VIEWS FROM ROME
Kaunda warned: is Hichilema proving him right?
THE general elections are upon us once again.
The political atmosphere is slowly heating up. Political parties have spread out across the country to canvass support for their candidates and their respective parties. Campaign vehicles are back on the roads and bush paths, public rallies are attracting huge crowds, and familiar political slogans once again have dominated the national conversation.
Typically, this period is traditionally characterised by lofty promises, ambitious pledges and passionate rhetoric about the future of our country and its people. It’s pretty standard for every election cycle to come with assurances of more jobs, development, prosperity and a better tomorrow. Some promises are realistic but many are not. That has become part of the democratic process. Lies, pure evil lies.
This is expected.
What is not expected, however, and what should concern every patriotic Zambian regardless of political affiliation, is when a sitting Head of State appears to take the lead in advancing rhetoric that has the potential to divide the very people he was elected to unite.
That is where the real danger lies.
Addressing a public rally in Mitete District of Western Province recently, President Hakainde Hichilema reminded those in attendance that the Patriotic Front (PF) government never wanted to employ UPND members, particularly people from that area. He went on to say that his government was employing people without segregation.
On the surface, such remarks may appear to be nothing more than political criticism directed at a previous administration. Of course, every election campaign naturally involve drawing contrasts between competing political parties.
However, this statement from President Hichilema carries a far more troubling implication.
It clearly invites citizens to view public employment through the lens of political and ethnic identity. It reinforces the narrative that employment opportunities have historically been determined by party affiliation and regional origin. In doing so, it subtly encourages citizens to think of government as something that rewards one political constituency and ethnic group against another.
Truthfully speaking, that is a dangerous message for any President to communicate to his people.
It must be acknowledged that the President occupies a unique constitutional position. He is not merely the leader of his political party. He is the Head of State, representing every citizen regardless of how they voted, where they come from or which political beliefs they hold. Therefore, every public statement made by a President carries enormous weight because it helps shape public perception and national consciousness. That is why presidential rhetoric matters.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.
President Hichilema has, on previous occasions, made remarks that many citizens found equally divisive. Not too long ago, while addressing another public gathering in Southern Province, he claimed that before he assumed office, people from Southern Province were routinely beaten whenever they arrived at Lusaka’s Intercity Bus Terminus.
That was another extraordinary assertion.
If indeed such systematic acts were taking place, then they would have constituted serious criminal conduct requiring evidence, investigations and prosecutions. If they were not taking place in the manner suggested, then such statements unnecessarily deepen suspicion between communities that have lived together peacefully for generations.
Whichever way, such rhetoric especially from the President, is unhelpful.
It is expected for a President to calm tensions, not inflame them.
A president builds bridges, not reinforce perceptions of historical victimhood that risk reopening old regional wounds.
It therefore becomes difficult to ignore a recurring pattern from the highest office in the land.
If I may ask, why does the president appear to adopt this style of political messaging whenever he campaigns in what has come to be popularly referred to as the Zambezi Region? Why are these narratives repeatedly introduced before audiences in those particular areas? What political value is being pursued?
These are legitimate questions.
Even more importantly, what pleasure or political advantage is derived from repeatedly reminding citizens of alleged regional discrimination instead of emphasising shared national aspirations?
Is electoral victory now being pursued through carefully crafted narratives of regional grievance?
If so, then Zambia should be deeply concerned.
Curiously, when the President addresses audiences in other parts of the country, the message is often markedly different. There, he passionately invokes the timeless national motto, “One Zambia, One Nation.” He speaks about unity, togetherness and collective responsibility in building the country.
Those are commendable messages.
They are messages every President should consistently preach.
The difficulty arises when those messages appear inconsistent with remarks made elsewhere before different audiences. Citizens today are far more informed than they once were. Public speeches are instantly shared across social media platforms. Every statement is recorded, replayed and analysed. Regional audiences no longer exist in isolation.
People now hear everything instantaneously.
As such, any perceived variation in messaging inevitably invites scrutiny and confusion.
There is need for consistency. The President cannot convincingly preach national unity in one province while appearing to reinforce regional narratives in another. The contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.
The President ought to realize that the greatest strength of Zambia has never been its mineral wealth, its agricultural potential or even its strategic geographical position. Zambia’s greatest strength has always been our unity.
From independence in 1964, Zambia deliberately chose a different path from many African countries that descended into ethnic conflict, regional fragmentation and political violence. Successive generations have protected the philosophy of “One Zambia, One Nation” because they understood that nation building requires constant investment and harnessing.
The unity we enjoy today is not self-sustaining. It must be nurtured. It must be defended.
It must also be reflected consistently in the language of those entrusted with national leadership.
And political competition should never become a licence to undermine that sacred national inheritance.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticising previous governments. There is nothing wrong with presenting one’s achievements or contrasting policy approaches. That is the essence of democratic politics.
But there is everything wrong with framing national discourse in ways that encourage citizens to interpret their experiences primarily through regional or political identity.
That path is both unnecessary and dangerous for the nation.
History across the continent offers painful lessons about what happens when political leaders normalise narratives of exclusion and victimhood for electoral gain. Such narratives may deliver applause at campaign rallies, but they often leave behind deep social scars that outlive both elections and the leaders themselves.
The President’s words matter even more.
Once citizens begin believing that opportunities are determined by where one comes from or which political party one supports, trust in public institutions gradually erodes, meritocracy becomes secondary, national identity weakens, and suspicion flourishes where confidence should exist. That is a price no democracy should willingly pay.
As Zambia heads towards another crucial election, political leaders across the divide must remember that campaigns are temporary but nationhood is permanent. Elections come and go. Governments change and political parties rise and fall. But Zambia remains.
Long after campaign songs have faded and election posters have been removed, our children will still inherit the society we build today.
And that society should not be characterised by unnecessary regional suspicion or political resentment deliberately cultivated during election campaigns.
President Hichilema would do well to reflect deeply on this issue.
He has both the constitutional authority and the moral responsibility to unite the country, not merely to secure electoral victory.
The Office of the President is larger than any political party. It demands restraint, balance and language that reassures every citizen that they belong equally to this Republic. That is what statesmanship requires.
If indeed Zambia is to remain faithful to its enduring national motto, then those words must not simply be repeated during speeches. They must be lived. They must be practiced.
Above all, they must begin with the President himself.
At this point, one is forced to ask: with what we continue to see and hear today from President Hichilema himself regarding this kind of divisive rhetoric, was the founding President of this country, Dr Kenneth David Kaunda, of blessed memory, wrong when he cautioned that he feared Mr Hichilema would divide the country?
It is a sobering question that cannot simply be dismissed as partisan politics. Dr Kaunda’s remarks were controversial when he made them, and many considered them unfair or exaggerated. Yet, the President’s own repeated public pronouncements increasingly invite fresh scrutiny of that warning.
Why is President Hichilema turning Dr Kaunda into a prophet?
It is a sad development because no Zambian should wish to see such a caution vindicated. Our founding President devoted much of his political life to nurturing the ideals of “One Zambia, One Nation” precisely because he understood how fragile national unity can be. The burden therefore rests most heavily on the incumbent President to ensure that his words heal rather than divide, unite rather than polarise, and strengthen rather than weaken the national fabric.
We are all “One Zambia, One Nation”.
Author: Albrecht Chinyama is a Zambian based in Rome, Italy.
