NO other election in Zambia's young history as a sovereign state has provided Zambians with a real choice for a total eclipse or for a refreshing dawn than this year's tripartite election. Previous elections were endorsements. In 1964 we endorsed independence. In 1991 we endorsed change. In between indifference reigned. In 2001 the third term debate shook us out of our slumber. We are now being asked to choose a leader and a party from a group of 11 contending parties. We have not been given much opportunity to fully scrutinize them. How shall we do it?

Firstly, we must insist no party gets elected into office unless it is unequivocally committed to a limited presidency. This does not mean a weak presidency. What it means is that our No. 1 citizen in the country should not enjoy absolute power over the lives and livelihoods of fellow citizens.

There is a world of difference between leading and dominating. Our future president should be accountable. Most regrettably, we are seeing very little evidence of practical commitment to this fundamental principle because multi-partyism as a political process is founded on political parties which are themselves inherently tyrannical. How can we expect parties which are personalised and undemocratic in the way they manage their own affairs to spearhead and champion democratic reform when elected into government. What we have witnessed is that positions of party leader in most of the parties have been uncontested and more often than not, the top leadership has been hand picked by the "anointed" leader following non-transparent "consultations". The so-called elections have been nothing more than a confirmation of a foregone conclusion.

Secondly, discrediting opposition parties solely on the grounds that their leadership includes those who served in the MMD Government till the rift over the third-term debate is wrong and unfair. We all know that absolute presidential rule obtains in our country. Our constitution, if not in letter, sanctions such rule in practice. Consequently, our cabinet is purely advisory. Indeed there is consensus in the nation that we should rectify this flaw by limiting the powers of the president under the constitution. In reality only the people of Zambia can dismiss a president and that right can only be exercised constitutionally once every five years. Another cardinal point is that ministers are under oath to serve with complete loyalty. To expect a lower standard would be tantamount to encouraging rebellion and instability. We should, therefore, give them the benefit of doubt that they served loyally until the threat to constitutional rule posed by the third term debate forced them to breach their oath of allegiance. The third term debate posed a real threat to the future stability of this nation. They exercised their breach of loyalty in favour of constitutionality. This does not excuse personal culpability for any corruption or other wrong-doing attributable to them in their personal capacity.

In this election presidential candidates must address the areas of concern touching on their integrity and character, their views on a limited presidency, their views on how they propose to enable the economy to perform under Zambian control and the restoration of our full human and citizenship rights amongst other serious concerns. With respect to integrity and character, the electorate should be allowed to reach their conclusions. Some of the candidates are more obscure than others, consequently, they may escape scrutiny. For those who have been in public life, it is incumbent upon them to deal with negative or less complementary perceptions. Heritage Party leader, General Miyanda, scores very highly on personal integrity and character. People are concerned he may exact too high a moral standard not only for his colleagues in cabinet but for the general public. You cannot run a government single-handedly. So General, how do you plead? To my mind, Anderson Mazoka has adequately dealt with the disappearance and/or the swapping of cattle for personal gain, however, the perception that is failing to disappear, is the accusation that he is heading a party with a Tonga agenda. Notwithstanding the composition of his tribally-blind national policy committee. There are also lingering doubts about his commitment to collective leadership, collective responsibility and collective accountability. We trust, Andy, that the native son euphoria by the Tonga has no sinister motives. Michael Sata, of the Patriotic Front, had obviously done a lot of homework in his well orchestrated but aborted bid to become the MMD presidential candidate because he has struck many as the man with the best grasp of the decisive issues. It is very clear, Michael Sata has been rehearsing his presidential campaign for a very long time. We know him as the unpredictable man of action who at times displays dictatorial tendencies. Can such a person be entrusted with a position in which he is answerable to no one? It is up to each one of us to answer this question because Michael Sata is a determined campaigner. The veteran party, UNIP, which has an extensive grassroots network, has practically disintegrated because of chronic leadership squabbles. It may be unfair but Tilyenji has to convince the voting public that his assumption of the leadership of UNIP is owed to his own leadership credentials. That being the offspring of Zambia's founding father, Kenneth Kaunda, was not a decisive factor. Tilyenji and UNIP have an enormous credibility gap to overcome before they can make any headway in this election. Our ostensibly wealthiest candidate, BY Mwila, has mounted a credible video election campaign which impressively appears to show that ZRP has taken the campaign to the remotest parts of the country.

