The Editor Zambia
As Zambia approaches the August 13 general election, political rhetoric has become increasingly heated.
The development is not unusual in any competitive democracy.
What should concern every citizen, however, is not the intensity of campaigns but the conduct of political leaders before, during, and after the declaration of results. 
The greatest test of leadership is not how one campaigns but how one responds to the verdict of the electorate.
Recent statements from some leaders of the Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance raised questions about their preparedness to accept an outcome of the election results, considering that it is clear they are losing.
Rather than projecting confidence based on a nationwide campaign machinery or presenting a compelling alternative policy platform, some opposition figures have increasingly focused on allegations, warnings and appeals that suggest they are already laying the groundwork to challenge the loss that is staring in their face.
If that perception is accurate, it would be a disservice to Zambia’s democratic tradition.
Political parties are entitled to seek the support of voters, scrutinise electoral processes, and raise legitimate concerns through lawful channels.
Equally, they have a responsibility to avoid statements that could unnecessarily heighten tensions or encourage supporters to reject election results without credible evidence.
The ruling UPND enters this election with the advantages that naturally come with incumbency, including an established party structure reaching into wards, constituencies, and districts across the country.
It also campaigns on a record that includes free education, expanded recruitment of teachers and health workers, increased investment in agriculture, debt restructuring efforts, and broader economic reforms.
It is clear that voters consider these solid achievements as sufficient evidence to give President Hakainde Hichilema another term in office.
By contrast, the Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance remains a relatively new political formation seeking to establish itself nationally, not to mention its failure to rebrand itself from the PF shadow, a dark chapter in the political history of the country.
While some of its rallies have attracted significant crowds, political history repeatedly demonstrates that attendance at campaign events is not, on its own, a reliable predictor of electoral success.
Winning a national election requires sustained grassroots organisation and widespread voter mobilisation across rural, urban, and peri-urban communities.
Since all the signs of the citizenry returning the UPND to office, the opposition must respect that decision just as ruling parties are expected to respect the will of voters when they lose.
Zambia has built a reputation for peaceful transfers of power, and that legacy should not be compromised by premature claims of injustice or attempts to inflame public emotions.
Likewise, any concerns about the conduct of the election should be addressed through the country’s constitutional and legal mechanisms.
Democratic institutions exist precisely to resolve electoral disputes peacefully and lawfully. Resorting to inflammatory rhetoric or encouraging confrontation would serve neither democracy nor the citizens whose interests political leaders claim to represent.
International observers and organisations undoubtedly have a role in promoting transparent elections, but they do not choose Zambia’s leaders.
That responsibility rests exclusively with Zambian voters. The sovereignty of the ballot must remain paramount, and confidence in democratic institutions is strengthened when all contestants commit themselves to respecting lawful outcomes.
As polling day draws near, every political leader should send a clear and consistent message to supporters: vote peacefully, respect the law, and accept the outcome while pursuing any genuine grievances through established legal processes.
That commitment would do far more to strengthen democracy than any campaign slogan or political rally.
On August 13, Zambia will once again demonstrate the strength of its democracy. And when some opposition see already where the political wind is blowing, they should desist in crying foul prematurely.
