OPPOSITION’S MANIFESTO ILLITERACY EXPOSES A DISTURBING FAILURE OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY
The Editor Zambia
It is truly regrettable to witness individuals who claim to be educated descending into arguments over a document they have evidently never taken the time to read. The level of ignorance surrounding the United Party for National Development (UPND) manifesto speaks volumes, not about the document itself but about the poverty of serious debate within sections of the opposition. 
Manifestos are not contracts written in stone. They are declarations of intent and policy direction based on assumptions and prevailing conditions.
This is neither unique to the UPND nor peculiar to Zambia. Every political party in the world formulates its promises on the basis of assumptions and expectations regarding economic realities, available resources, and the behaviour of various actors within society.
Take employment creation, for instance. When a government promises jobs, such a commitment naturally assumes that those seeking employment possess the skills and competencies required by the labour market. Jobs do not exist in a vacuum, nor can economic opportunities automatically translate into employment without a workforce capable of meeting the demands of industry.
This is precisely where Zambia’s greatest challenge lies. The country possesses a youthful population, but one that has historically suffered from inadequate skills development. The problem has never merely been the absence of opportunities; rather, it has been the mismatch between available opportunities and the preparedness of the workforce.
Recognising this reality, the New Dawn administration has sought to tackle the problem through Constituency Development Fund (CDF) bursaries dedicated to skills training. By empowering young people with practical and technical competencies, the government is laying the foundation for sustainable employment rather than pursuing short-term political slogans.
Unfortunately, many critics appear either unwilling or unable to appreciate such economic fundamentals. They speak as though campaign promises operate independently of circumstances, when in fact, all policy projections are built upon the assumption that conditions remain reasonably favourable.
The construction of provincial airports provides another example. Infrastructure development itself is guided by the universally accepted economic principle of ceteris paribus, all things being equal.
Feasibility studies projected passenger numbers, trade flows, and anticipated economic activity all rest upon assumptions about stability and future growth. No responsible government anywhere in the world builds infrastructure while pretending to possess the gift of prophecy.
Those attacking the UPND manifesto as though assumptions are evidence of deception merely betray their own misunderstanding of public policy and economics. Their arguments expose a worrying tendency to substitute rhetoric for reason and noise for knowledge.
Democracy flourishes when political discourse is informed by facts and serious analysis. It suffers when individuals, however educated they may claim to be, choose to debate documents they have neither studied nor understood.
Perhaps the time has come for sections of the opposition to spend less energy manufacturing outrage and more time engaging with the substance of policy. For ignorance, however loudly expressed, can never substitute for understanding.
