By EditorZambia
PRESIDENT Hakainde Hichilema has done something unprecedented in Zambia’s recent political history: he has directed the expulsion of more than 150 unruly ruling-party cadres for criminal conduct, intimidation, and open disruption of a national exercise.
This is a decisive act that cuts straight to the heart of a long-standing cancer in Zambian politics—cadreism. 
Yet the voices that normally leap at the chance to criticise him have gone strangely quiet.
Church groups, civic associations, and individuals who often position themselves as watchdogs over the presidency or ruling party have remained muted.
The question is direct: Why are the traditional critics of the Head of State not commending him for taking a stance that his predecessors never dared to take? Their silence is loud, and it demands examination.
A Rare Act: Expelling One’s Own
The Zambia Police Service confirmed that unruly individuals—suspected ruling-party cadres—invaded Mbita Voter Registration Centre in Livingstone.
They harassed members of the public, disrupted the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) staff, and even escalated the confrontation to the point where two were injured after police opened fire to protect the integrity of the registration process.
Within days, the United Party for National Development (UPND) leadership moved with rare decisiveness, and over 150 cadres from Livingstone, Kitwe, and Mpika were expelled. Not suspended. Not warned. Expelled.
This level of discipline has not been witnessed in Zambia’s multiparty era.
Traditionally, ruling parties have bent over backwards to shield their own cadres, even when those cadres stomped on the rights of ordinary citizens.
A Clear Presidential Position
President Hichilema has consistently and publicly condemned political violence. He did it in opposition when it was dangerous to do so. He is doing it now in office when it is inconvenient to do so.
His messaging has never changed: violence has no place in the politics of a modern, democratic Zambia. Crucially, there are no sacred cows.
This is not the Zambia most people became accustomed to under previous administrations.
During the Patriotic Front (PF) era, certain individuals were untouchable. Their proximity to power shielded them from accountability even when they assaulted citizens, grabbed land, blocked roads, extorted bus drivers, or stormed public offices.
Cadre power became so normalised that it began to define the PF brand itself.
Former president Edgar Chagwa Lungu never took a firm stance against political violence.
He never condemned it in clear, unambiguous terms. He never took disciplinary action against cadres whose actions terrorised markets, bus stations, and communities.
Silence became the official response, and silence empowered violence.
This is the contrast, and it is stark. Under President Hichilema’s rule, if you break the law, “You Are on Your Own.”
So Why Is There No Applause?
The silence of President Hichilema’s traditional critics raises several possibilities.
- Commending him would break their long-established narrativeSome individuals and organisations have built their public identity on criticising Hichilema. It is their default position. Praising him for doing something right would mean acknowledging that he is capable of delivering positive leadership—something they may not be emotionally or politically prepared to do.Once you commit to the role of a permanent critic, giving credit becomes a threat to your relevance.
- This act undermines their claim that UPND is “no different from PF”A favourite talking point among some civic voices is that “cadreism has not changed” and that “UPND is doing what PF did.” But the mass expulsion of unruly cadres directly contradicts that argument.You cannot continue arguing that the ruling party tolerates violence when it has fired more cadres for misconduct in one week than PF fired in ten years.The critics’ silence may simply reflect the fact that this development destroys one of their most convenient accusations.
- Some groups are selectively vocal. There are civic and religious organisations that were extremely vocal under the PF government, fell silent in the later PF years, and then re-emerged under UPND. But their pattern of speaking out tends to follow political winds, not moral consistency.Condemning UPND when things go wrong is correct and necessary. But refusing to acknowledge when the same government does something right exposes selective morality. It creates the impression of political alignment disguised as activism.
- The church is avoiding confrontation. The church, historically one of Zambia’s strongest voices, has grown cautious. Some denominations fear losing access to government leaders. Others worry about appearing partisan. As a result, many now choose neutrality—even when events demand that they speak up either to criticise or to commend. But neutrality in the face of wrongdoing is one thing; neutrality in the face of corrective action is another. The church can oppose violence without supporting the government politically. Silence here serves no moral purpose.
- A success story does not provoke outrage clicksIn today’s media environment, negativity travels faster than progress. Outrage is easier to market than discipline. Stories of cadre violence generate public anger; stories of cadre punishment generate little drama. Some critics may simply find less publicity value in applauding good governance.
Why This Moment Matters
Whether one supports President Hichilema or not, this decision must be understood in its broader democratic context.
Cadre violence has long undermined voter confidence, distorted elections, and created a climate of fear in public spaces.
Expelling perpetrators sends a strong message: Political power is not a shield for criminality.
The police will protect public processes. Party loyalty can not excuse violence.
The UPND members are not above the law.This is not a small gesture. It is a cultural shift in Zambian politics.
If Zambia is serious about cleaning up its political environment, this is exactly the type of leadership people have demanded for years. So when it happens, failing to acknowledge it is intellectually dishonest.
Consistency Must Go Both Ways
Criticism is healthy. It keeps leaders accountable. But credibility requires balance. If critics only speak when the government stumbles and fall silent when the government corrects a long-standing wrong, then their influence weakens. Their silence becomes partisan. Their voice becomes predictable. Their objectivity evaporates. The public begins to see them not as watchdogs, but as political actors hiding behind moral language.
A Call for Fairness
President Hakainde Hichilema’s decision to expel 150 unruly cadres marks a serious break from Zambia’s past. It shows discipline, courage, and a clear commitment to dismantling the violent political culture that previous leaders tolerated.
The question remains unanswered: Where are the voices that always demand exactly this kind of action? Their silence speaks volumes.
But Zambia has taken an important step forward, whether they acknowledge it or not.
