Is the State Under Siege?
Wynter M. Kabimba, SC, ODS

The return to multiparty democracy in 1991 brought a great deal of relief to Zambians who experienced the excesses of the One-Party State rule.

Democracy meant hope and freedom for all. It also promised a stable society in which social and economic progress would thrive without let or hindrance. But above all this, most of us looked forward to a functioning State as the overall centre of power and good governance.

However, what was not remotely anticipated was the gradual emergence of other power-centres which would heavily compete with the State in an equalled manner and with a clear agenda to render the State almost dysfunctional.

It is a common historical phenomenon that power is always contested. But, in a democracy, the people give their power to their elected representatives. They give them a mandate to exercise it on their behalf and also in their interest. And, therefore, any other group of citizens, however noble their intentions cannot and should not claim to represent the people more than the men and women the people voted for to run the affairs of State with the president at the head of State power structures. This does not, however, mean that the church, traditional authorities, opposition political parties and civil society organizations are irrelevant or that they have no role to play in the affairs of State. What they cannot do or should not be allowed to do is to act like separate or parallel state entities in a power-sharing arrangement with the elected representatives of the people and the State.

These unelected entities are all subordinate to the State. Whereas they may claim to represent their constituencies, they lack the legal mandate in a democracy to claim the same authority which the State commands. To purport to do so is to sow seeds of anarchy in a democratic society.

The early signs of the State’s loss of its hold-on power is when the competing power-centres start projecting religious, regional, tribal and ethnic interests to promote and preserve personal or narrow group interests over and above national unity and identity. These are smoldering fires to which the State can only turn a blind eye and a deaf ear at great cost to its mandate and the survival of the nation-state.

Let me say with an instructive Dutch proverb that, “Little is done when many command.”

There is an equivalent in my mother tongue, “there’s no commander among equals. (Zyembela beelene.)”

Digital Freedom or Digital Anarchy? Why Zambia Needs to Clean Up Social Media

Once upon a time, misinformation in Zambia moved slowly – passed between curious marketeers, office chatter, and neighbourhood gossip. Today, a single misleading Facebook post or a half-baked WhatsApp voice note can spark national outrage within minutes. We now live in a time where truth is often the casualty of viral excitement, and social media – for all its blessings – is becoming both a mirror and a magnifier of our deepest societal flaws.

Take the recent incident involving former Defence Minister Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba (GBM). In an astonishing showcase of digital recklessness, online users circulated false news of his death. Not only was this disrespectful to the family and friends, but it also exposed how social media platforms can be hijacked to play god with people’s lives.

But this is not a standalone case. We’ve seen social media used to spread tribal slurs, manufacture lies about politicians, destroy marriages with leaked private content, and even scam the most vulnerable out of their hard-earned savings. Some platforms have become breeding grounds for vulgarity and sexualised content, where young users are exposed to indecent material without filters. Meanwhile, self-proclaimed social commentators freely dish out insults, attack others’ dignity, and create fake “breaking news” for attention.

Let me be clear: social media is not the problem. In fact, it’s one of the greatest tools of our time. It has empowered citizens to hold power to account. It has given young Zambians a platform to promote businesses, tell their stories, expose corruption, and even educate others through skits and commentary. During COVID-19, social media was a lifeline for accurate information and community mobilisation. Even now, cooperatives and small businesses are using Facebook to connect with markets that were previously unreachable.

The problem is the abuse – the unchecked anarchy disguised as “freedom of speech.”

This is where the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act becomes critical. Yes, some fear that the law might be used to silence dissent or curtail civil liberties. That is a valid concern. But the law, if fairly and transparently enforced, is our best shot at cleaning up the digital mess before it rots the core of our national values.

Zambia cannot continue allowing social media to be a safe haven for scammers, fake prophets, digital nudists, and tribal warlords hiding behind anonymous profiles. The law provides tools to fight back against:

• Cyberbullying and harassment (especially affecting women and public figures)

• Scams involving fake investment schemes, crypto fraud, and online theft

• Leaking of private photos or sex tapes – a trend that is destroying lives

• Insults and demeaning language, now passed off as “content creation”

• Tribal hate speech, which threatens national unity

• Pornographic and indecent exposure, easily accessible by minors

But laws alone are not enough.

We need massive investment in digital literacy. From Grade 5 pupils to university students, from church groups to komboni residents  everyone needs to understand how to verify news, report abuse, protect themselves from scams, and respect others online. Civil society, ZICTA, the Ministry of Information, and social media influencers must partner to lead this moral and technological revolution.

