The Editor Zambia
FOR decades, Zambia took pride in being a nation where tribal and regional differences did not destroy the idea of one Zambia, one nation.
Zambia’s founding President Dr. Kenneth Kaunda understood the danger of allowing ethnicity and regionalism to become the organising principles of national politics. 
His philosophy of One Zambia, One Nation was not merely a slogan but a deliberate political project aimed at preventing the country’s many ethnic groups and regions from seeing the government as the possession of particular communities. But that political restraint has progressively weakened.
Today, Zambia must confront an uncomfortable reality. The ethnic and regional tensions that were once kept largely under control have become increasingly visible in political discourse.
The argument is no longer simply about which party governs but increasingly about which region, province, or ethnic constituency appears to have greater access to political power, government appointments, and national resources.
For years, political power was concentrated within what was broadly described as political corridors of Zambia. At the same time, communities felt politically marginalised.
This is precisely why the administration of President Hakainde Hichilema should take the issue seriously. As much as the President did not create Zambia’s historical regional and tribal divisions. But he now has the opportunity to end the bad vices he inherited from the past regimes.
President Hichilema has the opportunity to address these challenges and leave behind a stronger national architecture in which no province or ethnic community feels permanently excluded from the corridors of power.
One practical response could be deliberate regional balancing in government appointments.
This should not mean appointing people merely because of their tribe because that would mean replacing competence with ethnicity.
Zambia cannot afford that, but the principle must be hinged on competence, integrity, and merit, with regional inclusiveness consciously incorporated into the appointment process.
For example, where appropriate, senior government officials from Southern, Western, North-Western and parts of Central provinces could serve in Northern, Muchinga, Luapula and Eastern provinces, while qualified citizens from Northern, Eastern, Muchinga and Luapula could serve in Southern, Western and North-Western provinces.
Similar consideration could apply to Central Province, including areas with different historical ethnic constituencies.
Provincial ministers, permanent secretaries, district commissioners, and other senior administrators should be viewed as national servants rather than representatives of their home provinces.
A permanent secretary from Southern Province should be perfectly capable of administering a ministry whose programmes primarily affect Northern Province.
A district commissioner from Eastern Province should be able to serve communities in Western Province. Likewise, a qualified citizen from Northern Province should be able to administer a district in Southern Province without being regarded as an outsider.
Such an approach would have another important advantage. It can reduce the temptation towards nepotism.
When an administrator is posted far away from his or her home area, there is less opportunity to construct a local network based on relatives, childhood associates, traditional connections, and political patrons.
Officials are more likely to be judged by their performance rather than by their ability to distribute opportunities among people they know.
But regional balancing must not become another form of tribalism. The objective should never be to create a system in which a person from one tribe is automatically entitled to a particular position because another tribe previously held it. That would simply perpetuate the very disease being cured.
Instead, Zambia needs merit plus inclusion.
The government should publish and periodically review regional representation in senior appointments. In short, recruitment should be transparent.
Qualifications should remain essential. Where two candidates are broadly comparable in competence, regional diversity can legitimately become one consideration in building a national administration.
The same principle should extend beyond government appointments.
Political parties must stop mobilising citizens primarily through ethnic and regional loyalties. Traditional leaders must continue preaching national unity.
Churches, civil society, universities, and especially the media must challenge language that portrays particular tribes as naturally entitled to rule or naturally unfit to govern.
Most importantly, Zambians themselves must reject the dangerous idea that a person from another province is somehow less Zambian.
The Bemba-speaking citizen in Livingstone, the Tonga-speaking citizen in Kasama, the Lozi-speaking citizen in Chipata, the Chewa-speaking citizen in Solwezi, the Lunda-speaking citizen in Lusaka and the Lenje-speaking citizen in Mansa are all equally entitled to Zambia.
The country cannot afford a permanent contest between a Chambeshi-Luangwa bloc and the Zambezi bloc.
Those descriptions may help explain perceptions of historical political competition, but they must not become permanent political identities.
Dr. Kaunda’s greatest warning was that Zambia could destroy itself if its citizens began seeing one another primarily through tribe and region.
His One Zambia, One Nation philosophy remains relevant precisely because the country has reached a point where that warning must be renewed.
President Hichilema, therefore, has an opportunity to turn a growing national anxiety into a programme for reconciliation.
Let the next phase of Zambian governance deliberately mix regions, provinces, and communities in public administration. Let officials serve away from their traditional political and ethnic comfort zones. Let merit remain the foundation, but let national representation become a conscious principle.
