One of the most troubling features of political debate in this election is not that people vote differently, but that we often judge the same voting behaviour differently depending on which province is doing it.
For example:
Gwembe Constituency, Southern Province gives HH 24,797 and BM gets 204 (Difference, 24,593). 
Some people call it tribal voting.
Petauke Constituency Eastern province gives BM 33,587 and HH gets 5,155 (Difference: 28,432 votes)
Some people call it loyalty, stronghold, political consciousness, solidarity or good judgement.
That is hypocrisy!
If a particular voting pattern is evidence of tribalism in one province, then we must be prepared to examine similar patterns elsewhere using the same standard. Political analysis cannot be principled when the principle changes according to who wins.
This is particularly important in Zambia, where voting patterns have historically varied significantly from province to province, from election to election.
The fact is communities develop political loyalties for many reasons other than tribe. It may be historical experiences, leadership, economic interests, party organisation, candidate popularity, regional concerns, ideology and yes sometimes identity.
Reducing every strong regional voting pattern to tribalism is intellectually lazy.
But there is an equally important point: we should not pretend that identity and regional considerations never influence voting. They sometimes do. The honest position is to acknowledge that possibility wherever it exists—not selectively.
What is making this debate even more disappointing is that some of the loudest voices making these accusations are people who appear educated and politically informed. Education, however, does not automatically eliminate bias. I am seeing people with some academic qualifications who are still interpreting political events through partisan, regional or emotional lenses.
Colleagues, education should make us more intellectually honest, not more sophisticated in defending our own double standards.
If Southern Province votes overwhelmingly for UPND, the appropriate question should be: Why did voters make that choice? Was it because of the candidate? Party performance? Historical loyalty? Development expectations? Leadership? Identity? Or a combination of several factors?
And when another province produces a similarly overwhelming result, we should ask exactly the same questions.
The standard must be consistent.
We cannot condemn Southern voters for exercising their democratic preferences while celebrating another province for doing essentially the same thing. Nor should we romanticise regional voting when it benefits our preferred political side and condemn it when it does not.
Zambia needs less political hypocrisy and more honest political sociology.
Our voting patterns deserve serious analysis—not insults. We should examine the numbers, historical trends, candidate appeal, party structures, socioeconomic conditions and the reasons voters themselves give for their choices.
A province is not a single mind. Millions of individual voters make millions of individual decisions. A strong provincial result does not automatically prove tribalism, just as it does not automatically prove political enlightenment.
The mature approach is simple:
Use one standard. Apply it everywhere. Study the evidence. Respect the voter.
If we genuinely want to understand Zambia’s politics, we must stop asking, “Which province voted for whom?” and start asking, “Why did voters vote the way they did—and would we describe the same behaviour the same way if the political winner were different?”
That is where an honest national conversation should begin.
The problem is not that Zambians vote differently. The problem is that we sometimes interpret the same behaviour differently depending on whose side we are on.
Zambia deserves better than that.
