The Editor Zambia
Socialist Party president Fred M’membe has once again chosen alarm over honesty, declaring that Zambia is headed for a sham election in August.
It is a familiar script from the leader of the Socialist Party, a political outfit that thrives more on rhetoric than on real electoral substance. 
The hallucination by M’membe is a clear indication, the opposition leader is struggling to present campaign strategies that would resonate with the electorate.
It is clear that the opposition lacks a viable message to present to the Zambian people, and this is why they have resorted to complaining rather than engaging in meaningful discourse.
But beneath the noise, one must ask a simple question: where is the evidence, and more importantly, where is the opposition capable of mounting a credible challenge?
To claim that an election will be fraudulent months before a single ballot is cast is not vigilance but a pre-emptive excuse-making.
It is the language of those who already sense defeat and are laying the groundwork to discredit an outcome they cannot influence.
Zambia’s democratic record, while not perfect, has consistently demonstrated resilience with transfers of power occurring peacefully.
Additionally, institutions have functioned properly, and electoral disputes have been subjected to legal scrutiny, meaning M’membe’s rantings that the entire system is collapsing into a sham is not only exaggerated but irresponsible.
The reality is far less dramatic and far more revealing considering that with only 144 days to the D-day, the opposition landscape remains fragmented, disorganised, and in many cases hollow.
Outside of the former ruling Patriotic Front (PF), which itself is battling deep internal fractures that border on political paralysis, there is no opposition formation that resembles a serious, nationwide political machine.
What exists instead is a collection of political clubs masquerading as political parties. They include Citizens First under Harry Kalaba, the Socialist Party itself, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), United National Independence Party (UNIP) United Kwacha Alliance (UKA), Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD), Golden Party of Zambia (GPZ), New Heritage Party (NHP), Patriots for Economic Progress (PeP), Party of National Unity and a host of briefcase entities largely operate in press statements, social media posts and sporadic media appearances.
Their presence on the ground, where elections are actually won and lost, remains minimal. Contrast this with the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND).
Since its formation in 1998, the UPND built structures across the country, mobilised consistently and entrenched itself in communities long before ascending to power.
Even in government, it has continued to maintain visibility and organisation at the grassroots level.
This is the uncomfortable truth that M’membe and his peers would rather avoid bearing the fact that elections are not won in newspaper columns or press briefings.
They are won through sustained engagement with citizens, credible structures, and the ability to inspire trust beyond a narrow ideological base.
The complaints about denied permits and uneven campaign conditions must also be placed in context.
Laws governing public order and political activity apply to all players. Where applications fall short of legal requirements, rejection is not persecution but a procedure.
To interpret every regulatory decision as political suppression is to undermine the very rule of law the opposition claims to defend.
Moreover, institutions such as the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) have consistently emphasised adherence to legal frameworks, including delimitation processes and campaign timelines. These are not partisan inventions. They are safeguards designed to ensure order and fairness.
What is striking is that the opposition’s loudest message is not policy, not alternative governance ideas, but a singular fixation on removing the incumbent.
The cruel truth is that it is not a strategy but a vacuum since voters do not rally behind absence but behind vision, organisation, and credibility.
By prematurely branding the election a sham, M’membe is not protecting democracy but eroding confidence in it. Such statements risk discouraging participation, breeding unnecessary suspicion, and weakening public trust in institutions that Zambia has painstakingly built over decades.
While democracy demands accountability from those in power, it also demands seriousness from those who seek to replace them.
Crying foul before the contest begins is not the hallmark of a ready alternative but the clearest admission that one is not.
If the opposition wishes to be taken seriously, it must first become serious. Until then, claims of a sham election will remain what they are today: loud, convenient, and ultimately unconvincing.
M’membe and his party have participated in by-elections, and the results have been very poor. In some polling stations, his party has gotten zero votes.
M’membe has been appearing on a paid radio show on a named radio station, with zero impact in terms of increasing followership.
His radio show has no impact whatsoever; if it wasn’t for the money, the station could have stopped the show long ago.
