Beyond Criticism, Zambia Needs an Opposition with a Clear Alternative Vision
As Zambia steadily advances toward the 2026 general elections, -only 69 days away-one undeniable reality continues to shape the country’s political landscape: President Hakainde Hichilema and the United Party for National Development (UPND) remain firmly in control of the national conversation.
This is not merely because they occupy government offices. Rather, it is because they have successfully framed governance around measurable goals, economic transformation, and policy delivery. 
Whether one agrees with every decision taken by the administration or not, there is little doubt that the government has consistently presented a roadmap that citizens, investors, and development partners can evaluate.
At the centre of this approach is President Hichilema’s ambitious production agenda, encapsulated in the now familiar 10-10-10-5-3-1 development framework.
The targets—ranging from copper production and agricultural expansion to power generation and tourism growth—provide clear benchmarks against which progress can be measured.
Critics may challenge the practicality of achieving these objectives within the proposed timeframe, but the existence of a coherent vision itself has become one of the administration’s greatest political strengths.
Unfortunately, this is where much of Zambia’s opposition has struggled.
In any healthy democracy, opposition parties play a vital role in scrutinising government actions and offering alternative solutions.
However, criticism alone is never sufficient to convince voters. Citizens want to know not only what is wrong with the current administration but also what a replacement government would do differently.
Too often, opposition discourse has focused on attacking personalities rather than presenting policies. Public debates have become dominated by accusations, political insults, and attempts to exploit divisions instead of offering practical solutions to the economic challenges facing ordinary Zambians.
Such tactics may generate temporary political excitement, but they rarely inspire long-term confidence among voters seeking leadership and direction.
Meanwhile, the government continues to point to tangible programmes that directly affect people’s lives. Free education has opened opportunities for thousands of learners.
University meal allowances and bursaries have been restored. The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) has been significantly expanded, enabling communities across the country to undertake infrastructure and social development projects that were previously beyond reach.
Naturally, there are legitimate questions regarding implementation, efficiency, and sustainability. No government programme is beyond criticism.
Yet it remains difficult to deny that these initiatives are visible and have produced outcomes that many citizens can directly observe in their communities.
Equally significant is President Hichilema’s management style. His private-sector background has brought a performance-oriented approach to public administration.
Supporters view his insistence on targets and accountability as necessary for accelerating development. Critics may see it as demanding or impatient. Nevertheless, many Zambians appear increasingly receptive to leadership that prioritises results over rhetoric.
Internationally, the administration has also strengthened Zambia’s standing through debt restructuring efforts, macroeconomic reforms, and investor engagement.
These achievements have helped restore confidence among development partners and financial institutions, creating opportunities for future economic growth.
For opposition political parties, the challenge is, therefore, much deeper than simply criticising the government. They are competing against a narrative built around economic recovery, production, stability, and national development.
To succeed, they must present a credible alternative vision that speaks to the aspirations of the electorate.
The coming election should not be reduced to a contest of insults or personalities. It should be a competition of ideas, policies, and measurable plans for Zambia’s future.
Voters deserve to hear competing economic blueprints, alternative growth strategies, and innovative solutions to persistent national challenges.
Democracy functions best when citizens are offered genuine choices. Until the opposition develops a coherent policy platform capable of matching or surpassing the government’s development agenda, it will continue to face an uphill battle.
The lesson is simple: elections are won not merely by opposing those in power but by persuading citizens that a better and more credible alternative exists.
