By EditorZambia
BARELY a few months before Zambians go to the polls in 2026, parts of the political opposition have already begun singing a familiar, tired tune: the election will be rigged.
This premature lamentation is not a warning born out of evidence; it is a confession of fear, failure, disorganisation, and unpreparedness. It is the sound of political players growing cold feet before the starting gun has even been fired. 
At a time when the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has firmly and publicly dismissed claims that elections can be manipulated, the opposition’s rush to delegitimise a future contest exposes a troubling mindset.
Instead of organising and mobilising, offering credible alternatives to government, some opposition political figures have opted for the easier route of excuse-making. It is a strategy that insults the intelligence of voters and undermines Zambia’s democratic institutions.
The ECZ’s response has been clear, detailed, and grounded in law. Zambia’s electoral system is built on multiple safeguards: transparent voter registration subject to public scrutiny, polling conducted in the presence of party agents and observers, manual counting at polling stations, signed results forms issued to parties, and parallel verification that allows parties to independently tally results. This is not an opaque system run in the shadows. It is one of the most scrutinised electoral processes on the continent. To cry “rigging” without evidence is, therefore, not vigilance; it is political laziness.
What makes the opposition’s posture even more revealing is its timing. Serious political parties raise concerns about electoral frameworks early, propose reforms through Parliament, courts, or structured dialogue, and then prepare to compete. They do not wait until defeat looms on the horizon to poison the well of public trust.
Declaring an election rigged a few months in advance is not foresight; it is surrender.
The Patriotic Front (PF), once a formidable political force, exemplifies this malaise. Instead of rebuilding after its loss of power, the party has been consumed by infighting, suspensions, rival factions, and indiscipline. Energy that should be directed toward policy renewal, grassroots mobilisation, and leadership clarity is instead spent on internal wars and court battles. A party at war with itself cannot convincingly claim to be ready to govern a nation. When such a party cries rigging, it is not speaking from a position of strength but from one of internal collapse.
Beyond the PF, the broader “array of political clubs” masquerading as opposition political parties or alliances suffers from the same weakness. Many exist more as social media platforms than as serious national movements that the UPND was shortly after its registration. They lack structures, clear ideologies, funding strategies, and national reach. Faced with the hard work of building parties, they find comfort in conspiracy theories.
Rigging claims become a convenient blanket to cover poor organisation, weak leadership, and lack of public appeal.
History offers a powerful rebuttal to this behaviour. The United Party for National Development (UPND) spent a record 23 years in opposition. Through defeats, marginalisation, propaganda, and even periods of repression, the party did not declare elections rigged as a default position. Instead, it contested again and again. It reorganised, learned from losses, expanded beyond its initial regional strongholds, invested in by-elections, built alliances, and refined its message. Its eventual rise to power was not accidental; it was the product of persistence, discipline, and belief in the electoral process.
When the UPND lost elections in 2001, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2015, and 2016, it did not abandon the democratic road. It went back to the people. It improved its machinery. It adjusted strategy. That patience and consistency eventually paid off. Those now crying rigging would do well to study that lesson. Democracy rewards endurance, not tantrums.
More dangerously, premature rigging claims risk destabilising the country. Elections derive legitimacy not only from procedures but from public confidence. Reckless statements by political leaders can sow unnecessary doubt, discourage voter participation, and inflame tensions.
Zambia’s hard-earned reputation for peaceful elections should not be sacrificed on the altar of opposition incompetence.
The ECZ has rightly urged political players to use established legal channels if they have concerns. Courts exist to adjudicate disputes. Dialogue platforms exist for reform. What does not exist is justification for undermining institutions simply because one fears losing.Ultimately, elections are not won by press statements or online outrage. They are won by organisation, ideas, credibility, and connection with voters. If the opposition believes it cannot win under the current system, the honest conclusion is not that the system is rigged but that the opposition is unprepared.
Zambians deserve better than recycled excuses. The 2026 election should be a contest of visions, policies, and leadership, not a pre-emptive funeral for democracy organised by those unwilling to do the work required to compete.
