By Prince Ndoyi

I want to call upon the nation to reflect on the 2016 elections. In the wake of the mind games being played by our colleagues in the UPND. This incessant attack on the United Nations appears to be on one all too many scripts played by politicians that prelude civil unrests in most waring nations. Ahead of an election, studies show that in politically unstable nations politicians early enough prepare their supporters and people for a deeply bitter and divisive election. Empirical evidence shows that there is always a systematic scheme before a bitter election against the credibility of local and international organisations. It can only be hoped that those doing so are not preparing the minds of Zambians for something BIGGER in 2021.

Its bad math to smear a campaign against international organisations for political expediency. It will hurt them. The UPND must know that this Twitter diplomacy is a double- edged sword. A political party seeking to form government must have a properly structured strategy towards the international community. As a party they must have a well thought out indepth diplomatic etiquette where personal equations and what is often not said makes all the difference. A dumbed down diplomatic route may be attractive with its instant public responses and outrage but what it does in real terms is grave. What we are being subjected to by the daily insults on Ms Janet Rogan and its subtle nuances diplomatic capital wise is clearly uncalled for. This just needs to stop, the kvetching and blame game.

What the UPND is saying is that the UN stole elections on behalf of Patriotic Front. The UPND should realize that Janet Rogan didn’t come here in her personal capacity but she represents the UN itself. And for their information Ms Janet Rogan has supervisors and has no single handed power to prevent any such report on elections concerning a nation from publication. Again what the UPND and their leadership perhaps deliberately does not know is that the UN on elections report in two phases. The first report is basically a testimony to whether the election met the minimum threshold standards of a free and fair election. Which is for public consumption. Then the second report, I suspect the one they are are referring to, is an internal report that takes into account all the incidences and challenges, for purposes of helping the UN itself find the appropriate technical assistance to render the nation for its future election. It is from this report that the UN begins to strategically support electoral and human rights reforms financially and human resource wise to enable a conducive election environment which is incident free.

It is purely perplexing to see the UPND start wars with all stakeholders in this Country. It is also laughable to see how the UPND resort to thinking that the departure of Ms Rogan would win them the next Election. It is not the first time HH and UPND have lost elections. They have lost the presidential elections five times and might lose again because its not guaranteed they may win. What should we expect in the next elections?

It is indeed preposterous, according to the UPND; The ECZ is corrupt, the Police are cadres, the Judiciary is Biased and Compromised, the AU and SADC inept, the International Community impotent in the wake of their alleged stolen victory.

No political party that has lost an election must subject itself and its supporters to a 2 year pity tour blaming everyone for their loss. Their loss has been put on everyone but of course, it wasn’t their fault, it was everyone else, who did it to them.

It’s easy for the UPND and HH to blame everyone but themselves. They forget that these type of moves in politics make them unlikeable or untrustworthy. Their character flaws cost them elections. One can’t have it both ways, to insult everyone and expect their support tomorrow. They display an astonishing lack of empathy for fellow citizens.

The next they will drag in their politics of the mud is the Pope; the Pope for Catholics. Next we shall hear them claim the Pope instructed his Priests and Bishops to steal their election victory. I say these things as though its a matter of a joke, but it is a serious issue. The Pope met President Edgar Lungu prior to the elections. Does it mean he also stole their election?

This type of politricks is not healthy, they must take responsibility and move on. Isn’t it somewhat hypocritical to be on one hand mobilising the party yet on another hand cry over a lost election? Next we shall hear them say all Chiefs except those that are aligned to them stole their election victory. In this case who really stole their election victory?

Doesn’t it ring a bell in their minds that being at loggerheads with Ms Rogan regardless of what their claim is means being at loggerheads with the UN and consequently the International Community? Doesn’t it ring a Bell in their minds that there is just that time to move on for purposes of healing a nation.

The UPND and HH have constantly been shifting the focus and blaming everything else and everyone else besides themselves. My advise would be this is incredibly counterproductive to the principal task that lies in front of them which is to figure how they are going to construct a viable alternative to the political movement in Zambia that is in ascendance right now. Take responsibility and move on.

As a young politician, I call upon them to sacrifice their loss on the altar of love for this nation, in the interest of peace and national building. And they will be remembered not as weak leaders but as leaders that embraced the “POWER OF LOVE” over the “LOVE OF POWER.” This in the wake of a forward looking political dialogue process, may YET remain the light that is at the end of a very dark tunnel.

