…..“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln
By EditorZambia
SOCIALIST Party leader Dr. Fred M’membe has done what few opposition figures have been willing to do in recent years: speak a hard, uncomfortable truth. 
M’membe’s admission that the United Opposition Front has disintegrated after failing to agree on a flag bearer is not merely a confession of organisational weakness; it is a mirror held up to a fragmented, ego-driven and directionless opposition that has lost touch with political reality in Zambia.
Appearing on Prime TV’s Oxygen of Democracy, Dr. M’membe revealed that disagreements over choosing a flag bearer became “nasty,” ultimately tearing apart a formation that included the Socialist Party, Tonse Alliance, UNIP, UKA, and other opposition groupings. The following day, his acute observation was the headline in the Diggers Newspaper “United Opposition has Disintergrated, We have Failed to Choose a Flag Bearer.”
Even at parliamentary level, such as the Chawama seat, the opposition failed to unite behind a single candidate. If the opposition cannot agree on a candidate for one constituency, it is naïve to expect it to coalesce around a presidential candidate for a general election less than a few months away.
On this point, Dr. M’membe is absolutely right: in its current fragmented state, the opposition will not find a flag bearer today, tomorrow, or at any other time. The reasons are many, deep-rooted and largely self-inflicted.
First among these is unchecked ego. Almost every opposition leader sees himself as presidential material, regardless of electoral track record, public appeal, or national stature. Instead of sober self-assessment, opposition politics has become a competition of inflated self-importance among political amateurs like Sean Tembo, Harry Kalaba, Chishala Kateka, Sakwiba Sikota and Given Lubinda. No one wants to lead from behind, no one wants to compromise, and no one wants to accept political reality. Alliances, where they exist, are built on suspicion rather than trust and collapse the moment the question of leadership arises.
Second is the absence of clear, shared goals. Beyond a common bitterness towards President Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND, the opposition has struggled to articulate what it actually stands for. What is the unifying vision for Zambia? What alternative economic model is being proposed? What concrete policy failures are they correcting? On these questions, there is mostly silence, confusion, or contradiction. Opposition unity cannot be built on hatred alone against President Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND; it requires a positive, compelling agenda. That agenda is glaringly missing.
Third is the corrosive bitterness directed at President Hichilema and the UPND. Instead of offering constructive criticism or credible alternatives, much of the opposition’s energy is spent recycling anger from past electoral defeats. This bitterness clouds judgment, poisons negotiations, and makes cooperation impossible. Political maturity demands the ability to lose, regroup, and rethink. What we are seeing instead is emotional politics driven by resentment rather than strategy.
Fourth is sheer political amateurism. Zambians are watching opposition leaders fumble basic organisational tasks that seasoned politicians should handle with ease. The inability to manage alliances, agree on selection criteria, respect internal processes, and communicate a united message speaks to a lack of professionalism.
Politics at the national level is not a debating club; it is a serious business requiring discipline, structure, and strategic thinking. On this score, the opposition has repeatedly failed.
Perhaps most damaging of all is the opposition’s failure to endear itself to the Zambian people. Elections are not won in boardrooms or television studios; they are won in communities, workplaces, and households.
While President Hichilema has been visible on the international stage and active domestically in pushing economic reforms, the opposition has appeared disconnected from the daily aspirations of ordinary citizens.
Complaints and press statements do not substitute for grassroots engagement and credible leadership, aspects which the UPND invested in massively when it was in opposition.
To be fair, these problems are not permanent. They are issues that, in theory, can be resolved between now and August 2026—if there is humility, seriousness, and a willingness to change.
But time is running fast, and there is little evidence that the opposition is learning from its mistakes.
Moreover, even if the opposition were somehow to agree on a flag bearer, a more uncomfortable truth remains: from the current crop of opposition leaders (Kateka, Kalaba, Tembo, Lubinda, Sikota and many other lightweight politicians, no one comes even an inch close to President Hakainde Hichilema’s stature, record and achievements.
President Hichilema has not only consolidated his leadership domestically but has also positioned himself as a respected statesman regionally and internationally. His engagement with global financial institutions, rebranding of Zambia’s international image and efforts at economic stabilisation have earned him recognition well beyond the country’s borders.
President Hichilema has already entered the crème de la crème of outstanding African statesmen—leaders who are taken seriously in global forums and whose voices matter in regional affairs. Against such a profile, an opposition that cannot even agree on a flag bearer looks not just unprepared, but unserious.
Dr. M’membe’s admission should, therefore, not be dismissed as routine political commentary. It is a candid diagnosis of a failing opposition project.
Whether the opposition chooses to confront this reality or continue living in denial will determine its relevance in 2026. For now, however, the verdict is clear: a divided opposition without vision, discipline, or unity stands no chance against a confident, internationally respected incumbent.
