Zambia’s political arithmetic and the search for a thinking opposition- Makebi factor

By Marcus Songolo

Zambia’s road to the August elections is beginning to resemble a political chessboard rather than a straight sprint to State House. The ruling United Party for National Development sits with the advantage of incumbency, President Hakainde Hichilema has accumulated endorsements and the machinery of government remains firmly in place. Yet the deeper contest may not lie in the strength of the incumbent alone, but in how the opposition eventually rearranges itself before the country reaches the ballot.

Within that shifting landscape, one of the more intriguing voices to emerge is Patriotic Front presidential aspirant Makebi Zulu, whose recent reflections on the coming election reveal a strand of opposition thinking that moves beyond slogans and into political arithmetic.

Zulu’s argument begins with Zambia’s 50-plus-one electoral rule, a system that forces candidates to secure more than half the vote to win outright. The rule was introduced to ensure that the presidency carries a clear national mandate. In practical political terms, it also introduces a powerful variable: the possibility of a run-off election.

That prospect sits quietly beneath much of the current political manoeuvring. In a field where several opposition figures may contest the presidency, the first ballot may not necessarily produce a decisive winner. Zulu’s view is that such a scenario would not represent failure for the opposition but rather the opening of a second political stage.

In that second round, Zambia would move from a crowded contest into a direct face-off between two candidates. At that point, alliances, calculations and political loyalties that currently appear scattered could suddenly converge.

It is a sober way of looking at a race that many commentators have tried to reduce to a simple question of popularity.

President Hichilema remains a formidable political operator. His political journey from opposition leader to head of state demonstrated persistence that few African politicians have matched. The ruling party also continues to draw visible endorsements from traditional leaders and public figures who have expressed support for the government’s development agenda.

But Zambia’s political culture has always been more complex than public endorsements alone. Elections are often decided in the quiet privacy of the ballot box rather than in the public theatre of political declarations. It is a reality that seasoned political observers understand well.

Zulu has pointed out that endorsements may reflect many things: political proximity, respect for office, or even the natural instinct to align with those who currently hold power. What matters more in the final calculation, he suggests, is the sentiment voters carry when they stand alone before the ballot paper.

The opposition’s challenge, however, lies closer to home.

The Patriotic Front, which governed Zambia for a decade, remains in the middle of a painful internal reorganisation following the death of former president Edgar Chagwa Lungu. Leadership disputes, legal complications and rival factions have left the once tightly disciplined party searching for a stable centre.

One of the figures often mentioned in that internal turbulence is Morgan Ng’ona Chabinga, whose claim to leadership has generated considerable controversy. Yet for many within the PF, the real work lies not in debating that dispute endlessly but in rebuilding the party’s structures and restoring clarity around its future leadership.

That effort will ultimately determine whether the PF remains a central force in Zambia’s opposition politics or gradually cedes that role to other movements.

For Zulu, the question appears less about personalities and more about political direction. His public remarks suggest a figure who views the coming election through the lens of strategy rather than impulse. The calculation he presents is that the opposition’s greatest asset may not be any single individual but the eventual alignment of multiple forces around a common objective.

Such thinking places unusual emphasis on patience in a political environment often dominated by urgency.

Zulu’s own position reflects that balance. He has made no secret of his ambition to lead the country. Yet he has also acknowledged that the opposition’s chances may ultimately depend on identifying whichever candidate commands the broadest national support.

That is not a statement commonly heard from presidential contenders, who normally guard their ambitions closely. It suggests a political calculation shaped as much by numbers as by personality.

His proximity to the late Edgar Lungu has also placed him in an unusual position within the PF’s internal dynamics. Serving as spokesperson for the Lungu family during the sensitive period following the former president’s death drew both sympathy and criticism. Supporters saw a trusted ally standing beside a grieving family; critics interpreted the moment through a political lens.

Zulu himself has maintained that his role was purely communicative, explaining that he was asked by the family to relay their position publicly. In a country where loyalty and personal networks remain important elements of political life, such relationships inevitably carry significance.

Whether that connection strengthens his political standing within the PF or simply marks a transitional chapter in the party’s history will depend on how the organisation ultimately resolves its leadership question.

What is clear is that Zambia’s opposition remains in the middle of a delicate recalibration.

Multiple alliances, rival leaders and competing strategies continue to shape the political conversation. Yet beneath those surface tensions lies a quieter recognition that the electoral system itself may force cooperation sooner rather than later.

If the first round of voting produces no outright winner, the political landscape would narrow instantly to two contenders. At that moment, the scattered calculations currently unfolding across the opposition would have to resolve into a single decision.

For observers trying to understand Zambia’s approaching election, that possibility may be the most important variable of all.

It explains why some opposition figures speak less about dramatic political breakthroughs and more about careful positioning. In that sense, the debate surrounding Zulu’s reflections is less about one candidate and more about a wider political question.

Zambia’s election may ultimately be decided not only by who commands the loudest campaign, but by who understands the mathematics of the contest — and the patience required to navigate it.