12/08/2026
We Did Not Vote for Relatives: Five Years Later, Was the 2021 Promise Betrayed?
In 2021, many people in Western Province made a difficult political choice.
We overwhelmingly supported the United Party for National Development (UPND), not because we did not have our own sons and daughters capable of leading Zambia, but because we believed the country had to remove what we considered a common political enemy: the Patriotic Front (PF).
That choice was made despite the fact that our own daughter, Mrs Inonge Wina, was serving as Vice-President under the PF government. It was therefore not a vote dictated by blood, tribe or regional sentiment. It was a political decision based on hope.
We wanted change.
We wanted institutions that respected the Constitution.
We wanted accountable leadership.
We wanted a government that would govern through persuasion, consultation and the rule of law, not through political intimidation or the concentration of power.
Five years later, it is legitimate to ask: Did we get what we voted for?
This point must be made without ambiguity.
If our 2021 decision had simply been about voting for our relatives, we had a very obvious choice in Hon. Charles Milupi, one of our own sons, who was available to lead politically. We convinced him against his wishes to pull out and join UPND even when it was not fashionable.
We chose the UPND because we believed it represented a new beginning and had numbers to unseat the Patriotic Front of we joined hands.
We believed the party would deliver better governance than the government we were rejecting.
Therefore, when we now raise concerns about the direction of the country, we should not be dismissed as people who are bitter because it is not their relative.
As citizens have every right to examine whether that promise has been honoured.
When the grassroots voice is ignored
One of the clearest signs of political disillusionment is the growing perception that party structures are imposing candidates on communities rather than allowing communities to choose candidates who command genuine grassroots support.
An election is supposed to give citizens the freedom to choose their representatives. Political parties may select candidates through their internal processes, but where the wishes of the people at grassroots level are repeatedly ignored, the democratic spirit is weakened.
The emergence of numerous independent candidates across the country should therefore not simply be dismissed as rebellion, indiscipline or political opportunism.
In many cases, it can be understood as a symptom of frustration with candidate selection processes that people believe have ceased to reflect the will of the electorate.
A political party may win power nationally, but it cannot assume that every candidate it imposes will automatically enjoy the confidence of the people in a ward, constituency or district.
The people who live in those communities know their leaders.
They know who has worked for them.
They know who has stood with them.
And ultimately, they, not party headquarters, must live with the consequences of the representatives they elect.
“Lelo yange, imene yobe” is a saying Kwa hae Kwa Makapaela that captures the danger of celebrating the mistreatment of others:
“Lelo yange, imene yobe.”
Loosely translated, it means: “Today it is me; tomorrow it might be you.”
This should be a warning to every citizen, regardless of political affiliation.
People may celebrate today when a political opponent is denied an opportunity, removed from a contest, humiliated, sidelined or treated unfairly because they believe the victim belongs to the “wrong” political camp.
But political fortunes change.
The same machinery that is being used against someone else today can be used against us tomorrow.
When injustice happens to another person, our first question should not be, “Are they on my side?” It should be, “Is this right?”
Because if we only defend justice when it benefits us, then we are not defending justice. We are defending ourselves.
For people in Western Province, the question surrounding the Barotse Agreement of 1964 is not merely a political slogan.
It is part of our historical and constitutional consciousness.
That is why any presidential pronouncement that appears to dismiss, ridicule or unnecessarily provoke sentiments surrounding the Agreement naturally generates concern.
We can disagree on constitutional interpretation. We can debate the legal status and historical meaning of the Agreement. But there is a difference between having a principled constitutional position and deliberately antagonising people over an issue deeply embedded in their history.
Sensitive historical questions require statesmanship, not provocation.
Democracy cannot end at the party convention
Another source of concern is the treatment of political partners and smaller parties within the democratic process.
The Alliance for Democracy and Development Party (ADD), for example, was part of the political history of the alliance that helped bring the UPND-led government to power.
