The Editor Zambia
Zambian politics has often produced a familiar pattern: some of the most vocal critics of sitting presidents are individuals who struggle the most when challenged to translate commentary into practical politics.
They speak confidently on radio, television, in newspapers, and at public forums, but when the time comes to build structures, mobilise voters, and compete electorally, many fail to move beyond theory. 
This is because practical politics demands more than commentary but organisation, sacrifice, grassroots structures, message discipline, and the ability to persuade ordinary citizens across provinces, classes, and communities.
One of the latest examples is Dr Neo Simutanyi, widely known as an academic and political commentator. Over the years, he has offered analyses and predictions on Zambia’s political direction.
Most recently, Simutanyi argued that it would be difficult for the UPND to secure votes in Lusaka and the Copperbelt because of public dissatisfaction.
He further suggested that while the ruling party could rely on traditional support bases such as Southern and Western provinces, it should be worried about Eastern, Luapula, and Northern provinces.
Simutanyi also doubted that the UPND could secure 60 or 70 percent of the vote if elections were free and fair.
While such analysis has generated headlines, critics point out that Simutanyi’s own practical political record remains limited.
When he became associated with the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the practical results did not match the confidence of his commentary.
The SDP was projected by some as a credible ideological alternative, but it failed to emerge as a meaningful electoral force.
That experience illustrates a broader lesson: political science and politics are not the same profession.
Scholarship can explain trends, but winning elections requires emotional connection with voters, constant mobilisation, and understanding daily struggles in compounds, farms, and markets.
The UPND was quick to reject Simutanyi’s latest claims. Party Media Director Mark Simuuwe dismissed the assertions as misleading, insisting that the ruling party remains firmly on course for victory in the August 13 general elections.
Simuuwe argued that Simutanyi has a history of inaccurate projections, recalling past disagreements involving opinion polls that failed to predict actual outcomes.
According to Simuuwe, the ruling party’s confidence is anchored in visible achievements. He cited free education, expanded Constituency Development Fund (CDF), job creation, and increased economic activity.
On the Copperbelt, he said renewed mining investments, the Local Content Statutory Instrument, and the issuance of more than 1,500 artisanal mining licences had strengthened UPND support.
He also maintained that the party has strong candidates in both Lusaka and the Copperbelt, making Simutanyi’s forecast unrealistic.
Simuuwe further argued that President Hakainde Hichilema’s 2021 support remains unmatched in Zambia’s democratic history since 1991.
He pointed to progress in tourism, agriculture, and energy while also praising the administration for promoting unity, maintaining a non-violent political environment, and appointing a balanced cabinet reflecting Zambia’s diversity.
Another prominent case of critics struggling in practical politics is Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika, a respected intellectual and outspoken national figure.
He formed the Agenda for Zambia (AZ), which entered the 1996 elections with high expectations. Yet despite the visibility of its leadership, the party performed modestly, securing only a small share of the presidential vote and limited parliamentary success.
More recently, John Sangwa transitioned his Movement for National Renewal into a political party after announcing national ambitions.
Yet signatures and statements are only the beginning. Turning frustration into votes requires durable structures, polling agents, campaign financing, local candidates, and sustained presence on the ground. So far, the promised breakthrough has remained elusive.
This recurring pattern suggests that some critics underestimate the difficulty of practical politics. It is easier to condemn government decisions from a podium than to draft a manifesto that resonates nationally.
It is easier to call leaders failures than to unite competing interests within one party. It is easier to predict defeat for incumbents than to build a winning coalition.
Meanwhile, Zambia’s successful political movements have historically been led by organisers rather than spectators.
Zambia needs critics, but it also needs realism. Those who wish to lead must prove they can do more than speak. They must organise, inspire, and win trust where it matters most — among the people.
Until then, many of the loudest critics of incumbent presidents may continue to be remembered less for their words and more for their failures in practical politics.
