The Editor Zambia
The latest attack line from Brian Mundubile branding President Hakainde Hichilema, a “learner” who must therefore be replaced says far more about the intellectual bankruptcy of the opposition politics than it does about the Head of State himself.
It is a curious argument coming from a political grouping whose own credentials remain painfully thin on substance, coherence, and national direction. If leadership were merely about shouting at press conferences, issuing emotional statements, and recycling bitterness from past electoral defeats, perhaps the opposition alliance would qualify as the government-in- waiting. 
But governing a modern State requires far more than noise.
One must ask: what exactly is the experience this opposition bloc is bringing to the table?
Beyond recycled rhetoric and perpetual outrage, the so-called “unity” project appears to be an assembly of politically displaced figures, failed strategists, and individuals united less by ideology, than by resentment towards the current administration. There is little evidence of a common economic programme, no serious policy blueprint, and no compelling national vision capable of inspiring confidence among ordinary Zambians.
Criticising the government is a legitimate function of any democratic opposition politics. In fact, a strong opposition is essential to national progress.
But there is a vast difference between constructive scrutiny and desperate character assassination. The current opposition has increasingly chosen the latter.
Calling President Hichilema a “learner” is not a policy position. It does not lower mealie meal prices. It does not create jobs. It does not stabilise the exchange rate. It does not improve healthcare delivery, mining productivity, or energy security. It is simply political theatre masquerading as a national discourse.
Ironically, leadership itself is a continuous learning process. Every administration, regardless of experience, confronts evolving global and domestic realities. Economic shocks, debt restructuring, climate pressures, and geopolitical uncertainties require adaptation. Serious leaders learn, adjust, and govern. The notion that learning while in office is somehow disqualifying is intellectually shallow.
More importantly, many of those now mocking “learning” were themselves part of governments that presided over policy inconsistency, unsustainable borrowing, institutional decay, and economic turbulence. Zambia’s recent history did not emerge from nowhere. Citizens remember who was in the engine room when public confidence collapsed and national debt spiralled.
The opposition’s bigger problem is that it has failed to evolve with the Zambian electorate. Voters today are far more politically alert and policy-conscious than before. They are increasingly unimpressed by recycled slogans, bitterness, and personalised attacks.
Citizens want answers to practical questions: How will the economy grow? How will jobs be created? How will the cost of living be reduced? How will mining, agriculture, and energy be transformed?
On these questions, the opposition has remained largely mute.
Instead of presenting a shadow economic framework or sector-specific recovery plans, opposition figures spend valuable political capital attempting to delegitimise personalities. That strategy may generate headlines for a day, but it does not build electoral credibility.
With limited time before the next electoral cycle intensifies, the opposition should understand that cheap politics is no substitute for serious governance proposals.
Zambians are not looking for comedians-in-chief or permanent complainers. They are looking for competence, stability, and practical leadership.
At present, the opposition alliances resemble a gathering of politicians searching for relevance rather than statesmen preparing for government.
That is the real crisis.
An opposition that cannot articulate a superior alternative eventually renders itself redundant in the democratic process. Zambia deserves robust policy competition, not endless political tantrums disguised as patriotism.
