The Editor Zambia
Hardly a day passes in Zambia’s political landscape without a fresh attempt by opposition figures to devise a strategy aimed at removing President Hakainde Hichilema and the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) from power.
From hurriedly assembled alliances to the repackaging of civil society organisations as political pressure groups, the effort appears relentless. 
Yet the deeper one examines these manoeuvres, the clearer it becomes that many of them are driven less by national vision and more by desperation, political impatience, and personal ambition.
The pattern has now become unmistakable.
Opposition politicians, particularly those associated with the former ruling Patriotic Front (PF), have increasingly turned to alliances and surrogate platforms in a bid to regain political relevance after their 2021 electoral defeat.
Instead of rebuilding their parties, reconnecting with citizens, or developing credible policy alternatives, many have chosen the quicker route: coalition-building designed primarily around a single objective — removing Hichilema from office.
This has produced a crowded but fragmented opposition landscape.
Civil society bodies such as the Oasis Forum have increasingly found themselves pulled into the orbit of partisan politics. Church voices, councils of elders, newly created political movements, and self-styled democratic alliances have all been drawn into the same political current.
On the surface, these formations claim to be defending democracy or promoting governance reforms. But in practice, many of their public interventions mirror the rhetoric of opposition politics rather than the balanced advocacy expected of independent institutions.
The transformation of the so-called Council of Elders into an openly political platform illustrates this trend vividly. What was initially introduced as a moral advisory body is now organising conferences to select a presidential challenger against Hichilema.
Among those seeking its endorsement are individuals who have long been active within opposition politics or previously served in government under earlier administrations.
Critics argue that the council’s evolution has merely confirmed suspicions that it was never a neutral platform for national reflection but a political project waiting for the right moment to reveal itself.
Meanwhile, the PF itself remains entangled in internal battles that have weakened its capacity to function as a coherent opposition party.
Leadership disputes, factional struggles, and competing ambitions have left the once formidable political machine struggling to maintain unity.
Instead of consolidating its structures and presenting a clear national programme, the party has spent much of its energy navigating courtrooms and internal quarrels
The result has been a cycle of splinter movements and parallel alliances, each claiming to represent the “real” opposition.
In this environment, personal egos frequently overshadow strategic thinking. Leaders who cannot agree on hierarchy or direction quickly abandon alliances and form new ones, only to repeat the same cycle of disputes and fragmentation.
What begins as a grand coalition often ends as rival factions accusing each other of betrayal.
Ironically, this constant fragmentation has achieved the exact opposite of its intended purpose.
Rather than weakening the incumbent, it has reinforced the political standing of President Hichilema and the UPND. Voters observing the spectacle of endless opposition infighting are left with a stark choice: a governing party that at least appears organised and focused, or an opposition landscape dominated by quarrels, parallel alliances and leadership rivalries.
Another noticeable feature of the current opposition dynamic is the concentration of some of its most vocal critics within a specific political bloc historically aligned with Northern and Eastern voting patterns that previously supported the PF.
While Zambia has long prided itself on avoiding overt ethnic polarisation, the undertones of tribal sentiment occasionally surface in political rhetoric directed at Hichilema.
For some actors, the motivation appears less about policy disagreements and more about long-standing regional rivalries combined with personal hostility toward President Hichilema and the community from which he comes.
Such politics of resentment rarely produce constructive alternatives.
Instead, they deepen divisions and reduce national debates to identity conflicts rather than substantive discussions about economic policy, governance reform, or development priorities.
History offers a lesson that many of today’s impatient opposition figures seem determined to ignore. The UPND itself spent more than two decades in opposition before eventually winning power in 2021. During those years, it endured electoral defeats, internal pressures, and political obstacles. Yet the party used that time to build structures, refine its message, and cultivate a nationwide support base.
Victory did not come from shortcuts or opportunistic alliances; it came from persistence and organisation.
By contrast, many of today’s anti-UPND alliances appear to be built almost entirely around a single emotional objective — removing President Hichilema — without demonstrating what kind of government they would offer in his place.
For voters, that distinction matters.
Removing a government is only half the democratic equation. The other half is presenting a credible alternative capable of governing a complex modern state.
Until the opposition learns that lesson, the cycle of alliances, breakaways, and parallel coalitions is likely to continue — and in the process, it may keep strengthening the very presidency it seeks to weaken.
