By EditorZambia
By any honest measure, former Chifunabuli Member of Parliament Hon. Ponde C. Mecha has made an acute and courageous observation.
Ponde obseved that President Hakainde Hichilema has not taken tribalism to Southern Province, as his critics lazily insist, but has taken development to all 10 provinces of Zambia — including regions long branded as politically hostile to him. 
This simple truth exposes the emptiness of the most recycled accusation in Zambia’s political discourse today. It is funny to note that die-hard tribalists from the one or two regional blocs have been consistent in accusing President Hichilema of tribalism when the act of readily accusing anyone who is not from this bloc is a tribal act.
For years, President Hichilema has been caricatured as a tribal leader, a label repeated so often on radio talk shows, in newspaper opinion columns and at opposition rallies that it has acquired the illusion of truth. But repetition is not evidence. When weighed against policy decisions, budget allocations and development outcomes, the tribalism narrative collapses completely.
Tribalism, if it exists, reveals itself through exclusion: selective development, regional punishment, ethnic favouritism in appointments, and the hoarding of national resources for a chosen few. That is not what Zambia is witnessing today. What we are seeing under the UPND administration is arguably the most deliberate and systematic dismantling of tribal and regional inequalities since independence.
The expanded Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is the clearest proof. For the first time, Zambia has adopted a development model that treats every constituency equally, regardless of how it voted or which ethnic group dominates it. The same CDF allocation applies in Gwembe as it does in Kasama, in Mongu as in Chipata, in Chifunabuli as in Namwala. Infrastructures like clinics, schools, skills centres, markets, feeder roads, youth and women enterprises are emerging across the country with no tribal filter. Money does not ask for surnames before it builds a classroom.
This is not accidental. It is a conscious governance choice that directly undermines tribal politics. A tribalist president would never empower local communities uniformly; he would centralise control and reward loyalty. President Hichilema has done the opposite by devolving power and resources to constituencies and councils, trusting Zambians to determine their own development priorities.
Beyond CDF, the President’s own conduct further discredits the accusation. He has crisscrossed the country, attending traditional ceremonies, engaging chiefs and headmen, and listening to citizens from all backgrounds. His Cabinet reflects regional and ethnic diversity, not because of tokenism, but because competence exists in every part of Zambia. These are not symbolic gestures; they are practical acts of nation-building.
The opposition, however, has found itself intellectually bankrupt in the face of this reality. Unable to mount a credible policy alternative on debt restructuring, energy security, agriculture, job creation, or industrialisation, it has retreated into the politics of grievance. Tribalism has become their last refuge — a blunt instrument used to distract citizens from the absence of ideas, coherence and internal unity.
Nowhere does this failure of narrative resonate less than in the other regions, often portrayed as the President’s “traditional enemy zone.” Luapula Province stands as a powerful counter-example. Long dismissed as remote and economically marginal, Luapula is now being repositioned as a strategic hub under President Hichilema’s leadership. The Mabumba 50MW Solar Power Plant is not just an energy project; it is a declaration that Luapula matters.
Energy unlocks value chains. With power comes fish processing, cassava milling, cold storage, timber value addition, honey processing, and small-scale manufacturing. It means jobs where people live, not migration driven by desperation. No tribalist would invest such strategic infrastructure in a region assumed to be politically unfriendly. Only a leader focused on national economic logic would.
This is why the tribal narrative is failing. Development is visible. The CDF projects can be touched. Solar plants can be seen. Clinics can be used. Roads can be driven on. Economic inclusion speaks louder than political noise.
Zambians also understand the cost of regression. They know what happens when development trajectories are disrupted by political vendettas and recycled alliances. They remember the years of policy inconsistency, rising debt, shrinking civic space, and centralised patronage. They are not eager to return there.
The 2026 election, therefore, is not a contest between tribes, regions, or surnames. It is a choice between continuity and reversal, between a reform agenda that is beginning to bear fruit and an opposition that offers nothing beyond slogans and resentment. It is a decision between economic recovery and political mischief.
Zambia is at a delicate but promising stage. Debt restructuring has restored credibility. Fiscal discipline is stabilising the economy. Decentralisation through CDF is empowering communities. Investments in energy and agriculture are laying foundations for inclusive growth. These reforms require time, consistency, and protection.
Tribalism cannot defeat economic progress. Only Zambians can do that and should not allow themselves to be misled by those who have no alternative vision for the country.
Hon. Ponde Mecha is right: the accusation of tribalism does not tally with the Zambia we can see being built today.
And if Zambians choose wisely, it never will.
