Beyond Rhetoric: Why Zambia’s Opposition Continues to Struggle Against Hichilema
By Farai Ruvanyathi
By any objective measure, Zambia’s political opposition faces a challenge far greater than merely defeating an incumbent president. Its real challenge is presenting a compelling alternative vision to a leader who has successfully framed the national conversation around economic recovery, production, and measurable outcomes.
As Zambia moves closer to another electoral contest, one reality has become increasingly difficult to ignore: President Hakainde Hichilema remains the dominant political figure in the country’s landscape not simply because he occupies State House, but because he has succeeded in setting the terms of national debate.
Whether one supports him or not, Hichilema has introduced a results-oriented approach to governance that bears the unmistakable imprint of his private-sector background. Unlike many African leaders who enter government from political activism, the civil service, or the military, Hichilema arrived with decades of experience in business, investment, and corporate management. That experience has shaped his strengths and has undoubtedly raised the bar for political leadership in Zambia.
At the heart of his administration is an obsession with targets. His now familiar “10-10-10-5-3-1” production matrix, 10 million tonnes of copper, 10 million tonnes of maize, 10 million megawatts of power generation, 5 million tourist arrivals, 3 million tonnes of soya beans and 1 million tonnes of wheat by 2030, provides a framework that citizens, investors and development partners can easily understand and measure.
Critics may question the feasibility of some of these ambitions, but they cannot accuse the President of lacking a roadmap.
This is where the opposition has struggled most visibly. Instead of producing competing economic blueprints, alternative growth targets, or rival development frameworks, much of its messaging has remained trapped in personality attacks, grievance politics, and increasingly divisive rhetoric. Too often, political discourse has descended into slander, humiliation, and fear-mongering, sometimes exploiting ethnic anxieties that Zambia has historically worked hard to avoid.
Such tactics may generate headlines, but they rarely inspire confidence among undecided voters.
The contrast becomes even more apparent when examining policy achievements. The reintroduction and expansion of free education, the restoration of meal allowances for university students, increased bursary support, and the significant enhancement of the Constituency Development Fund have become tangible markers of the administration’s agenda. The expanded CDF, in particular, has channelled unprecedented resources into local communities, enabling projects that many rural areas had never previously experienced at such scale.
Reasonable people can debate implementation challenges, efficiency, and sustainability. What is far more difficult to dispute is that these initiatives exist and have become visible parts of everyday life for millions of citizens.
Equally important is Hichilema’s governing style. Admirers view it as disciplined, focused and relentlessly performance-driven. Critics sometimes describe it as impatient. Both assessments contain elements of truth.
The President has frequently demonstrated a low tolerance for bureaucratic inertia, procedural rigidity, and administrative delays that slow implementation. To supporters, this reflects the mindset of a private-sector executive accustomed to efficiency, timelines and accountability. To detractors, it can appear demanding and exacting. Yet in a country where bureaucracy has often frustrated development efforts, many citizens see his impatience not as a flaw but as a necessary corrective.
Internationally, Hichilema has also cultivated a reputation that extends beyond Zambia’s borders. His administration’s engagement with international financial institutions, efforts to restore macroeconomic stability, progress on debt restructuring, and emphasis on investment-led growth have earned recognition from development partners and investors alike. At home, he continues to command considerable support among citizens who associate his leadership with stability, economic reform and a renewed sense of national purpose.
Perhaps the opposition’s greatest challenge is that it is contesting not merely a politician but a narrative, one centred on production, economic transformation, peace, dialogue and national unity.
For all the criticisms that can be levelled against the current administration, and every government inevitably attracts criticism, the opposition has yet to convincingly answer a fundamental question: what would it do differently?
Elections are not won solely by exposing the shortcomings of those in office. They are won by persuading citizens that a better alternative exists.
Until Zambia’s opposition develops a coherent policy platform, articulates measurable economic ambitions, and offers a message that rises above resentment and division, it will continue to struggle against a President whose greatest political advantage may not be his incumbency, but his ability to project both verve and panache while keeping the national conversation firmly focused on growth, production and delivery.
