The Editor Zambia
The declaration by opposition leader Robert Chabinga that the Patriotic Front (PF) should not appear on the ballot in the August 13 general elections may sound extreme to some.
The truth is, it is not. It is, in fact, a necessary confrontation with Zambia’s recent past, a past defined by systemic abuse of power, economic recklessness, and a political culture that placed party survival above national interest. 
For too long, the PF operated with impunity. What began as a populist movement promising pro-poor policies quickly degenerated into a machinery of control, intimidation, and extraction.
Cadrerism became institutionalised. Public spaces, markets, and even bus stations were turned into revenue streams for party loyalists who acted above the law.
Ordinary citizens were not just inconvenienced. They were effectively taxed by a parallel systems that answered to political masters rather than the State.
Corruption under the PF did not merely exist but flourished at alarming and abnormal levels till it was given presidential approval by the president himself who infamously said Uubomba mwibala, alya mwibala- (Someone who works in a field, helps himself to its products).
Public procurement became a feeding trough with inflated contracts, unexplained debt accumulation, and opaque financial decisions that plunged the country into a fiscal crisis whose consequences Zambians are still grappling with today.
The burden of this mismanagement fell squarely on the shoulders of citizens through rising costs of living, job losses, and declining public services.
It is not unreasonable to argue that some of these actions rise to the level of crimes that could be interrogated beyond Zambia’s borders, even at institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC).
While legal thresholds may be debated, the moral argument is far clearer with abundant evidence that a governing party that presided over widespread abuse of public resources and erosion of democratic norms cannot simply rebrand itself and seek renewed legitimacy without accountability.
Those who argue that barring the PF from the ballot undermines democracy misunderstand what democracy demands.
Democracy is not merely about participation but about accountability, integrity, and the protection of citizens from those who abuse power.
Allowing a political formation that so brazenly disregarded these principles to return under the banner of democratic inclusion risks turning democracy into a shield for impunity.
Across the continent, there is a growing frustration with the cyclical nature of political failure. The observation that only in Africa can political plunderers repeatedly regroup and seek power is not entirely unfounded.
It reflects a painful reality where consequences are often absent and memory is dangerously short.
Zambia now stands at a crossroads. It can either reinforce a culture of accountability that President Hakainde Hichilema is championing or slide back into the normalisation of abuse.
Chabinga’s stance must also be understood within the current legal chaos surrounding the PF.
The party is entangled in a leadership dispute that has rendered its internal structures questionable at best.
Competing factions claim legitimacy, undermining any coherent identity the party once had. In such circumstances, insisting on its participation in national elections only adds confusion to an already fragile political environment.
Furthermore, Chabinga’s alignment with the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) and his endorsement of President Hakainde Hichilema reflects a broader political realignment.
While alliances in Zambian politics are often viewed with scepticism, his argument is less about political convenience and more about drawing a line under a discredited past.
The achievements cited by President Hichilema’s administration, including free education, debt restructuring, and the revival of key mining operations, present a stark contrast to the PF era.
Whether one fully agrees with this assessment or not, it underscores a critical point. Zambia cannot afford regression. The stakes are simply too high.
This is not a call for vengeance. It is a call for responsibility.
Political parties, like individuals, must be held accountable for their actions.
Redemption, if it is to be genuine, must begin with acknowledgement, reform, and justice.
The PF has shown little evidence of any of these. Placing such a party back on the ballot without first addressing its legacy would be to trivialise the suffering endured by many Zambians during its tenure.
It would signal that power can be abused without lasting consequence, that the electorate’s trust can be violated and then casually reclaimed.
Chabinga’s words may unsettle those who prefer a softer reckoning with the past. But discomfort is often the first step toward meaningful change.
Zambia must decide whether it values accountability over convenience, integrity over expediency, and the future over the failures of the past.
On August 13, the country should not merely choose leaders. It should define the standards by which leadership is earned.
