The Editor Zambia
Politics, by its very nature, is not a science of unanimity. No matter how impressive a leader’s achievements may be, there will always exist sections of the electorate whose positions are shaped by factors extending beyond policy outcomes, economic indicators, or developmental milestones.
President Hakainde Hichilema is no exception to this enduring political reality. 
Firstly, there exists a category of urban voters who pay little attention to policy details, macroeconomic reforms, or institutional strengthening. Their political decisions are often influenced more by emotions, misinformation, and immediate circumstances than by an objective assessment of governance. Such voters are generally less persuaded by long-term national strategies and more susceptible to populist rhetoric.
Secondly, tribal sentiment remains an unfortunate feature of African politics. There are individuals whose opposition to President Hichilema stems not from disagreements over his policies but from deeply entrenched ethnic prejudices. To such elements, merit and performance are secondary considerations, as political allegiance is viewed through the narrow prism of identity rather than national interest.
Thirdly, those who passionately embraced the “Takatekepo” doctrine have, by and large, maintained their hostility towards the current administration. Their attachment to previous political structures and personalities has evolved into a permanent opposition to President Hichilema, irrespective of the direction in which the country moves. For this group, politics is often driven more by loyalty than by an evaluation of results.
Another segment comprises individuals whose livelihoods were intertwined with the patronage networks and informal systems that flourished under previous administrations. The dismantling of extortionist practices in markets, bus stations, and street trading environments inevitably displaced those who had benefited financially from such arrangements.
Unsurprisingly, reforms aimed at restoring order and accountability have not been welcomed by those whose interests were adversely affected.
There also exists a section of the urban poor who have become deeply disillusioned with politics itself. Years of economic hardship and unfulfilled promises have created a sense of frustration that transcends partisan boundaries. To many within this group, every political leader is viewed with suspicion, and every government is held responsible for their persistent struggles. Consequently, even positive developments are frequently dismissed as inadequate or inconsequential.
Equally significant are those who believe that political power should primarily serve the interests of their own ethnic communities. Such individuals often assume that the elevation of one of their tribesmen to high office automatically translates into collective economic advancement. This perception, though widespread in some quarters, runs contrary to the principles of constitutional democracy, where leadership is intended to serve the entire nation rather than sectional interests.
The reality of democratic politics is that no leader commands universal approval. Every president inherits supporters, opponents, and those whose views are unlikely to change regardless of circumstances. The measure of leadership, therefore, lies not in the impossible pursuit of unanimous affection, but in the ability to govern fairly, promote national unity and deliver tangible progress for all citizens, including those who may never cast a vote in one’s favour.
Indeed, history demonstrates that enduring statesmanship is not defined by pleasing everyone. Rather, it is measured by the courage to make decisions deemed beneficial to the nation, even when such decisions attract criticism from constituencies whose opposition is rooted in ideology, identity, vested interests or longstanding political loyalties.
