The Editor Zambia
In Zambia’s fast tightening political season, a sobering voice has emerged from an unlikely but necessary corner.
Kelvin Fube Bwalya, leader of Zambia Must Prosper (ZMP), has delivered a blunt but timely warning to the opposition. 
His message is simple yet profound. Politics that revolve around removing individuals from office, rather than presenting credible solutions to national challenges, is empty, unsustainable, and ultimately disrespectful to citizens.
Commonly known as KBF, Bwalya’s remarks should not be dismissed as routine political commentary. They strike at the heart of a troubling pattern that has come to define opposition politics in Zambia.
Instead of articulating clear policies on the economy, jobs, agriculture, education, and health, much of the opposition discourse has been reduced to a singular refrain: remove Hakainde Hichilema.
This approach is not only intellectually lazy but politically dangerous.
Zambians are not looking for musical chairs in State House but for leadership that understands their daily struggles and offers practical pathways to improvement.
The price of mealie meal, access to quality healthcare, youth unemployment, and the cost of doing business are not solved by slogans about removing a sitting president. They require detailed plans, competent leadership, and a willingness to engage with complexity.
Bwalya is correct to point out that the opposition has walked this road before and failed to learn from it.
Previous alliances were built on the urgency of removing the Patriotic Front (PF), but once power changed hands, the absence of a coherent, shared development agenda became evident.
That mistake must not be repeated. Politics driven by opposition to a person rather than commitment to a programme inevitably collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
The recent calls for opposition unity led by figures such as Brian Mundubile risk falling into the same trap. Unity, for its own sake, is not a virtue. Unity built on personal ambition or convenience is fragile and deceptive.
It creates the illusion of strength while masking a vacuum of ideas. Bwalya’s insistence that unity must be anchored on a structured, people centred roadmap is not only reasonable but necessary.
What is particularly refreshing about Bwalya’s stance is his emphasis on humility and sacrifice. In a political environment often dominated by oversized egos and relentless self-promotion, the idea that leaders should be willing to step aside for the greater good is both rare and commendable. It signals a shift from politics as a personal project to politics as a public service.
The opposition must also confront an uncomfortable truth. Zambians are becoming more discerning. The era when voters could be mobilised purely through rhetoric and emotional appeals is fading. Citizens want to see substance.
They want to compare policies, scrutinise manifestos, and evaluate leadership capacity. An opposition that fails to rise to this expectation risks irrelevance, regardless of how loudly it calls for change.
Moreover, the fixation on removing President Hakainde Hichilema inadvertently strengthens the very figure it seeks to dislodge. By centring political discourse around him, the opposition amplifies his importance while exposing its own lack of alternative ideas.
It becomes reactive rather than proactive, defined not by what it stands for but by what it opposes.
Bwalya’s warning that “unity that does not serve the people is not unity, but manipulation” should resonate beyond party lines. It is a reminder that politics, at its core, is about improving lives. Any alliance, strategy, or campaign that loses sight of this principle is fundamentally flawed.
As Zambia approaches another critical electoral moment, the choice before the opposition is clear. It can continue down the well-worn path of personality driven politics, or it can heed Bwalya’s call and reorient itself toward solution-based leadership.
The former guarantees stagnation. The latter offers a chance at credibility and relevance.
The country deserves more than a contest of egos. It deserves a contest of ideas.
