OF late, there appears to be a calculated move to discredit democratic institutions such as the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) and the Judiciary, a development that risks eroding public confidence or whatever is left of it.

An impression is being created that the Judiciary, the third arm of Government, is biased, suggesting an element of political interference and, therefore, cannot be trusted.

Insinuations have been made to the effect that since the chief justice is the presiding officer for presidential elections and also forms part of the bench in the event of an election petition, he is biased.

The High Court and Supreme Court (on appeal), which hear election petitions, too are partial as they are presided by judges who are appointed by the president.

And by extension, the ECZ, which has for years immemorial been headed by a judge also, appointed by the president, is equally partisan in favour of the ruling party.

Opposition United Party for National Development (UPND) president, Hakainde Hichilema has raised his voice far above everyone else and is calling for the disbanding of the ECZ, alleging that it is an appendage of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD).

In his view, although there are some "good" people in ECZ, there are some "bag eggs" that need to be rooted out.

It is not exactly clear on what Mr Hichilema is basing his claim, especially that it is coming so soon after his party's bedmate, the Patriotic Front (PF), recaptured the Kasama Central Constituency in a landslide win.

Being new on the political scene from a corporate background, Mr Hichilema can be excused for his outbursts. He may not be fully conversant with the workings of Government in a democratic set-up.

Institutions such as the Judiciary and the ECZ are a prerequisite for a democracy. Democracy thrives where there are, among others, an independent Judiciary - free from undue influence either from the State or the public - and periodic elections.

In Zambia, like anywhere else in the world, the ECZ has the constitutional mandate to organise and manage elections whether presidential, parliamentary or local government.

In modern democracy, fulfillment and justification lies in the citizen's right to participate in Government. That is why holding of periodic elections to afford citizens an opportunity to vote is one way to ensure participation in the governance of the country.

Consequently, how elections are managed so that they are held in a free and fair manner hinge largely on the level of confidence that citizens accord these institutions.

It, therefore, strikes one as odd for anyone to suggest that such an institution as the ECZ should be done away with simply because Mr X says so. And with what are they going to replace it?

The ECZ has always been a target of blame and bashing even for matters that are totally outside its jurisdiction or not of its direct concern.

Who hasn't been brazed before?

It happened to Justice Bobby Bwalya when he chaired ECZ. To former chief justice Matthew Ngulube before him, Justice Ireen Mambilima and now Justice Florence Mumba.

Whenever things go wrong, there has always been a tendency to blame the electoral commission but in this case, it is very hard to underpin what or where the problem lies other than a scapegoat for shortcomings in political parties.

Admittedly, the ECZ has gotten off to a bumpy start. All elections held from independence right through to the post-1991 historic multiparty polls have been characterised by inefficiency and mismanagement.

Mishandling of ballot boxes and papers, delayed start and/or finish, insufficient electoral materials, unpaid electoral officers were the order of the day.

But since the enactment of the Electoral Act of 2006, there has been a tremendous improvement. The introduction of conflict management committees, regular briefings for political parties and the media, and the electoral code of conduct have for a good measure helped to improve the face of the ECZ.

Preparation of elections has generally become efficient. Those who have been involved in election management will tell you that things have changed and for the better. The mistakes of the old, especially on printing and handling of ballot papers, are no longer there.

By consensus, ballot papers are now printed in South Africa in the presence of representatives of political parties who are flown and accommodated at Government expense. Even when boxes are being transported and distributed, political party representatives and election observers and monitors are always present.

They are also there at polling stations where all blank ballot papers are inspected. Ballot boxes are now transparent. Ideally, there should be no reason to suspect stuffing of ballot papers in a system that is so foolproof. In any case, how does one produce extra ballot papers that have not been accounted for?

The counting is being done right from the polling station before the sealed boxes are transported to a counting centre.

It is possible now that having nothing else to complain about, we see an emerging mistrust of officers and agents of the ECZ. Civil servants, teachers alike, have been labeled pro-ruling party but no evidence has been brought.

