By the Rt. Revd. Dr. Musonda Trevor Selwyn Mwamba, President of the United National Independence (UNIP)
In moments of moral testing, nations are not judged by how loudly they proclaim their strength, but by how honestly they face the truth. Today, we are told that fifteen political parties now stand behind the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND).
Trumpets are sounded, banners are raised, and cameras dutifully record the spectacle. Yet beneath the choreography lies a painful question: is this alliance a sign of genuine democratic consolidation, or is it political theatre that cheapens our republic?
As one who has walked the difficult road of party leadership disputes, I know how easily the sacred vocation of politics can be reduced to a game of optics. I also know that the Zambian people are tired of being treated as an audience to be dazzled, rather than citizens to be respected. An alliance which leans on weak, factional or disputed partners does not strengthen the moral authority of a government; it erodes it.
True alliances are forged in conviction, grounded in legitimacy, and anchored in the will of the people. They are not stitched together from fragments of parties whose own foundations are cracked.
When a ruling party gathers such fragments and presents them as proof of overwhelming support, it confuses quantity with integrity. It counts logos, not lives; numbers, not principles. This is the danger I see in the current celebration of a “15‑party alliance.”
Many of the so‑called partners are micro‑formations with no demonstrable national following. Others are riven by internal strife and unresolved questions of who rightfully leads them. Where leadership is being contested in court, any claim to speak on behalf of a whole party must be treated with solemn caution.
A political party is not merely a name registered at the Registrar of Societies. It is a community of citizens, bound by a constitution, governed by rules, and sustained by trust. When those rules are bent, when constitutions are ignored, when factions claim power through questionable processes, the very legitimacy of the party is wounded. And when a government then leans on those wounded structures for public endorsement, it imports their crisis into its own moral house.
I say this soberly, not vindictively. The Patriotic Front, for example, has been convulsed by bitter leadership struggles and legal contests over who truly heads the party. When rival groups clash in courts and conventions, when orders and counter‑orders fly back and forth, the authority to bind that party to any alliance becomes deeply problematic. To present such a contested formation as a solid ally is, at best, naïve; at worst, it is wilfully misleading.
UNIP itself has travelled through prolonged and well‑documented leadership litigation, with rival factions contesting both the validity of congresses and the authority of office bearers. In these proceedings, the courts have been clear that the injunction protecting the leadership emerging from the April 2021 congress remains in force, reinforcing my leadership. This legal protection is not a personal victory, but a safeguard for constitutional order in our party, affirming that UNIP must be governed by rules, not by parallel structures.
When alliances are formed in the midst of unresolved disputes, the question is not simply who stands on the platform today, but whether they have the uncontested mandate to speak for those they claim to represent. If they do not, then their presence is not a sign of national unity; it is a sign of political opportunism. It may provide useful footage for the evening news, but it does not bind hearts, consciences, or genuine party structures.
The ruling party should also reflect carefully on the spiritual and ethical cost of relying on such partners. In Scripture we are reminded that “bad company corrupts good character.” The same is true in politics. If your allies are men and women whose own houses are not in order – whose leadership is contested, whose parties are shells rather than living movements – then their embrace does not purify your cause. It risks contaminating it.
There is another cost. By parading a long list of fragile or disputed partners as proof of overwhelming support, the government sends a troubling message to citizens: that appearances matter more than authenticity; that propaganda is an acceptable substitute for accountability. In a country where people are grappling with poverty, unemployment and fragile institutions, this is deeply wounding. Our people hunger for truth and competence, not theatrics.
The time has come to say, with clarity and charity, that alliances built on sand will not secure Zambia’s future. What we require are fewer announcements and more integrity; fewer photo‑opportunities and more internal democracy; fewer recycled personalities and more principled leadership. It is better to stand with a handful of credible partners than to boast of fifteen whose commitment, structures and legitimacy are uncertain.
To the UPND, I say this as a brother in our shared desire for a peaceful and prosperous Zambia: your greatest strength will never be the number of parties you can list, but the depth of trust you can inspire. Trust is not inflated by contested endorsements. It is built through transparent governance, respect for the rule of law, humility in leadership and a willingness to engage critics in good faith.
To my fellow opposition leaders, I offer a word of self‑examination. We, too, must ensure that our own parties are beyond reproach in matters of internal democracy. We cannot condemn manipulation and factionalism in others while harbouring them at home. If we wish to challenge propaganda, we must ourselves be models of constitutionalism and integrity.
And to the Zambian people, I offer a word of hope. Do not be discouraged by the noise of political numbers. Look instead to the character of those who seek your mandate. Ask whether they respect their own constitutions. Ask whether they have faced the courts with clean hands. Ask whether they speak truth even when it costs them dearly. Alliances will come and go; what endures is the moral fabric of the nation.
In the end, Zambia will not be saved by the arithmetic of alliances, but by the authenticity of its leaders. Our democracy will not be deepened by the spectacle of fifteen parties gathered under one banner, if many of those banners are frayed. It will be deepened when those who claim to lead us understand that legitimacy is not conferred by press conferences but by conscience, law and the will of the people.
Until then, we must continue to question loudly any attempt to use fragile, disputed or hollow parties as props in a grand performance of strength. Such theatre does not honour the Zambian people. It underestimates them.
And that, more than anything, is the true danger of this alliance of numbers.
