The Editor Zambia
In politics, absence can be costly, and timing can be everything.
For years, Andyford Mayele Banda appeared to have slipped quietly into political oblivion, his name fading from the national debate as Zambia’s political landscape evolved rapidly under changing realities. 
Yet, with only 120 days before the August 13, 2026 general elections, Banda has dramatically resurfaced to announce a third presidential bid under the People’s Alliance for Change (PAC).
His re-emergence has added another layer to an already active election season. In any democracy, such developments are welcome.
Competitive politics thrives when citizens are offered choices, ideas, and alternative voices. Zambia’s democracy has always benefited from open participation, no matter how slim the chances of success may appear.
Still, Banda’s announcement raises a familiar question in modern African politics: why do many newly-formed or lightly structured parties rush to field presidential candidates before building durable institutions?
The PAC leader first contested in 2016 and again in 2021, finishing fourth on both occasions. While there is nothing inherently wrong with persistence, presidential ambition alone does not build a movement.
Strong parties are not created through election season declarations or headline grabbing announcements. They are built through grassroots organisation, policy consistency, local government participation, and years of patient political work.
That is the path the United Party for National Development (UPND) walked.
The UPND did not become Zambia’s governing party overnight. It went through years of losses, setbacks, ridicule, internal strain, and repeated rejection at the ballot box before finally breaking through in 2021.
It matured over time from an opposition force into a national governing machine. Its rise was based not only on presidential ambition but on organisation, endurance, and nationwide structures.
That is why many observers argue that any honest and ambitious politician wishing to serve Zambia could do well by joining an already established national platform like the UPND rather than repeatedly launching personal political parties.
Across the continent, one-man political clubs have become a recurring feature of election cycles. These are parties built around personalities rather than institutions, around one candidate rather than one ideology.
They often emerge with fanfare, promise dramatic change, and then disappear after the results are declared. Some reappear five years later under a new slogan, only to repeat the cycle.
This tendency weakens democratic development because it confuses visibility with viability.
Zambia deserves opposition parties that can govern councils, influence legislation, shape national debate, and survive beyond one election season. It needs movements with depth, not just declarations.
To be fair, opposition politics is necessary and healthy. No democracy should wish away dissenting voices. Governments perform better when challenged by credible alternatives. The issue, therefore, is not the existence of opposition but the quality of opposition.
When parties emerge weeks or months before elections, with little known structure, no visible branch network, and no tested leadership bench, voters are right to ask whether these are genuine national projects or temporary vehicles for personal branding.
Andyford Banda now returns to the arena, promising empowerment and protection from foreign domination. Those themes may resonate with sections of the electorate. Economic sovereignty, citizen empowerment, and resource protection are legitimate campaign issues. But slogans alone will not overcome the hard arithmetic of elections.
Presidential races are won through organisation, message discipline, coalition building, polling agents, funding networks, and trust accumulated over time. Those are assets that cannot be improvised in 120 days.
Meanwhile, the ruling UPND enters the campaign season from a position of strength. It remains solidly grounded as the country’s dominant political force, benefiting from incumbency, structure, and a deeply entrenched national presence.
Whether critics like it or not, it is currently the sole party with the broad machinery expected of a serious governing contender.
That does not mean victory is automatic. Democracies never guarantee outcomes. But it does mean challengers face a mountain far steeper than media statements can suggest.
As the old saying goes, the harder they come, the harder they fall.
If Banda’s candidacy inspires better debate, greater voter participation, or sharper policy discussion, then it serves democracy well. If it merely becomes another symbolic run by a familiar name without a serious national apparatus, it may confirm what many already suspect about personality-driven politics.
Zambia’s future political maturity depends on parties growing beyond individuals. It depends on structures outliving founders. It depends on politics becoming less about sudden presidential declarations and more about sustained service.
Andyford Banda has every democratic right to run again. Voters equally have every right to demand more than ambition.