Only when we combine policy, education, and community responsibility can we restore sanity online. The digital space must evolve into a zone of innovation, truth, and unity—not a playground for hate, deception, and immorality.

Zambia deserves a digital culture that builds, not breaks. The future of our nation’s conversation online and offlinede pends on it.

-Douglas Leroy Namafente is a columnist, social analyst, and radio host. He writes on digital culture, governance, and political communication in Zambia-.

By Chanda Chisala

The UPND seems to be trying very hard to decisively lose the upcoming general elections of 2026, through their stubborn insistence of amending the constitution, which is confusing even to some people in their loyal base. The only thing that might comfort their leaders is that the strongest alliance of opposition parties is trying even harder to lose the next elections, through their equally stubborn insistence that President Lungu should contest the next elections!

You would think that the UPND would have learnt from the similar mistakes of the past ruling parties. The Chiluba MMD government became very unpopular when they stubbornly pushed the infamous “third term” bid for Mr. Chiluba by proposing to change the two-term limit in the Zambian constitution. The resulting loss of popularity and the ensuing splits in the party is what led to Anderson Mazoka rising so quickly in popularity that he came within a whisker of defeating the ruling party candidate (Levy Mwanawasa), despite all the government resources that were corruptly abused by the MMD in nationwide campaigns. In fact, some people have persuasively argued that Mr. Mazoka did win that election.

After the MMD, the Patriotic Front party decided to also imitate them by introducing their own controversial amendment proposal (branded “Bill 10”), similarly designed with the idea of favoring the incumbent party. Like the third term push of their predecessors, this naked attempt at dishonestly consolidating power only accelerated their declining popularity and united all kinds of factions of civil society against them. Without rigging, Mr. Lungu lost his election by a near-record margin.

The UPND has apparently decided to put themselves under the same curse, and their inexplicable stubbornness is also energizing and uniting civil society against them (including the usual non-partisan groups like the Catholic Church, Law Association of Zambia, etc). One has to wonder if there is something in the water at State House that just makes people become irrational in a politically suicidal way. Instead of focusing on solving your big problem of explaining why your economic promises did not materialize, you decide to make your problems even bigger by imitating the worst political actions of your predecessors?

Amazingly, when the opposition saw the ruling party making this self-inflicted mistake, they said “hold our beer: we can show you how to make even bigger mistakes.” The decision of the strongest alliance in the opposition to activate their “Plan B” of stubbornly pushing former president Edgar Lungu as their presidential candidate is a much worse tactical blunder than anything the UPND is doing.

At a time when the major weakness of the opposition is not having a credible candidate that is well-known nationally, they decide to show their own lack of seriousness by pursuing a strategy that cannot possibly work. There is no chance that the Constitutional Court will allow Edgar Lungu to stand in the next elections after they ruled against his eligibility to stand under the current constitution. Not only is it the same judges who ruled against him 7-0 still there, there is no real new argument that can even slightly tempt them to change their position.

Those opposition leaders who are promising their followers that Lungu will be allowed to stand are only revealing their character. For example, Mr. Sean Tembo, a spokesperson of the “Tonse alliance” of some major opposition parties, boldly promised their supporters that “Edgar Lungu shall be on the ballot” in 2026 because the Court will overturn its previous ruling. This is a promise that they obviously know will not come to pass, so why are they giving their supporters a false hope?

If they know that this promise won’t happen, then they are being deceitful politicians who are worse than the people they are trying to replace. They are already showing the same habit of making promises that they already know will never be fulfilled. If you can do that without feeling guilty, then why even accuse HH of making false promises?

On the other hand, if they sincerely believe that there is a good chance the Constitutional Court will overturn its unanimous ruling, then it shows they are too unrealistic to be in leadership. A leader has to always demonstrate that he has a firm grip on reality and does not live in a world of wishful thinking.

Recent Articles from author:

Who Was the Worst President of Zambia?

How to End Zambia’s Poverty

Hichilema Should Have Implemented Sata’s Idea

President Hichilema is a Good Man, But His Policies Can’t Fix the Economy

Should Zambia Really Return to Socialism?

The author, Chanda Chisala, is the Founder of Zambia Online and Khama Institute. He is formerly a John S. Knight Fellow at Stanford University and Visiting Scholar to the Hoover Institution, a policy think tank at Stanford. You can follow him on Facebook or X @chandachisala.