However, your being lifted shoulder high regularly by apparently worshipping "crowds" of supporters makes most of us extremely uncomfortable. Hopefully, BY feels uncomfortable too. The days of hero worship, patronage and sycophancy are long gone. BY's campaign to all intents and purposes is based on his "success" as a businessman. His political CV is not as glamorous. He, however, needs to demonstrate that he has really abandoned business ambitions in preference for public service through Plot 1. We are entitled to know because the temptation to use political power as a stepping stone to becoming the richest president in Africa is not without precedent. BY, we are not sure. Please reassure us.

Nevers Mumba is refreshingly articulate about a crucial issue in this election i.e. integrity and character. The question is, what is he passionate about? He wants to become Zambia's 3rd president in order for us to benefit from emulating his exemplary Christian life. For most of us who have witnessed his evangelism, firsthand, believe that it is where his true calling lies. Nevers Mumba is a gifted evangelist. People value him as a convincing pastor whose rare talent should passionately be exploited to bring God in people's lives. Nevers re-examine your mission.

Christon Tembo of the FDD has impressed independent observers such as myself that he is capable of establishing a leadership based on consensus and collective accountability. Lately, his charisma and stamina have raised concerns. General Tembo seems to be fighting the battle from the sidelines.

My advice to the General is for him as FDD leader to deal conclusively with charges that FDD is facing a leadership crisis, that FDD is being led by an invalid and that FDD is tainted by corruption. General, time is running out.

Inonge Mbikusita-Lewanika is looking for a vehicle that will allow the people of Zambia to benefit from her rich CV. Unfortunately, her campaign appears limited to a small TV audience. She needs time to mobilise a more broadly based crusade. Unfortunately for her time has run out. The partial eclipse of Aka has not helped. Gwendoline Konie whose sincerity and diplomatic experience cannot be doubted is failing to sell her programme.

She needs a great deal more support on the ground. The adoption of Levy Mwanawasa as the MMD presidential candidate has generally been hailed as a shrewd move. After all, Levy Mwanawasa gave up his vice-presidency because of his anti-corruption stance or, perhaps, more accurately, because of being frustrated by Sata (Sata allegedly undermined his authority).

Whatever the reason, he resigned on principle. Two issues are being persistently raised about Mwanawasa's candidature. However, strong the denial, a good number of people still believe MMD will use his presidency as a legal shield against legal repercussions of the many allegations of corruption and abuse of office during its 10-year rule. Levy still has to convince a lot of people that his health is sufficiently robust to permit him to discharge the physically taxing presidential workload. The campaign trail appears to have taken its toll. Intellectually, Mwanawasa has no handicap.

Shamapande's candidature is being noticed because of the freshness of the candidate and his party. Is he perhaps too fresh? Obscurity is not necessarily a handicap in an election short on candidates but when the race is oversubscribed as is the position now the less known have to fight to be seen and heard otherwise oblivion is their inevitable fate. Dr Shamapande, are you equal to the challenge? It is not a rhetorical question!

I come back to my original question, how are we to choose?

In the midst of deepening poverty and hunger and adverse voting conditions logistically it is extremely difficult to overcome the cynicism and apathy which overtake most of the electorate. If the dream of 1991 can come to nothing, there does not seem to be much hope for the nation. We are in danger of a record low voter turn-out. Only about 50 per cent of the eligible voters registered. Of these a fair proportion have not even bothered to collect their cards. In such circumstances the incumbent Party in Government enjoys a huge advantage because of its superior access to resources and reliance on an activist and vocal group of supporters.

Secondly, even in a country such as Zambia, where the electorate is reasonably well-informed the vote loses some of its sacredness. It can be bought by the highest bidder. Guess who? There is something grossly perverse to profit from the misery you have caused. Our task as voters is further compounded by the plurality of parties with practically an identical agenda. Incumbency again stands to gain from the fragmented opposition. It is however doubtful that the ruling Party will fully exploit its incumbency because it faces real opposition from its own record of performance in office.

Ultimately, the most desirable outcome of this election would be victory for a party with a team that is led by a president who knows how to achieve results through others. This nation, through enormous sacrifice has produced an enviable stock of highly trained and experienced personnel from which the nation is benefitting very little. We need a president and a party capable of fully utilizing all the talent at the nation's disposal.

Who will it be? Your guess is better than mine.