The Editor Zambia
Politics has always been a contest of ideas, but it is also a contest of credibility. Voters do not judge political parties solely by what they promise today; they judge them by what they did yesterday. That is why the recent remarks by Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance Elections Chairperson Japhen Mwakalombe deserve close attention.
In attempting to assure Zambians that a Brian Mundubile administration would reject cadreism and the abuse of public resources because the alliance has “rebranded” from the Patriotic Front (PF), Mwakalombe may have unintentionally confirmed what many citizens have argued all along—that NRPUP and its allies in Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance are essentially the old PF in a different political outfit. 
The word “rebrand” is significant. Rebranding implies continuity, not separation. It suggests that while the packaging may have changed, the organisation itself traces its roots to an earlier identity.
For many observers, that single admission carries more weight than months of political denials.
The challenge facing the alliance is not simply one of image but of trust.
The PF’s electoral defeat in 2021 was influenced by a range of factors, but among the most frequently cited concerns was the perception of growing political intolerance.
Incidents of violence, accusations of cadreism, and confrontational politics became part of the party’s public image. Whether every accusation was justified is almost beside the point; in politics, public perception often shapes political reality.
It is, therefore, unsurprising that many Zambians remain sceptical when they hear claims that everything has changed.
Recent events have only reinforced those doubts. A widely circulated video allegedly showing masked Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance supporters carrying machetes and making threatening statements has revived painful memories of the kind of political intimidation many believed Zambia was leaving behind. The authenticity and legal implications of such incidents are matters for the relevant authorities to investigate, but the political damage is immediate.
Images of masked individuals wielding weapons are hardly consistent with the message of renewal and democratic maturity.
This is precisely why rebranding alone cannot succeed.
Political renewal is not achieved through slogans, logos, or carefully crafted campaign messages. It requires a complete transformation of political culture. Citizens must see leaders consistently condemning violence without qualification, disciplining those who engage in lawlessness, and demonstrating that elections can be contested through policies rather than intimidation.
Words, however persuasive, cannot erase years of accumulated public memory.
If anything, Mwakalombe’s statement has inadvertently reopened the very chapter his alliance hoped to close. By acknowledging the need to move away from practices associated with the PF, he has reminded voters why those practices became an issue in the first place.
The burden now rests squarely on the alliance to prove, through actions rather than declarations, that it has genuinely changed. Until that happens, many Zambians are likely to conclude that only the political label has changed while the habits remain familiar.
History offers an important lesson: organisations are remembered less for the names they choose than for the conduct they display. A fresh coat of paint cannot repair a cracked foundation. Trust is rebuilt not by announcing a new beginning but by consistently behaving differently.
As the country approaches another election, voters will not be asking what political parties call themselves. They will be asking a far more important question: Has anything really changed? Until that question is answered convincingly through peaceful conduct and democratic discipline, rebranding will remain little more than a change of appearance rather than a change of character.
