Politics today is virtually impossible to avoid. Most of us have smart phones and cannot avoid logging on to social media for campaign updates and the likes. On August 13, 2026, Zambia heads to the polls. Before that, we have 32 more days of no shortage of insults, name calling, disease labelling and distortions in politics. And no matter how often candidates swear they’ll run a positive, issues-oriented campaign, negativity seems to be the norm of the day by cadres or most supporters. And why is this so, because our brains respond to it.

In psychology, people process information based on how it is presented to them. One candidate stands on a podium and promises that we shall continue to enjoy having electricity and another opposing candidate from party “AB” stands to say loadshedding will continue after elections if the party “A” are kept in power. It’s the same story but told from different angles. Which story one chooses to follow and believe depends on how the message is framed. Whichever message is framed successfully, takes the day.

Negative framing is much more persistent compared to positive framing. Most minds don’t want to believe in good things and would rather believe the bad side. If you come at an issue negatively, but are later reminded of the policy’s positive aspects, you will still think it’s just a story. And if you start out thinking favorably about the policy, but are reminded of its downsides, your positive perception will be swept away and a negative one will take its place.

Once we think the glass is half empty, it’s hard to remember that it’s also half full. In short, our brains are hard-wired to seek out and remember negative information.

The beauty of negative attacks from a campaign standpoint is that they influence everyone. Even a candidate’s supporters will be affected by negative attacks. Once a negative idea has been planted, it’s very hard to shake. But we don’t have to be held hostage by the constant negativity. Another way to combat negativity is to offer voters a new, unfamiliar situation with the possibility of a major gain.

A candidate people know less about, who can introduce themselves on their own terms, has an opportunity to establish positive frames about their life and career that those with baggage don’t. Candidates that are new are unique in that way and have a better chance of succeeding.

When you do find effective frames positive for yourself, negative for others, stick to them. Focused positive frames are most powerful, whether you will push a forward agenda or an agenda of bringing a lamp to light the tunnel, stick to it and amplify it. Shifting camps clearly shows a lack of seriousness and where does that leave your supporters who believed in your ideologies?

Clearly there is anger visible as we head towards August 13. Insults and accusations are the norm of the day. We can easily see videos of insults by bloggers and all sorts of discussion forums offering avenues for people to express their frustration. Consequently, exposure to this might make people feel as though there is more anger over politics than in the past.

As for why politics provokes so much anger from people, it happens for the same reason that people get angry about anything. It is shocking that people may feel their personal or professional goals are being blocked, that their positions or opinions are being ignored or devalued, or that they can’t cope with the outcome. There are a couple of factors, though, that make anger over politics especially prevalent. In our setup, it’s the love of money, not necessarily hunger itself but greed. Wanting to make quick money knowing it will be given out to the highest noise maker.

It’s well known that politicians tend to make exaggerated claims about their accomplishments or their opponent’s positions. Those claims are often designed with the explicit purpose of making people angry (e.g., “my opponent will ban the cooking of nshima” “my opponent wants all couples to have mandatory joint salary accounts.” It isn’t surprising that those who believe the claims respond with frustration. Meanwhile, it’s likely that those who don’t believe them respond with anger over what they perceive as dishonesty.

Related to these exaggerated claims, voters have a habit of only paying attention to the information that supports their perspective. They tend to believe the claims of the candidate they endorse and to perceive the claims of the other as being dishonest. They then look only for evidence that confirms their positions and ignore the data that refutes them. The Internet has made it all the easier to only pay attention to confirming evidence. If people believe a certain thing, they can usually find a post to validate their position. It’s also made the spread of these exaggerated claims even easier because anyone can post just about anything on the Internet or send it out via email without regard for truth or accuracy.

There is actually a place for healthy and productive anger in the political process. If we think of anger as a valuable tool in alerting us to problems and motivating us to confront those problems, it’s perfectly reasonable to get angry when elected officials and candidates act irresponsibly and endorse positions that may harm us. The decisions that are made by elected officials affect many people in very real ways. Consequently, some are affected quite negatively and, potentially, unfairly by those decisions (e.g., decreased funding to certain programs, increased taxes) and an angry response might be both reasonable and healthy.

Allowing our minds to be occupied by political fog where individuals begin to bring about irrelevant issues on what disease affects who, who is is on what medication, Friday the 13 horror stories that keep millions glued for hours, conspiracy theories and whose dating who. Honestly, how do these things bring about development to our country? Allowing politicians to turn us into insulting machines whilst the people we claim to be supporting are maintaining their dignity with no insults, what does that say about us? Are we so hungry that we can sale our dignity and say “ta tupi……” or we don’t care as long as ka something hits our account, we shall insult? What legacy are we leaving for the generation to come for a women or man to bluntly come out on social media and say unpalatable words full of insults? If you find it difficult to discuss political issues in a calm and constructive manner, it may be best to disengage from the conversation. I want to believe everyone who insults has been paid something but aikona man and this just shows the upbringing one had, that is childhood trauma manifesting. Anyone who had a normal childhood, cannot bluntly insult on social media no matter the amount paid. And a big shame to all politicians who pay off people to insult. We understand its politics but insults are not welcome, find better angles to frame your message, twerk, dance but “ku tukwana yayi”

No one can say who will win the next election, but keep a look out for the candidates who are best at packaging and sticking to their frames. In the meantime, look for your voters card, national registration card and keep them near as we prepare to cast our votes on 13 August 2026 and may the best candidates win.

Seek help when in need, visit a Counsellor near you!