A PARTY seeking to govern a nation of over 20 million people should have its own vision, its own philosophy and its own programme of government. Instead, what Zambians are witnessing under the Brian Mundubile-led NRPUP is a campaign that seems unable to stand on its own feet. Rather than persuading citizens with fresh ideas, […]

A PARTY seeking to govern a nation of over 20 million people should have its own vision, its own philosophy and its own programme of government. Instead, what Zambians are witnessing under the Brian Mundubile-led NRPUP is a campaign that seems unable to stand on its own feet. Rather than persuading citizens with fresh ideas, clear policy proposals and a practical roadmap for the future, the party continues to lean almost entirely on the image and memory of former president Edgar Lungu.

At some of their campaign rallies, old videos of the late former president have become the centrepiece of the campaign. We found this deeply troubling. There is a profound contradiction here. On one hand, this group repeatedly says it wishes to honour and preserve Mr Lungu’s dignity. On the other, it continues to draw him into a fiercely contested political campaign long after his passing. A deceased former Head of State should be allowed to rest in peace. His legacy will forever be debated by history, but it is neither dignified nor respectful to keep projecting him as though he remains an active participant in Zambia’s electoral contest.

It’s not bad enough that the man passed away over a year ago and he has not been buried. It’s not bad enough that this clique has chosen to keep his remains at the mortuary, even after the court has granted them their wish to bury him privately. It has to take a group of very evil people to abuse the name, image and remains of a dead person to this extent. We also don’t understand how a family can betray their loved one like this. The time we saw the NRPUP playing the Edgar Lungu videos for campaign at their rally, we could not believe it. These people are saying they would like to dignify the late president, but at the same time, they are subjecting him to ridicule.

One would have expected those who profess the greatest respect for him to be the first to ensure that he is finally laid to rest with the dignity befitting a former republican president. Even more perplexing is the role of those closest to him. Families ordinarily become the guardians of a loved one’s dignity after death. They protect memories from unnecessary exploitation. It is therefore difficult to understand why anyone would be comfortable seeing the image of a deceased relative repeatedly deployed as a substitute for a living political message.

Politics is a contest of ideas. Elections are won by convincing citizens that your plans are better than those of your competitors. They are not won by permanently borrowing the voice of someone who is no longer alive to defend, explain or even qualify what is being said in his name.

There is another consequence to this strategy. Once a political party makes a deceased leader the face of its campaign, it inevitably invites scrutiny of that leader’s record. Public debate will no longer focus solely on present-day candidates but also on the successes and failures of the previous administration. That is the unavoidable reality of democratic politics. Those who elevate the past into the centre of today’s campaign cannot reasonably expect the past to escape criticism. If you present the dead person as your campaign manager, you should not complain when your opponent starts attacking him. How will they feel if the UPND starts presenting Mr Lungu as a drunkard who plunged the country into unprecedented debt?

As we argued yesterday, this is a political movement that appears to be struggling to define itself beyond nostalgia. It has spent more time promising a return to yesterday than explaining how it intends to solve tomorrow’s problems. Zambians deserve answers on economic growth, debt management, job creation, industrialisation, agricultural productivity, healthcare, education and energy security. These are the issues that should dominate a presidential campaign.

As we stated in our editorial yesterday, this is a clueless bunch that doesn’t mean well for the country . When they say foreign exchange reserves for the country are useless, they mean just that. That’s why when you hear Mr Mundubile’s rallies, they don’t talk about the economy, they don’t understand economics. The only thing they do is to promise anything that comes into their mind, without stating how they will achieve that. Zambians should not play around with leadership anymore.

We have been through this path before. The last five years of the Patriotic Front took us so many years backwards. We made mistake to elect a visionless president. Mr Lungu told us that he had no vision, but we voted for him and he proved us right, he truly had no vision. This Mundubile is telling Zambians that he will rule us like the way Mr Lungu ruled Zambia. What does that say about where Zambia will be headed. When a man who wants to rule the country is idolising a visionless mentor, what does that mean? We can’t afford to make that mistake again.

The greatest danger in elections is not simply electing the wrong individuals. It is electing leaders without a clearly articulated vision for where they intend to take the country. We must never forget that Zambia has travelled that road before. Citizens know the cost of leadership that reacts to events rather than shaping them. They know what happens when political messaging replaces serious policy.

Mr Mundubile has repeatedly told Zambians that he intends to govern in the same manner as the late Edgar Lungu. That is his political choice, and he is entitled to make it. Equally, voters are entitled to examine what that promise actually means. They must ask themselves whether returning to that style of governance is consistent with the Zambia they hope to build over the next five years.