The Editor Zambia
Socialist Party leader Fred M’membe’s warning that Zambia risks losing its international standing as a contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions paints a picture of a country supposedly descending into a constitutional, and military crisis.
Yet, when the rhetoric is stripped away, the picture on the ground is considerably different. 
State House communications specialist Clayson Hamasaka is therefore right to insist that there is no national crisis because Zambia has a government that was constitutionally inaugurated and citizens are going about their daily lives, businesses are operating and the country’s institutions continue to function.
There may be allegations of wrongdoing requiring investigation, and there may be political grievances requiring lawful resolution, but that is fundamentally different from claiming that Zambia is experiencing a national crisis.
M’membe’s intervention appears to elevate allegations into established conclusions. He describes the Zambia Army as having acted as a political militia and accuses senior military officers of interfering in the electoral process.
Those are extraordinarily serious allegations. They cannot, however, become facts merely because they have been repeated in a political statement.
The death of former Lunte member of parliament Mutotwe Kafwaya is undoubtedly a matter that deserves clarity if questions remain about the circumstances surrounding it.
But, using one tragic incident as proof of a coordinated military campaign to manipulate a national election requires compelling evidence.
It is precisely because the allegations are so serious that they should be subjected to evidence-based investigation rather than political narration.
The same applies to claims that elite military units entered polling stations, threatened electoral officials, and interfered with opposition representatives.
If such conduct occurred, those responsible should answer for it. But there is a substantial difference between saying that an allegation should be investigated and declaring that the Army deliberately abandoned its constitutional role and became an instrument of a political party.
M’membe’s argument about Zambia’s UN peacekeeping reputation is equally overstated. Zambia’s international reputation cannot reasonably be reduced to allegations arising from a contested domestic political narrative.
Zambia has a long record of participating in peacekeeping and regional security initiatives. If particular officers are accused of misconduct, accountability should follow the individuals and the evidence. It does not automatically follow that the entire country has forfeited its credibility.
This is where Hamasaka’s argument becomes particularly important. Democracy does not mean that every allegation constitutes a constitutional emergency.
Nor does an electoral defeat automatically become evidence of electoral fraud, military intervention, or state-sponsored repression.
There is nothing wrong with demanding answers. Indeed, a healthy democracy requires scrutiny of government, security services, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), and every other public institution.
But scrutiny must be accompanied by responsibility. Political leaders have an obligation to prevent legitimate grievances from becoming fuel for instability.
Zambia has already demonstrated that political competition can produce peaceful transfers of power. The 2021 election was a particularly important example.
The 2026 election should similarly be judged by evidence, law, and institutional processes rather than by the volume of political accusations surrounding it.
M’membe is perfectly entitled to criticise President Hakainde Hichilema and his administration. He is entitled to demand investigations and accountability.
But the language of military takeover, political militias, and an existential threat to Zambia’s democracy requires evidence commensurate with the gravity of those accusations.
At present, what Zambia has is political disagreement, allegations of criminal conduct, and disputes over aspects of the election. Those matters should be dealt with through the courts, investigative institutions, and other lawful mechanisms.
That is not a crisis.
It is democracy being tested.
The greatest danger now is not that Zambians are incapable of resolving their differences. It is that politicians may convince citizens that ordinary political and legal disputes amount to the collapse of the Republic.
Hamasaka’s central message, therefore, deserves support: Zambia should not be talked into a crisis that does not exist. Those who have evidence of wrongdoing should present it. Those with grievances should pursue lawful remedies. Those who lost elections should organise for the next contest.
Equally, those entrusted with influencing public opinion should remember that there is a profound difference between holding power to account and persuading citizens that their country is already falling apart.
Zambia needs accountability where wrongdoing is proven, but it also needs perspective. Above all, it needs political leaders prepared to defend democratic institutions without undermining public confidence in the Republic itself.
