The Editor Zambia
There is a difficult question that Zambia must confront as it reflects on the political divisions surrounding President Hakainde Hichilema: why do political alliances and counter-alliances so often appear to take on regional and ethnic dimensions whenever a leader from other regions ascends to State House or vies to be republican president?
The question is not an indictment of ordinary northerners, easterners, westerners, southerners, or any other Zambian citizens. It is a question about political elites, historical power networks, and the tendency of some politicians to mobilise regional identity when they find themselves outside the government. 
President Hichilema’s rise to power in 2021 represented a major political transition from the dominance of the north/east establishment that had held power from 1964 to 2021.
For the first time in decades, power moved decisively away from the political establishments that had dominated national politics for long periods and went to a leader from a different region, representing a different political and regional tradition.
Instead of judging President Hichilema’s administration entirely on its enviable and superior policies and performance, sections of the political establishment have increasingly sought to frame the contest in regional terms.
The emergence of alliances like Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance named from two of Zambia’s regions bringing together politicians with roots in the former ruling establishment of the Patriotic Front (PF) and even the Movement for Multi Party Democracy (MMD), which has reinforced perceptions that some elites are attempting to recover political influence lost after 2021.
This is where Zambia must be careful. Zambians that hail from the north and eastern parts are not responsible for the actions or statements of politicians who happen to come from those communities.
Millions of Bemba, Ngoni, Lozi, Tonga, Chewa, Kaonde, Lunda, Luvale, and other Zambians simply want good governance, employment, economic opportunity and peace.
The danger arises when politicians transform legitimate political competition into a regional struggle.
For years, Zambia has congratulated itself for being a peaceful and relatively cohesive nation. That achievement is endangered whenever politicians tell citizens, explicitly or subtly, that State House belongs to a particular region or that certain communities have a natural entitlement to political power.
The politics surrounding President Hichilema is hinged on the cruel fact that people from northern or Eastern are opposed to him because he is Tonga. This cannot be true.
There is nothing wrong with politicians from different regions working together. Indeed, national politics requires precisely that.
The problem begins when an alliance, like Tonse- Pamodzi, becomes less about competing visions for Zambia and more about removing a president because of where he comes from.
The proper test of political leadership should, therefore, be simple: What has a politician done for Zambia? What policies are being proposed? What economic programme will create jobs? How will agriculture, education, healthcare, and infrastructure be improved? How will poverty be reduced?
These questions are more important than whether a politician is Luvale, Kaonde, Lunda, Bemba, Ngoni, Tonga, Lozi, or any other identity.
Zambia’s political class should learn from the country’s history. Regional identity can win political battles, but it cannot build a nation.
If Zambia truly believes that every citizen has an equal right to aspire to the presidency, then a leader from the Zambezi region must be judged by the same standard as a leader from any other part of Zambia.
State House belongs to Zambia—not to a tribe, region, or political dynasty.
