It is beyond any doubt that the NIMD funded programmes are a living experiment. Ambitious, unique, daring, risky, but utterly relevant and at the heart of what development really is all about: politics!
This report finds that bilateral party funding remains a very risky business in Zambia. Low levels of accountability and very little information on how parties actually function pose a huge challenge for any aid provider. This report does not recommend to drop the bilateral pillar, but to increase the monitoring efforts even more, introduce the use of track records and link this to carrots and sticks. The cross party initiatives on the other hand seem to produce quite a lot of tangible and intangible results. The efforts to install inter party dialogue have succeeded without any doubt. In a very short time, the Zambia programme has resulted in the creation of the Zambian Centre for Inter-Party Dialogue which provides a political platform where parties can discuss issues of national interest, and it assists parties in managing the NIMD funded projects and programmes. While looking at the 2004-2006 programmes and its results, this report also heavily emphasizes the future challenges with which the ZCID has to deal. Situated in a turbulent political environment, they have to walk a very thin line between the political world where predatory politics prevail and another universe where rules and regulations try to counterbalance arbitrary power abuses. The achievements realized up until now are impressive, yet some issues still have to be dealt with in the coming weeks and months. The most urgent issue (because of the emotional baggage it carries) is related to the role and place of the ZCID secretariat vis-à-vis the Board. There seems to be a problem with somewhat too much ownership of the board over the secretariat, with the risk that ownership turns into predatory tendencies. Closely related to this is the need for clarifying what the exact mission and vision is of ZCID and more particularly if it is a political actor itself, or if it only provides a platform, a stage upon which parties can come to agreements. By extension this discussion flows into a larger concern: can ZCID only be held accountable for processes, or also for outcomes?