constitutionally created institution. It is responsible for appointing all
of the local court judges, all of the magistrates to the subordinate courts, and has an advisory/vetting role for
High Court judges and Supreme Court Justices. The Judicial Services Commission is made up of the Chief
Justice as chairman, The Attorney General, the chair of the Public Service Commission, the Secretary to the
Cabinet, a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice, the Solicitor General, a member of the National Assembly
appointed by the Speaker, a member of the Law Association of Zambia, the Dean of the University of Zambia
Law School, and an additional member appointed by the president. The Commission is also responsible for
the promotion, discipline, and removal of judicial personnel on behalf of the President.

12

13

14