LESSONS FROM THE ELECTION: TIME TO RISE ABOVE TRIBAL POLITICS
The 2026 presidential election has delivered an important lesson that Zambia must not ignore because it should act as a blueprint to move forward.
Elections come and go, political parties rise and fall, candidates win and lose, but the country remains. 
The time has therefore come for Zambians to examine honestly the political attitudes that have dominated public discourse and ask whether tribal stereotypes, personal hatred and permanent opposition to President Hakainde Hichilema can continue to serve the national interest.
President Hichilema’s re-election should be viewed as an opportunity for national reflection. It is particularly a moment for those who have spent years defining their politics primarily through opposition to him to reconsider their position.
Among his most persistent critics are figures such as Sishuwa Sishuwa and Emmanuel Mwamba, who have for a long time harboured personal hatred against the President and consistently challenged him and his administration on everything.
Robust criticism is an essential part of democracy, and no president should be above scrutiny. However, criticism becomes destructive when it develops into hateful tribal obsession in which every government action is interpreted negatively and every achievement is dismissed simply because it comes from a leader whom one dislikes.
The election has demonstrated that political criticism cannot substitute for the judgement of the electorate.
Zambians have voted, and their decision deserves respect.
Those who opposed President Hichilema have every right to maintain their political beliefs, but they should also recognise that Zambia’s future cannot be built on permanent hostility towards one individual or one region.
One of the most disturbing lessons from the campaign was the persistence of old stereotypes about Tongas. For too long, political conversations in Zambia have sometimes reduced citizens to their ethnic identities.
This is a dangerous road because a person’s ethnic background should never determine whether they are considered capable of leading the country.
President Hichilema’s presidency provides an opportunity to challenge that thinking. He is not the President of Southern Province but the President of Zambia.
His responsibility is to develop Eastern Province, Northern Province, Copperbelt, Luapula, Central, Western, Muchinga, North Western, and Lusaka with the same commitment that he brings to his home region.
Those who genuinely love Zambia should, therefore, judge him by what he delivers, not by where he comes from.
The president’s supporters, who include citizens from the whole ten provinces, have often described him as a leader obsessed with development.
That obsession should now be encouraged, regardless of political affiliation because if a road is built in Northern Province, a hospital improved in Eastern Province, electricity extended to Western Province or an investment created in the Copperbelt, the beneficiary is not UPND or Tonga but all Zambians.
This is precisely the kind of thinking the country needs.
Zambia has spent too much time allowing politics to divide citizens along regional, ethnic and partisan lines. The 2026 election should mark the beginning of a different political culture in which national development becomes more important than settling political scores.
President Hichilema’s supporters must also understand that winning an election does not give them a licence to ridicule those who voted differently. The president has a responsibility to unite the country, and his supporters should help him do so.
At the same time, opposition figures and commentators should distinguish between legitimate scrutiny and political hostility. Holding government accountable is patriotic, but wishing that the government fails simply because one dislikes the president is not.
There is also a historical lesson. President Hichilema now enters his second term with an opportunity to establish himself among Zambia’s most consequential presidents. If he can translate his economic ambitions into widespread improvements in living standards, expand opportunities, and unite citizens behind a common national project, his place in Zambia’s political history will be secure.
For many Zambians, only Kenneth Kaunda stands above him in terms of the significance of the national leadership legacy being contemplated.
That comparison should not become blind praise. It should become a challenge.
The lesson for Zambians to learn from this election is, therefore, simple: abandon the ancient stereotypes, reject tribal politics, and put Zambia first.
The country needs builders like President Hichilema, not permanent haters. It needs critics who can also acknowledge progress. Above all, it needs citizens prepared to rally behind development wherever it occurs.
The ballot has settled the question of who should lead. The next question is for all Zambians to unite behind HH and achieve the national task of building the Zambia they have waited for since 1991.
