By Chiti Manga
If there is one defining trait of Zambia’s opposition in the post-2021 era, it is not vision, policy depth, or a compelling alternative national programme. It is an almost obsessive search for controversy—any controversy—that can be weaponised to discredit the United Party for National Development (UPND) and President Hakainde Hichilema.
When one narrative collapses under the weight of facts, another is hastily assembled. The pattern is now so predictable that it has become political theatre rather than serious opposition. 
First it was the burial of former president Edgar Lungu. A solemn national moment that should have united the country was cynically transformed into a political battleground. Instead of allowing grief, dignity, and closure to prevail, sections of the opposition political parties turned the burial into a propaganda tool, peddling claims of disrespect and persecution. Facts were irrelevant; emotion was the currency. When that narrative failed to ignite sustained public anger, it was quietly dropped—never corrected, never apologised for, simply abandoned.
Then came the Oasis Forum saga. A respected civil society platform was suddenly dragged into partisan politics, portrayed as either compromised or persecuted, depending on which version of outrage was needed that day. Again, the objective was not to strengthen democracy or protect institutions but to create the impression that the UPND was systematically dismantling dissent. No credible evidence was offered, only insinuations amplified through sympathetic media and social media echo chambers.
When that too fizzled out, attention shifted to alliances. Every opposition press conference suddenly promised a “grand coalition” that would supposedly end UPND rule. Names were floated, photos were staged, and declarations were made with great fanfare. Weeks later, the same alliances collapsed under the weight of egos, mistrust, and ideological emptiness. But even these failures were repackaged as evidence of State interference, never as a reflection of the opposition’s own incoherence.
Now, the latest manufactured outrage: the summoning of Archbishop Alick Banda. Without waiting for facts, procedure, or context, the opposition rushed to frame a routine legal and administrative matter as a “war on the Catholic Church.”
Never mind that President Hakainde Hichilema has consistently demonstrated respect for religious institutions. Never mind that Zambia remains one of the most religiously tolerant countries in the region. Never mind that clergy, like all citizens, are not immune from accountability when political entanglements arise. The goal was simple: provoke religious fear, mobilise emotion, and cast the government as an enemy of faith.It is a lazy and dangerous tactic.
Zambians are not fools. They understand the difference between persecution and process. They know that respect for the church does not mean surrendering the rule of law. They also know that dragging religious leaders into partisan battles cheapens both religion and politics. Yet the opposition persists, gambling that outrage will succeed where ideas have failed.
What is most striking is what is missing from all this noise: alternative policies. Where is the opposition’s economic recovery plan? Where is its proposal on debt management, job creation, agricultural reform, education, or health? Where is its vision for Zambia beyond removing Hichilema? Silence.
Instead, the country is subjected to a relentless cycle of scandal-hunting, accusation-making and conspiracy-spinning.
This is not opposition; it is sabotage by distraction.
Every week brings a new “crisis,” a new “exposé,” a new claim that Zambia is on the brink of dictatorship. Heaven knows what the next trick will be. Perhaps another funeral, another church body, another civil society group, another invented alliance. The script is worn, but it is repeated because it is easier than the hard work of rebuilding credibility after years of misrule.
Meanwhile, the UPND continues to govern with a clear agenda: stabilising the economy, restoring international confidence, restructuring debt, reopening civic space, and reasserting the rule of law. These are not glamorous achievements, but they are substantive. And it is precisely this substance that terrifies an opposition with nothing comparable to offer.
Zambia deserves a serious opposition—one that critiques policy, proposes alternatives, and holds government accountable without resorting to constant sensationalism.
Democracy is strengthened by debate, not by perpetual outrage. It is enriched by ideas, not by endless attempts to delegitimise institutions for short-term political gain.
Until the opposition learns this lesson, it will remain trapped in its current role: shouting from the sidelines, chasing shadows, and hoping that noise will somehow substitute for leadership. But noise fades. Records remain.
History is rarely kind to those who mistake disruption for direction.
