WHEN we compare records, assess the political alternatives available, and weigh the risks of change ahead of this week’s election, it is inevitable to start and finish a conversation without touching on the topic of political violence. We admit that Cadre violence has not completely disappeared, and it never does, really. Recent campaign incidents demonstrate that ruling-party supporters can still become unruly when they become intoxicated with power.
However, it cannot be argued that there has been a huge change in the relationship between political cadres and the State. The open seizure of bus stations, markets and government offices by party cadres is gone. Under the previous regime, cadres could overrule police officers, collect illegal levies, invade public institutions and assault citizens while boasting of political protection. Thankfully, President Hichilema has taken a strong open stance against that. That culture of organised lawlessness has been done away with.
And this is where the biggest concern comes in when citizens are asked to weigh the risks of change. The NRPUP has said they would rule like the late president Edgar Lungu ruled the country. They have said if they win, they would take Zambians to the way they lived under the Patriotic Front. This should surely worry every concerned voter who detests lawlessness because this promise is not an empty one. Even before they win elections, the opposition NRPUP supporters have been threatening to close businesses, and they have already been insulting those who don’t support their candidate. Interestingly, the presidential candidate himself is involved in calling and threatening businesses like our media house. This is dangerous.
Why else should voters think carefully as they approach the booth on Thursday? The current government has opened space for renewed investment in mining. The Ministry of Mines reported in February 2026 that Zambia had attracted around US$12 billion in mining investment under the current administration. The reopening and recapitalisation of major mining operations have restored confidence in a sector that remains central to Zambia’s exports, employment and foreign-exchange earnings.
We know that investment figures must ultimately be judged by jobs, tax revenue, local procurement, environmental protection and benefits to mining communities. Zambia must never celebrate investors merely because they have brought money. The country must demand fair value for its minerals and ensure that Zambians participate meaningfully in the mining value chain.
Where does the main opposition sit on this topic? On complex economic matters, one just has to watch the BBC interview for both candidates who are front runners for this election. Our observation is that Mr Mundubile’s comprehension of the topic is rather shallow and below average. When reminded that the cost of living and inflation under PF was very high and asked how he was going to resolve those issues, he responded: “The difference that Brian Mundubile brings is that, I love Zambia and Zambians. When you look at our manifesto, it focuses on Zambians and moves women and youths from the margins to the centre of policy transformation.” There is a problem here.
Regarding the mining sector, in one breath he is talking about demanding more contributions from the mining companies so that the benefits of mining activities can trickle down to the ordinary citizens, but he does not explain how he will incentivise the same mines to make sure that the country remains an attractive investment destination. What is his policy on foreign direct investment and what is his relationship with foreign capital owners?
Again, here we can pause and rethink the pronouncement from Mr Mundubile where he says he would rule like Mr Lungu. Zambians will remember that in May 2019, his mentor Mr Lungu’s Patriotic Front government forcibly took over the country’s biggest mining company from private hands. Merely on the basis that the company was delaying recapitalisation, they took over the mine and turned it into a cash cow. They lied that they would find an investor who would bring the mine back to life, but the ruling party actors exploited it for fraudulent profit. The question is, how safe is mining investment in Zambia under the NRPUP if they won the elections? How about the recently introduced local content instrument that protects the interests of the local suppliers in the mining sector? How safe is that law? The answer is frightening.
We can move on to the NAPSA partial-withdrawal policy, another important social-protection reform. Since its introduction in April 2023, NAPSA has paid more than K10 billion to hundreds of thousands of eligible members. This gave workers controlled access to part of their pension contributions while still in employment.
Many beneficiaries used the money to build houses, acquire land, pay school fees, settle debts or invest in small businesses. The policy carried risks, particularly where beneficiaries consumed the money without investing it productively, but it recognised an important reality: workers should not always have to wait until retirement to benefit from money deducted from their salaries. In comparison, NAPSA money under the Patriotic Front could be used for political programmes. We recall that after chasing the KCM owners and failing to raise money to pay workers, the PF government would use NAPSA funds to settle bills for miners and suppliers. This is what the reverse gear looks like for Zambia.
The greatest unfinished assignment is energy. Load-shedding has destroyed businesses, reduced production and punished households. If the UPND can permanently consign load-shedding to history, it will transform the economy more profoundly than any campaign speech.
The government has announced investments in solar generation, thermal power, regional interconnectors and private-sector participation. It previously reported that installed generation capacity had increased from 3,318 megawatts in 2021 to 3,886 megawatts in 2025, while further solar and thermal projects were expected to come on stream.
What Zambians now need is a clear, bankable five-year energy plan showing which projects will be completed, how much power each will produce, how they will be financed and when households and businesses can expect reliable electricity. President Hichilema has stabilised the foundation, but he has not completed the building. The next mandate must be about household prosperity, energy security, industrialisation, employment and putting money into the pockets of citizens.
It is on that premise that we say, President Hichilema and his UPND have not been perfect, but it is in Zambia’s best interest to give them another mandate so that the country can see what they could achieve from a more stable position than the one they inherited.