A rule of thumb in elections is to provide evidence for claims of bias, malpractice and indeed rigging.

So many times, people have claimed rigging in elections but you wonder why such cases do not go through in court. It is because of lack of evidence. No one has proved rigging.

Save for the presidential and general elections in 1991, there have been election petitions after every presidential and general elections. All of them have failed on account of insufficient evidence.

The PF abandoned the 2008 presidential election petition probably for the same reasons but would want people to believe it was because they felt they would not get a fair trial because of the chief justice factor.

The bottom line is that no one has been able to give specific evidence that points or leads to electoral fraud or rigging.

And the ECZ cannot act based on general rumours and propaganda.

Otherwise you would have situations like what was witnessed in the 2008 presidential election when an outfit going by the name of Anti-rigging Zambia sent ECZ officials running around chasing blind leads of alleged rigging.

Similarly, where there are complaints against the conduct of an election official, the Electoral Act makes a provision for aggrieved persons to report such an official to the ECZ.

Even in the event of vote buying as was alleged in Kasama Central by-election, buying or taking away a voter's card is an offence which should be reported to police. And where the culprit is caught in the act, a citizen's arrest can be done. To date, we have no information that this was done.

Is it because PF won the election that there was no complaint of rigging except in the eyes of Mr Hichilema, or was it merely propaganda? Does rigging only apply when the opposition has lost?

Often, what is mistaken for rigging is purely a mathematical game plan or the make-up of Zambia's political landscape.

This is that Zambians do not vote for individuals but for political parties. Of course there may be a few exceptions. Hence the voting pattern in the PF-stronghold Kasama and MMD-dominated Chitambo parliamentary constituencies.

However, attention must always be paid to the number of registered voters against those who actually vote on polling day.

The emerging trend has seen a drop in the number of voters that vote.

Whereas PF claims popularity in the highly populated urban centres of Lusaka and the Copperbelt, the margin by which it sweeps victory is not as expected for a party that is popular.

A typical example is the Kasama Central by-election which PF candidate Geoffrey Mwamba scooped after polling more than 10,000 votes. The result falls far below the 34,451 number of eligible voters.

Also going by the total number of votes cast on October 15, 2009, there is still a growing trend of apathy towards elections.

In contrast, when the governing MMD registers defeat, the margin is not usually wide and where it wins, the party takes all, hence the winning streak in the rural areas.

Statistics, therefore, play a crucial role in elections.

Rather than heap blame on the ECZ, political parties must pay attention to issues of apathy and encourage at least 90 per cent of the people they purport to be their supporters to vote.

ECZ should not and cannot be blamed for poor organisation of political parties in their alleged strongholds.

Furthermore, even if the ECZ were to unearth all manner of malpractices, it has no power to nullify an election. The power lies in the courts.

The ECZ can only make observations because it is normally petitioned along with the offending party.

Besides, if the ECZ had power to disqualify, it would be accused of bias by the very same people who today are complaining.

Even where tribal remarks are made, there is little that the ECZ can do. And that is why when Kasama Central MP, Mr Mwamba made the tribal remarks about Kasama being only for the Bembas, the ECZ did not react.

Why? That is a matter for those complaining to prove in the courts of law. They must prove that they lost the election on account of the remarks.

And the judge hearing the petition will only address himself to the question: "Did the remark go to the root of the election to the extent that the results have to be overturned?"

Instead of waging war against the ECZ, political parties should fight for laws that provide funding to all political parties as is the case elsewhere in the world. The reason why the ruling party always seems to do better in elections is because they have the advantage of incumbency.

They have the resources at their disposal even outside election periods and, therefore, have a better opportunity.

Having said that, one can only conclude that persons who are throwing mud at the ECZ have no better excuse to explain their losses to their supporters.

After more than two unsuccessful attempts at the presidency, the next thing is to find someone or something to blame.