Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorIsmail, Zenobia
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-20T08:29:46Z
dc.date.available2018-09-20T08:29:46Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-20
dc.date.submitted2017-09-29
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/280366
dc.description.abstractZambia is one of only three countries in southern Africa which has experienced two alternations, but there has been little institutional reform since independence. A time-based comparison of Zambia’s constitution, legislation and institutions from 1991 to 2015 is conducted because the ‘moving picture’ reveals continuities which tend to be overlooked by a ‘snapshot’ analysis. New incumbents are reluctant to relinquish the increasing returns derived from executive dominance and weak oversight institutions such as the national assembly and judiciary. Therefore, institutional weaknesses from Zambia’s one-party state have infiltrated the multi-party era, where they continue to blur the separation of powers. Factionalism stemming from ethnic polarisation, which emerged in the colonial era, undermines all ruling parties in Zambia. The study finds that succession contests, triggered by term limits or the deaths of sitting presidents, are the primary mechanism which repeatedly weakens dominant parties. The outcomes of such intra-party conflicts have far-reaching consequences for the political party system by giving rise to new parties, re-orientating ethnic and political alliances, and contributing to turnover in elections. However, the dissertation reveals that both the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy and the Patriotic Front governments in Zambia reneged on the reforms which they promised while in opposition and opted to maintain the constitutional clauses, repressive legislation and patronage system which they inherited. An extensive analysis of the 35 by-elections which occurred after the 2011 turnover ascertains that there was pervasive co-option of opposition members into the Patriotic Front, leading back to the dominant path. Therefore, the dissertation concludes that one-party dominance in Zambia is path dependent. Consequently, it is an alternation fallacy to expect the ousting of a dominant party to stimulate democratisation. Democracy advocates will need to confront the challenge of providing incentives that will persuade incumbents to undertake reforms which diminish executive dominance and strengthen the independence of oversight institutions.
dc.language.isoen
dc.rightsAll rights reserved
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserveden
dc.rights.urihttps://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/en
dc.subjectZambia
dc.subjectAlternation
dc.subjectTurnover
dc.subjecttwo-turnover test
dc.subjectFactionalism
dc.subjectDominant parties
dc.subjectOne-party dominance
dc.subjectSuccession
dc.subjectCo-option
dc.subjectNeopatrimonialism
dc.subjectPatronage
dc.subjectBy-elections
dc.subjectFloor-crossing
dc.titleThe Alternation Fallacy: Turnover without Transformation in Zambia (1991-2015)
dc.typeThesis
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoral
dc.type.qualificationnameDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Cambridge
dc.publisher.departmentPolitics and International Studies
dc.date.updated2018-09-19T17:28:18Z
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.27738
dc.publisher.collegeWolfson College
dc.type.qualificationtitlePhD in Politics and International Studies
cam.supervisorvan Houten, Pieter
cam.thesis.fundingfalse
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2400-01-01


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record