By EditorZambia
Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa’s long attack on Chibamba Kanyama that has gone viral is not only a misreading of Zambia’s current political realities, but also a dangerous example of the very ethnic framing he claims to be warning against.
What Sishuwa presents as sober political analysis collapses under scrutiny; it is built on selective memory, exaggerated assertions, and the familiar trope of turning every national debate into an ethnic confrontation. 
It is important to respond—not because Chibamba Kanyama needs defending from anyone, but because Zambia needs clearer thinking, more responsible commentary, and less intellectual grandstanding disguised as patriotism.
- A False Premise Wrapped in Moral Posturing.
Sishuwa begins by accusing Kanyama of “missing the point,” when in fact it is Sishuwa who builds his entire argument on a false premise: that President Hakainde Hichilema is running a government driven by ethnic vengeance. This is an extraordinary claim—one that he delivers without producing a shred of evidence beyond cherry-picked appointments and his own interpretation of public sentiment.
If one wants to have a serious discussion on public appointments, the first requirement is intellectual honesty.
What Sishuwa does instead is weaponise ethnicity as though Zambia has not spent decades struggling to prevent exactly this type of polarisation. His argument relies on painting whole communities as victims and others as beneficiaries—an old colonial game that our republic has rejected time and again.
- Selective Outrage: The Lungu Years Are Conveniently Sanitised
Sishuwa states that he “struggled” to convince people about discrimination against Tongas under Lungu. He says this in passing without interrogating it.
But the reason many people “struggled” was not because they had food in their mouths, nor because they were loyal to ethnicity. It is because analyses like Sishuwa’s lacked nuance even then.
Under Edgar Lungu’s administration, there were clear patterns of regional imbalance in appointments. This was widely acknowledged. Yet Sishuwa did not frame it as a national existential crisis or claim that PF’s behaviour would permanently destroy future prospects for Easterners and Bembas. Why? Because he understood then—correctly—that politicising ethnicity only deepens national fractures.
Today, however, Sishuwa adopts the very alarmist ethnic posture he avoided under PF.
Suddenly, every appointment by President Hichilema is a “dangerous entrenchment.”
Suddenly, every criticism of the President from Bemba or Eastern constituencies is proof of ethnic victimhood.
Suddenly, all national grievances are ethnic grievances.
This is not analysis, it is opportunistic re-packaging of old political frustrations.
- The Obama Analogy: A Misleading and Poorly Fitted Comparison
Bringing Barack Obama into Zambia’s debate is not only forced but analytically flawed.
The United States has a completely different historical, demographic, and constitutional context.
Using Obama to lecture Zambians about ethnicity is like using the Amazon rainforest to explain the vegetation in Mongu.
Furthermore, Obama did appoint a cabinet that reflected his ideological and political network—because that is what every president in the world does.
Political leadership is built on trust, expertise, competence, and loyalty—not on ticking ethnic boxes to satisfy academic theorists.
If the standard is that a president must always appoint people from every group in fixed proportions, then no Zambian president has ever passed that test—not Kaunda, not Chiluba, not Mwanawasa, not Sata, not Lungu. Yet Sishuwa somehow reserves the apocalyptic verdict only for President Hichilema.
- Misrepresenting Civil Service and Security Appointments
Sishuwa’s argument collapses even further when he suggests that certain positions in the civil service are “out of reach” for Bembas and Easterners. This is simply untrue.
Zambia’s civil service remains one of the most ethnically mixed institutions in the country. Permanent Secretaries, Directors, Ambassadors, Commissioners, and technocrats come from every region.
The idea that an ethnic purge has occurred would require evidence—real evidence, not the rhetorical flourish Sishuwa substitutes for facts. His focus on five security chiefs is also misleading. No serious political scientist would reduce an entire national appointment landscape to a list of five individuals selected from institutions with complex professional pipelines.
Moreover, military and intelligence leadership is shaped by decades of service progression, not by short-term political manoeuvres. This is a classic manipulation technique: pick a narrow set of examples, inflate them into a national crisis, and then build a sweeping argument about “ethnic exclusion.”
- Ethnic Fear-Mongering Disguised as Concern for Democracy
Sishuwa accuses President Hichilema of creating a Zambia where certain groups will refuse to vote for a Tonga in the future.
What Sishuwa is actually doing is planting that fear himself. No serious political leader, analyst, or citizen should ever suggest to millions of Zambians that their democratic choices should be filtered through the lens of ethnic distrust.It is reckless. It is divisive. It undermines everything Zambia has built since independence.
Zambia has elected presidents from Northern, Eastern, and Southern regions.
Zambians have repeatedly shown that they can vote beyond tribe when inspired by vision and credibility.
What Sishuwa is trying to normalise is the idea that tribal blocs are fixed and permanent—yet he claims to be fighting tribalism.
You can not warn against fire by lighting a match.
- Misrepresenting the State of the Economy
Sishuwa dismisses economic reforms as “mirages” and claims that Foreign Direct (FDI) has “zero credibility.” Yet Sishuwa provides no data, no macroeconomic indicators, and no alternative policy prescriptions.
Zambia’s fiscal reforms, mining restructuring, currency stabilisation measures, and debt resolution efforts are matters of public record. They may be imperfect, but they are not illusions. Calling them “mirages” is not analysis—it is polemic.
- The Anatomy of an Overreach
Sishuwa ends by claiming that Zambia has now “undressed” President Hichilema and found him lacking. But this metaphor says more about Sishuwa’s desperation than about the President’s performance. It reveals an emotional desire to settle old political scores, not an objective evaluation of governance.
If Zambia’s political future is to be shaped, it must be built on serious policy critique—not on exaggerated narratives of betrayal, fear, and ethnic doom.
Zambia Deserves Better Than Ethnic Alarmism
Sishuwa Sishuwa’s attack on Chibamba Kanyama is not a defence of national unity—it is a contribution to ethnic polarisation disguised as scholarship. It relies on selective history, exaggerated claims, and opportunistic rewriting of recent political events.
Zambia has real challenges—economic, institutional, constitutional, and political.
These challenges require sober critique, data-driven analysis, and constructive debate.
What they do not require is intellectualised tribal fear-mongering masquerading as patriotism.
Zambia deserves better.