Yet the experience of political parties and candidates during adoption processes raises legitimate questions about whether political alliances are valued only when votes are needed and forgotten when power has been secured.
The circumstances surrounding candidates who have sought to pursue independent political paths also deserve scrutiny.
Democracy cannot mean that citizens are free to participate only when their political choices are convenient to those in power.
Perhaps one of the most worrying developments for many Zambians has been the manner in which constitutional amendment proposals have been handled.
A Constitution belongs to the people.
It does not belong to the governing party.
It does not belong to the opposition.
It does not belong to Parliament.
And it certainly does not belong to the President.
That is why any process perceived as being bulldozed through Parliament, particularly where there are questions about procedure, consultation or the motives behind proposed amendments, should concern every citizen regardless of political affiliation.
Today it may be a constitutional amendment we support.
Tomorrow it may be one that fundamentally undermines our own rights.
The Constitution must therefore be defended even when defending it is inconvenient to our political friends.
There are concerns emerging about the conduct and organisation of the 2026 elections that deserve serious attention.
I have personally attended ZEEC/ZEEGI (whichever is correct) trainings in which issues concerning election monitoring and the conduct of political actors have been discussed. Based on what I witnessed and heard, I have concerns about reports of coordinated political structures operating under the guise of monitoring arrangements and potentially seeking to influence voters or the electoral environment from within or around polling stations.
I deliberately make this point as a matter of concern and firsthand observation, rather than presenting every allegation circulating in political circles as an independently established fact.
These organised structures, instructions or activities intended to interfere with voters, election officials, the secrecy of the ballot or the integrity of polling stations, must be exposed and subjected to proper scrutiny.
Elections are not a battlefield for political parties to capture polling stations. They are a constitutional exercise belonging to the people.
This is perhaps the most important lesson from the last five years.
We cannot say that what was unacceptable under the PF suddenly becomes acceptable under the UPND.
We cannot condemn political persecution when our opponents are affected and celebrate it when people we dislike are targeted.
We cannot demand respect for the Constitution when we are in opposition and treat it as an obstacle when we are in government.
We cannot demand free elections only when we believe we are losing.
Democracy requires consistency.
The same standard must apply to Edgar Lungu, Hakainde Hichilema, Charles Milupi, Fred M'membe and every other politician.
Political accountability cannot be selective.
We made a political choice in 2021. We are entitled to make another judgement in 2026.
Our 2021 vote was not a marriage contract.
It was not an oath of permanent loyalty.
It was a mandate given to a political party on the basis of promises and expectations.
Where those expectations have been met, government deserves recognition.
Where they have not been met, citizens deserve the freedom to say so.
And where government appears to be moving in a direction that threatens democratic institutions, constitutionalism or the credibility of elections, citizens have not only the right but the responsibility to speak.
Western Province did not vote for the UPND because of blood.
We did not vote for it because President Hichilema was our relative.
We voted because we wanted something better.
We voted because we believed Zambia deserved better governance.
We voted because we believed the era of the iron fist had to end.
If five years later we are beginning to see the same tendencies we rejected in 2021, then we must have the courage to say so—even when the uncomfortable truth implicates people we once supported.
Lelo yange, imene yobe.
Today it may be someone else whose rights are being trampled.
Tomorrow, it could be ours.
The people celebrating another person's political suffering today may discover tomorrow that political power is temporary and that the same machinery can eventually turn against them.
Our loyalty must ultimately be to Zambia, to democracy and to the Constitution—not to political parties.
The question before the electorate in 2026 is therefore not simply:
“Who did you vote for in 2021?”
It is:
“Having seen what happened with the mandate we gave them, what do you believe they deserve from you now?”
That is a question every voter must answer freely, peacefully and without intimidation.
The ballot belongs to the people. The Constitution belongs to the people. And political power belongs to the people.
Editor's note: Civil Servants who are in ZEEC/ZEEGI are reminded that we don't subscribe to your rigging scheme. You are advised to rise above board and resist the temptations. You are advised...
