By EditorZambia
When President Hakainde Hichilema stood before the National Assembly and apologised to Zambians for the hardship caused by years of electricity shortages, he did something rare in African politics.
President Hichilema accepted responsibility in plain language and acknowledged pain by recognising that leadership is not only about celebrating success but also about confronting failure with humility. 
For households that endured long nights without power, for businesses that ran costly generators to survive, for clinics that struggled to preserve medicines and for students forced to study by candlelight, the apology mattered a lot. It was an admission that the burden was real and an affirmation that the suffering of ordinary citizens was seen and heard at the highest office in the land.
In his address, President Hichilema did not hide behind technical jargon or shift blame to invisible forces but spoke of historical infrastructure limitations and external pressures and not using them as excuses. He said the experience was a lesson that required national reflection and unity expressing this in a tone of accountability that set a standard that has too often been absent in Zambia’s recent political history.
Contrast that posture with the conduct of senior PF figures like Given Lubinda, Brian Mundubile, and Makebi Zulu, who now seek to rebrand themselves without acknowledging the wreckage they left behind. There is a sharp difference between apologising for hardship and pretending hardship never had authors.
Zambians remember the years of spiralling public debt, opaque contracting, and ballooning expenditure under the PF administration led by Edgar Chagwa Lungu. Auditor General’s reports repeatedly flagged irregularities and civil society organisations documented questionable procurement practices while the economy strained under unsustainable borrowing with the cost of living climbing for ordinary citizens.
Yet today, some of the same voices who presided over that period speak as if they were bystanders rather than decision makers. They frame court convictions of former officials as persecution instead of consequences. They speak of political victimhood while avoiding any serious reckoning with the systemic mismanagement that defined their tenure.
An apology requires courage because it acknowledges imperfection while rebranding without contrition requires something else entirely. It demands selective amnesia and, worse, still demands that citizens forget empty promises of more money in their pockets while public resources flowed into private hands. It demands that people overlook stalled projects, incomplete infrastructure, and unpaid contractors that strained the economy.
President Hichilema’s apology was not a confession of personal wrongdoing but an expression of shared responsibility, and that distinction is critical. Leaders inherit complex systems shaped by past decisions and when they acknowledge the pain within those systems, they strengthen democratic culture by signaling that public service is about stewardship rather than entitlement.
The PF’s current narrative, by contrast, often centres on deflection because, to them, convicted officials are cast as martyrs, while judicial outcomes are portrayed as political vendettas. It is instructive that while the PF once castigated previous administrations for corruption, it now resists introspection about its own record. A party that rode to power promising discipline and pro-poor governance ended up presiding over unprecedented debt expansion and persistent allegations of grand corruption. To now seek public sympathy without public remorse is to underestimate the intelligence of the electorate.
Zambians are not blind to the hardships of the present. Load-shedding tested patience and resilience, and economic recovery remains a work in progress. But citizens can distinguish between President Hichilema, a leader who stands before them to apologise and a political movement that refuses to confront its own legacy but has chosen to regroup to plunder the nation for the umpteenth time.
Accountability is not a sign of weakness but a pillar of democratic maturity because when President Hichilema told lawmakers that leadership involves recognising challenges openly and working collectively to move forward, he articulated a philosophy of governance grounded in transparency. That approach invites scrutiny and invites dialogue. Impunity, on the other hand, corrodes institutions. When political actors like the Lubinda, Zulus, and Mundubiles of this world dismiss corruption convictions as mere persecution, they erode trust in the justice system. When they gloss over documented irregularities, they undermine efforts to build a culture where public resources are treated as sacred.
The PF’s attempt to rehabilitate its image without acknowledging documented failures risks deepening cynicism. Citizens who endured economic strain are unlikely to embrace narratives that absolve leaders of responsibility. They know the difference between accountability and avoidance.
The country stands at a crossroads where political culture itself is being tested. Will leaders admit mistakes and chart corrective paths, or will they cling to denial and deflection. The apology offered by President Hichilema signals one direction. The refusal of some PF figures to accept any responsibility signals another.
In apologising for the hardships of load shedding, President Hichilema affirmed that public office carries moral weight while resisting acknowledgment of their own record, some PF leaders reveal a contrasting ethic.The electorate will judge which posture better serves the republic on August 13. Humility or hubris. Accountability or amnesia. The future of governance in Zambia may well hinge on that choice.
