By Chiti Manga
The current turmoil rocking the Patriotic Front (PF) should surprise no one who has followed the party’s history with honesty rather than nostalgia.
From its earliest days in power to its present condition in opposition, the PF has never been a party defined by ideological cohesion, loyalty to institutions, or respect for leadership. It has instead been a fragile coalition of competing camps, temporarily held together by access to State power and the financial benefits that came with it. Once that glue disappeared, the cracks widened into irreparable fractures. 
It is fashionable among some PF sympathisers to portray the party’s internal chaos as a recent phenomenon caused by bad luck, external interference, or even the ruling party. That narrative collapses under the weight of historical fact. The PF members have always challenged their leaders. Edgar Lungu himself was not spared this culture of perpetual rebellion. The difference then was not loyalty, but money.
Before he ascended to the presidency, Edgar Lungu was a deeply contested figure within the PF. His rise was resisted, questioned, and litigated. Even after forcing his way through the Kabwe convention, unity never followed. The party merely paused its infighting long enough to enjoy the spoils of power. Tolerance for Lungu was transactional, not principled. He was endured because he controlled access to State resources, appointments, contracts, and protection.
That is why, even at the height of his power, Lungu faced sustained internal opposition. Miles Sampa openly rebelled and went on to form the Democratic Party. Chishimba Kambwili oscillated between loyalty and outright defiance, repeatedly undermining Lungu while still benefiting from the system. Harry Kalaba also defied the leadership of his boss untill he left the party.
Multiple camps emerged, each waiting for the right moment to strike. The PF in government was not united; it was simply well-funded to engage in criminality never seen in the history of Zambian politics.
Once the PF lost power in 2021, the illusion of unity collapsed. With the financial pipeline shut, the incentive to pretend disappeared. The result has been an open political bazaar, what can only be described as a Babel of factions, each speaking its own language, pursuing its own agenda, and recognising no common authority.
Seen in this context, the rejection of Given Lubinda by sections of the former ruling party is not shocking. It is entirely consistent with PF behaviour. The party has never resolved disputes through principle or constitutionality. Leaders are tolerated only when they can dispense benefits. When they cannot, resistance becomes inevitable, vicious, and often personalised.
The latest chapter in this unending drama is the withdrawal of Brian Mundubile from the elders’ conclave convened to reconcile the party’s warring factions. Mundubile’s statement lays bare the bad faith that defines PF processes. He entered the talks prepared to set aside past injustices in the interest of unity, only to discover that while reconciliation was being preached publicly, disciplinary action and expulsion were being plotted privately.
His alleged offence, participating in a properly convened Tonse Alliance meeting and organising campaign structures—exposes the contradiction at the heart of the PF. The party demands loyalty while denying constitutional clarity. It speaks of unity while practising intimidation. It calls for reconciliation while sharpening the knife.
Mundubile’s exit is not an isolated incident; it is a symptom. It confirms what many already know: the PF cannot agree on anything substantive—not even on obvious national facts, as the sarcastic observation goes, such as acknowledging Victoria Falls as a global wonder. If a party cannot agree on reality, how can it agree on leadership?
Some analysts have rushed to blame the UPND for PF’s implosion. This is a lazy and dishonest conclusion. The PF does not need external enemies to self-destruct. Its history shows a consistent pattern of internal sabotage driven by ambition, entitlement, and the absence of shared values. More camps will form, more defections will occur, and more conclaves will collapse—not because of external pressure, but because the PF has never been a disciplined political organisation.
The current leadership disputes, including the resistance to Lubinda and the departure of Mundubile, are simply the post-power phase of a long-standing disease. In government, the symptoms were masked by money.
In opposition, the illness is fully exposed. The bitter truth PF members must confront is this: the party was never bound together by ideology or collective vision. It was bound by access to state resources. That era is over. The bubble has burst, and no amount of blaming outsiders will put it back together.
Until the PF reckons with its own history of opportunism, factionalism, and transactional loyalty, it will remain trapped in endless rebellion—arguing not about Zambia’s future, but about who gets to control a party that no longer knows what it stands for.