As young people for us to have a future in this country we are looking for leaders who will say “My political ambition is not worth the blood of any Zambian.” Even when insulted by other regions they have the courage to say “We are not sworn enemies, We are neighbours who sometimes offend each other, but can always sit down to talk over our differences.”

In conclusion, we are meant to believe that our founding fathers, did not envision of a country where fellow Zambians would exchange hate in place of handshakes. Those that brought democracy envisioned a situation where a man would make a national call after he has lost an election that he perceives was manipulated just to save millions of lives. We need leaders that in all honesty believe an election is not a war, and an election must not lead to war or tension. Leaders who can guide their members that there is no winner and no loser, but we all want a better country today and tomorrow. Indeed there lies great untold strength in this weakness.

By Felix Mwenge

The recent introduction of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill has sparked raging public debate across the country. However, this debate is primarily being based on assumptions as the salient features of the proposed NHI remain unclear. I outline some of the generic expectations of the NHI and provide comments on some aspects of the Bill to add to the debate.

NHI is one way of financing a country’s health care services using mandatory financial contributions by citizens as a primary source of funds. NHI works in the same way as private health insurance except that the former is established by the Government and obliges all eligible citizens to contribute. Currently, Zambia finances public healthcare through appropriations from the national budget based on various sources of Government revenue.

One main reason for considering NHI to finance healthcare is that current financing to health is insufficient. For instance, budgetary allocations to health averaged 9% of the total for the past five years, which is below the target of at least 15% agreed by African leaders under the 2001 Abuja Declaration. This underspending has resulted in an inadequate provision of quality health services to all. Consequently, public health services in the country have had to charge user fees to supplement the limited health resources. This exposes patients to out-of-pocket payments that the majority of the population can only ill afford or not at all, thereby creating financial barriers to health access.

Another reason for considering NHI is that it tends to be a more predictable financing mechanism as contributions come from a clearly defined constituency and are usually earmarked, compared to budgetary allocations. Further, budgetary allocations also tend to fluctuate annually and lack consistence. Additionally, NHI facilitates for income and risk cross-subsidies, a situation whereby wealthier groups make greater contributions to health care funding than the poor but all have access to the same range of health services while high risk groups are able to use more health services than those who are healthy, irrespective of the contribution made by each group.

In terms of the operations of the NHI, the Bill states that an authority or a parastatal similar to NAPSA will be established to manage an insurance scheme. The authority will be responsible for a number of functions including collecting and pooling of financial contributions; defining the health services contributors will receive; accredit/approve health service providers; design exemption mechanisms for the poor and vulnerable; and many others. Some people have asked whether NHI will replace budgetary allocations to health. The Bill is silent on this, but it appears NHI will supplement rather than replace budgetary allocations.

It is also important to realise that the NHI may have implications on the general well-being of the economy. The main source of NHI funds, according to the Bill, will be employer and employee contributions through payroll deductions. This means NHI will primarily rely on the formal sector which accounts for only 16% of total employment. It is well known that Zambia already has a narrow tax base, which limits general revenue collection. As the base for NHI will be even narrower, the rates may have to be very high in order to raise enough resources, thus potentially overburdening citizens already bearing numerous other taxes. While the Bill indicates that informal sector players and the self-employed will be expected to contribute to the scheme, it is unclear how this will be implemented when Zambia already struggles to collect taxes from this part of the economy.

Moreover, relying on a small formal sector means contributions may be limited. This implies that the NHI may only cover a small share of health financing and the treasury would be expected to bridge the gap. However, given the current state of public finance, and especially the debt repayment obligations Zambia faces, the NHI should aim to provide relief rather than put additional pressure on the fiscus.

As for employer contributions, these are principally an added cost to doing business. Additionally, some employers already have private health insurance schemes for their employees which they would want to maintain as NHI cannot guarantee comparable services to the private sector, at least in the short run. Thus, NHI is likely to be an added cost or tax.

To conclude, many issues still remain unclear about the NHI which the Bill cannot address it merely being a law. For example, will NHI cover a basic health care package, and if yes, what will it look like? What services will be free, at what levels? How will issues of moral hazard be guarded against? How will the NHI address issues of contribution equity? How will NHI account for contributors whose practices entail lower health-risks, to ensure that the contribution premiums are lower for such contributors? What sort of due diligence mechanisms will be established to determine the right level of contribution? Until these and many other issues are clarified, it is difficult for the public to have informed debates.

The author is a researcher at the Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR).