IN the run-up to this election, this newspaper has been very clear about what the Patriotic Front and its rebranded version, represented by NRPUP, stood for. We have not been shy to call them out on some of their most egregious excesses.
The Patriotic Front under the late president Edgar Lungu behaved almost like a militia with very few rules. There was little, if any, respect for public resources. There was what we can only describe as a feeding frenzy. That is why many of those who had access to public resources became intoxicated with their sudden wealth. We cannot forget that there were individuals who openly flaunted huge amounts of cash in public, leaving many Zambians wondering how exactly they had earned that money.
Now that the election has come and gone, it is time to talk about the UPND. The results that have been published so far carry many lessons for the ruling party, if it is willing to learn from them. One of the most important lessons is that it is not enough to do good things for people who do not understand the good that you are doing for them. After all, politics is about communicating with people in a language they can understand; explaining what it is that you are doing for them, why you are doing it and how it benefits them. When we talk about language here, we are not referring to ethnicity. We are talking about communicating in a manner that people can relate to and understand.
The UPND seems to have had difficulties transitioning from an opposition party into a governing party, and at times continued behaving as though it was still in opposition, yet it was in charge. This needs to change. Running government is different from running a political party. A political party is basically a club which, if its owners so wish, could even be run by one person from their living room. Government is a different ball game altogether. No single person can run government alone. It is a collaborative institution that must draw on the very best that the country has to offer.
The UPND has been insular and appears to have struggled to govern beyond its very tight circles, which may explain some of the unnecessary electoral setbacks it has suffered. Although we say this, we must quickly point out that the electoral results published so far also paint a positive picture which should help the UPND reposition itself.
The UPND sometimes speaks like a person carrying childhood trauma and therefore in constant need of affirmation. A big political party like the UPND needs to stop moving around with a victim mentality. Listening to some of its leaders, one can easily get the impression that the party is hated across the country. But the figures it has garnered in this election tell a different story.
Although its traditional strongholds have once again delivered strongly for it, the UPND has also received meaningful endorsements across the country. This must change the party’s mindset because it has demonstrated the potential to become a broad political umbrella capable of covering the whole country. If it receives the mandate it is seeking, which by now appears imminent, to govern the country for another five years, it must take the lesson contained in these numbers very seriously.
Those numbers are both promising and threatening.
They are promising in the sense that, notwithstanding the tribal attacks which the UPND has weathered for many decades, there are enough Zambians across the country who are willing to ignore those attacks and give the party a chance to govern.
This is not a small thing. Those who seek to divide the country have often targeted the least educated in our society and tried to condition them to think tribally. Yet there are enough Zambians who are prepared to resist this. The UPND needs to build on that. It has obtained respectable votes in Eastern Province, Luapula, Muchinga and Northern Province, areas where in the past it struggled to register meaningful impact.
But the flipside is equally true. If the UPND continues to run the country arrogantly simply because it has been given a mandate, it risks eventually disappearing into political oblivion. Politics is also about emotions. People must feel connected to their political institutions and to their government. The UPND needs to work hard to convince the public that ichi ni chipani cha bonse; that this is a party for everyone and that it will run an inclusive government if entrusted with another mandate.
We have repeatedly stated that one of the things that cost the PF power in 2021 was the brazen tribalism that it practised. Many Zambians who did not belong to tribes regarded as politically acceptable at the time were victimised. The UPND must not continue where the PF left off by victimising any tribe or creating the impression that some groups are more welcome in government than others.
There is no need to become defensive about this. As the UPND introspects and reviews its performance in this election, it must be brutally honest with itself. These results give the party an opportunity to reset and take advantage of the foundation that voters have given it to build a formidable political organisation capable of surviving beyond its tenure in government.
The current reincarnation of the rebranded PF is still riding on the legacy of late president Michael Sata, which Mr Edgar Lungu also used and which, it now appears, Mr Mundubile has equally leaned on. You do not need to be a political genius to understand what this means or what continues to unite this political clique.
There are serious lessons to be learnt from this election. The winners may now be known, but the more important question is whether those who have won are humble enough to learn from the message hidden inside the numbers.
One Response
Ba News Diggers, with due respect, this editorial reads less like a neutral post-election analysis and more like a politically aligned commentary. The tone and selection of arguments appear to favour a particular political narrative while presenting it as an objective interpretation of the election.
You strongly condemn the PF and its alleged excesses, yet when discussing the UPND, the language becomes considerably more constructive—emphasising that the party has “demonstrated the potential” to become a national political umbrella and describing the electoral numbers as a foundation upon which it can build. That contrast raises a legitimate question: are we reading an independent analysis of the election, or are we being presented with a political argument dressed up as editorial analysis?
The problem becomes even more apparent in the repeated framing of UPND’s electoral performance as evidence of “meaningful endorsements” and resistance to tribal attacks. Those may be legitimate interpretations, but they are not the only possible interpretations of the results. Presenting them so confidently, while portraying the opposition largely through negative historical associations, creates an obvious imbalance.
Your characterisation of the PF as having behaved “almost like a militia” and being involved in a “feeding frenzy” is particularly strong political language. If such serious accusations are being made, they should be supported by evidence rather than rhetorical descriptions. Otherwise, the editorial risks moving from journalism and analysis into political advocacy.
Similarly, describing the UPND’s difficulties as “childhood trauma” and a “victim mentality” may be provocative, but it does not strengthen the analytical argument. It contributes to a narrative in which the ruling party is essentially portrayed as a party with problems that can be corrected, while its opponents are repeatedly defined by their past failures and political baggage.
That is why I would challenge Ba News Diggers directly: your editorial appears to have a political position, and there is nothing inherently wrong with having an opinion, but it should not be disguised as detached analysis. If this is an opinion piece, say so—and readers can judge the argument accordingly. But when a media institution repeatedly frames one side sympathetically and another side predominantly negatively, readers are justified in questioning the institution’s political neutrality.
You also say that the “winners may now be known,” but immediately proceed to explain what the winning party needs to do to consolidate its position. That is perfectly legitimate. However, the same intellectual scrutiny should be applied to the opposition. What strategic mistakes did it make? Why did voters reject its message? Did its leadership inspire confidence? Did its campaign offer a convincing alternative? What organisational weaknesses contributed to its performance?
Those questions receive far less attention in this editorial.
Ba News Diggers, criticism of the ruling party is necessary in a democracy, but criticism becomes less credible when it appears selective. A genuinely independent post-election analysis should be prepared to scrutinise the winners and losers with the same intensity, challenge narratives from all sides and distinguish established facts from political interpretation.
So my disagreement is not that UPND should be above criticism..it absolutely should not be. My concern is that News Diggers itself appears politically aligned in the way it constructs the narrative: harsh toward the opposition, comparatively sympathetic toward the governing party, and then presents that imbalance as an objective reading of the election.