The Editor Zambia
New Heritage Party leader Chishala Kateka’s warning that Zambia should brace for a “Pe Lampi” revolution is reckless, irresponsible, and potentially dangerous to the country’s democratic stability.
At a time when political leaders should be encouraging peace, constitutionalism, and respect for democratic institutions, Kateka appears more interested in inflaming public anger against a democratically elected government. 
Political leaders have every right to criticise President Hakainde Hichilema and his United Party for National Development (UPND) administration.
However, there is a fundamental difference between exercising freedom of expression and using inflammatory language that risks mobilising citizens towards confrontation with a constitutionally established government. Kateka must understand that distinction.
What exactly does the opposition political leader mean when she warns the government to prepare for a revolution? Is she offering constructive political criticism, or is she deliberately encouraging discontent that could spill over into lawlessness?
Such language is particularly irresponsible coming from a political leader who should appreciate the consequences of political instability for ordinary Zambians.
Zambia is a constitutional democracy, not a country where political grievances should be settled through intimidation, mob action, or street confrontations.
President Hichilema occupies State House through an electoral process, and those who disagree with his policies have constitutional avenues through which to challenge his administration. The answer to political dissatisfaction is not to threaten revolution.
Kateka’s attempt to portray football stadia as alternative battlegrounds for expressing political anger is equally troubling. Football matches should bring Zambians together, not become platforms for escalating political tensions.
Citizens have freedom of expression, but that freedom must be exercised responsibly and within the law.
Nobody should use the emotions of a sporting crowd to manufacture a climate of hostility against the government.
If Kateka believes that the UPND has violated the law or infringed on citizens’ rights, she should identify the specific violations and pursue appropriate constitutional and legal remedies.
Making sweeping allegations about a shrinking democratic space while invoking revolution does little to advance the democratic debate. It risks encouraging confrontation rather than resolving legitimate grievances.
Kateka’s reference to presidential term limits also raises a question of political consistency. The protection of constitutional term limits is important, and no president should be permitted to manipulate the Constitution for personal political survival.
However, there is no justification for turning hypothetical fears about a possible constitutional amendment into a pretext for threatening political upheaval.
President Hichilema’s current constitutional mandate must be distinguished from speculation about what might happen in the future.
If individuals propose extending presidential tenure, their proposals should be scrutinised through constitutional debate and lawful democratic processes. Zambia does not need revolutionary rhetoric to defend its Constitution.
Kateka invokes the legacy of Zambia’s one-party state under Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, warning against a return to dictatorship. Yet the lesson of that period should be that democratic institutions, constitutional safeguards, and political freedoms must be protected through principled civic engagement, not threats of disorder.
Democracy cannot be defended by language that undermines the very stability upon which democratic participation depends.
Equally, her suggestion that citizens should vent their anger at football matches because they allegedly lack other avenues for expression deserves scrutiny.
Zambia has political parties, the courts, the media, and other civic platforms through which citizens can raise concerns.
Where those avenues are allegedly restricted, the appropriate response is to demand their protection and strengthen them, not encourage the transformation of public gatherings into centres of political agitation.
If Kateka wants to challenge President Hichilema, she should do so through ideas, evidence, and lawful democratic competition.
Zambia needs political leaders who can mobilise citizens around solutions, not personalities, who appear willing to mobilise anger against an elected government.
