The Editor Zambia
Dr. Katele Kalumba’s decision to apologise to President Hakainde Hichilema for describing him as “evil” should be welcomed as an important demonstration of political maturity, humility and the willingness to acknowledge when emotions have gone too far.
Dr. Kalumba’s statement is particularly significant because it does not amount to surrendering his political convictions or his right to criticise those in public office. Rather, he has drawn an important distinction between disagreeing with a political leader and personally attacking that leader. 
In doing so, he has reminded Zambians that political disagreement does not have to destroy respect, dignity, and civility.
His apology should, therefore, be seen as an example that other serial critics of President Hichilema, including Emmanuel Mwamba, Lillian Mutambo, Emmanuel JJ Banda and Dr. Sishuwa Sishuwa, could emulate.
There is nothing wrong with holding strong political opinions or scrutinising government decisions.
Indeed, criticism is an essential component of democracy. However, criticism becomes counterproductive when it is driven by personal hostility, historical grievances, or an unwillingness to accept political realities.
What is particularly refreshing about Dr. Kalumba’s statement is his recognition that anger should not determine the language used in political discourse.
He admits that he felt deeply hurt by what he perceived as an attack on his family but nevertheless accepts responsibility for the words he used.
That is a powerful lesson.
Zambia needs more politicians, commentators, and public intellectuals who can say, “I was wrong,” without feeling that doing so diminishes them.
President Hichilema, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no reason to harbour personal malice against those who disagree with him.
The President occupies an office that inevitably attracts criticism, and he has every reason to understand that political opposition and scrutiny are part of democratic governance.
The problem, therefore, is not necessarily that President Hichilema has an inherent problem with his critics.
Rather, some of his most persistent critics appear trapped in an old political worldview that has struggled to come to terms with the fact that political power in Zambia is not the preserve of any particular region, tribe or political establishment.
For too long, Zambia’s political conversation has been influenced by what this platform has previously described as the Chambeshi/Luangwa bloc versus the Zambezi region, broadly represented by Southern, Western and North-Western Zambia.
Such geographical and historical political calculations have contributed to an unfortunate tendency to regard certain tribes as politically suspicious or somehow less suitable to govern the country.
It is time to abandon this thinking.
The uncomfortable reality for some of President Hichilema’s critics may be that the only “sin” they have never been able to reconcile themselves with is that he is geographically from another region other than their’s.
If the President were from a traditionally dominant political constituency, would some of the same criticisms be expressed with the same intensity? That is a question worth asking honestly.
President
Hichilema’s election and subsequent political victories demonstrated that Zambia is bigger than the old calculations of regional entitlement.
A Zambian from Southern Province is as entitled to aspire to the presidency as a Zambian from Eastern, Northern, Luapula, Muchinga, Central, Western, Copperbelt, Lusaka or North-Western Province.
Dr. Kalumba’s apology consequently provides an opportunity for a wider political reset. His words remind us that one can defend one’s family, challenge government policy, and maintain political convictions without demonising opponents. The same principle should apply to everybody.
Zambia does not need politicians and commentators permanently fighting yesterday’s tribal battles. It needs citizens prepared to judge leaders on their performance, integrity, and policies rather than their surnames, provinces, or ethnic backgrounds.
Dr. Kalumba has taken a step in that direction. Others should have the courage to take a leaf from his book.
