The Editor Zambia
The recent demand by the Tonse Alliance for an urgent meeting with the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) is not only misplaced—it is a calculated attempt to elevate partisan anxieties into matters of national urgency.
The Commission would be well within its mandate to ignore this request altogether, not out of arrogance, but out of principle. 
Zambia’s electoral integrity cannot be held hostage by a coalition whose concerns are neither national in scope nor grounded in credible institutional risk.
At face value, the Tonse Alliance presents itself as a broad coalition of over 30 political parties and civil society actors.
In reality, it is an awkward amalgamation of largely ethnic political clubs bound not by a shared vision for Zambia but by a singular objective: removing President Hakainde Hichilema from power.
Such formations are inherently unstable and often resort to alarmism when political momentum slips from their grasp. Their latest appeal to the ECZ fits neatly into this pattern.
What exactly are these “urgent” concerns? A closer reading reveals that they are largely procedural grievances wrapped in exaggerated language about transparency and fairness.
Yet Zambia has established electoral systems, legal frameworks, and oversight mechanisms that have consistently guided previous elections.
If anything, ongoing reforms under the current UPND administration are aimed at strengthening—not weakening—these systems.
To suggest otherwise without evidence is to undermine public confidence for political convenience of political parties that have already sensed defeat.
The ECZ must be careful not to legitimise this lazy tactic garbed in promoting democracy when it is championing anarchy and tribalism.
Responding to every politically-charged demand risks setting a dangerous precedent where institutions are drawn into endless cycles of reaction to partisan pressure.
The Commission’s role is not to validate political narratives but to administer elections in accordance with the law. Its independence depends precisely on its ability to distinguish between genuine institutional concerns and politically motivated noise.
The truth is far less dramatic than the Tonse Alliance would have the public believe. With the countdown to August 13 well underway, it has become increasingly clear that the opposition is struggling to present a coherent national alternative.
The Tonse Alliance itself is a reflection of this unpreparedness—a coalition stitched together in haste, lacking ideological clarity, policy direction, or organisational cohesion.
Its appeal to the ECZ is less about safeguarding democracy and more about compensating for internal weaknesses.
Meanwhile, the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) continues to consolidate its position through governance that resonates with citizens.
From economic reforms to social sector investments, the government has demonstrated a level of consistency and delivery that contrasts sharply with the fragmented messaging coming from the opposition.
Popularity, in politics, is rarely accidental but earned through visible results and credible leadership.
This is the context in which the Tonse Alliance’s request must be understood. It is not a neutral appeal for dialogue but a strategic move born out of political anxiety.
The alliance has read the writing on the wall and is attempting to reframe its electoral disadvantages as systemic issues. But Zambians are not naïve. They can distinguish between genuine institutional shortcomings and manufactured grievances.
It is also important to address a broader lesson for Zambia’s opposition landscape. Political parties cannot be formed—or in this case, hastily assembled—solely for the purpose of removing an incumbent.
Sustainable political movements are built on ideas, policies, and long-term engagement with citizens. They require discipline, structure, and a clear vision for national development.
Without these elements, coalitions like the Tonse Alliance will continue to flounder, resorting to theatrics rather than substance.
The ECZ, for its part, must remain focused on its constitutional mandate. Its credibility lies in consistency, professionalism, and independence—not in its responsiveness to every demand that comes cloaked in urgency.
By declining to engage with concerns that lack national significance, the Commission would be reinforcing an important principle: that Zambia’s democratic institutions are guided by law, not by political pressure.
In the end, the Tonse Alliance’s request says more about its own survival than it does about Zambia’s electoral system.
It reveals a coalition grappling with irrelevance, seeking visibility through manufactured controversy. The ECZ should not be drawn into this narrative.
Silence, in this case, would not be neglect—it would be a firm and necessary defence of institutional integrity.
As the country moves closer to the 2026 general elections with only 128 days remaining, the focus must remain where it belongs: on delivering credible, transparent, and lawful electoral processes.
Anything else is a distraction. And Zambia can ill afford distractions masquerading as democratic concern.
