By Augustine Mukoka RESPONSE TO DR. LUBINDA HAABAZOKA: A Shameless Hypocrite Who Preaches Tribalism Privately But Wants To Act Pious In Public When individuals we consider fountains of knowledge join the bandwagon and become purveyors of falsehoods while masking their true colours, it is important to provide an alternative perspective and challenge their distorted views. […]

By Augustine Mukoka

RESPONSE TO DR. LUBINDA HAABAZOKA: A Shameless Hypocrite Who Preaches Tribalism Privately But Wants To Act Pious In Public

When individuals we consider fountains of knowledge join the bandwagon and become purveyors of falsehoods while masking their true colours, it is important to provide an alternative perspective and challenge their distorted views.

I was made aware of a post by Dr. Lubinda Haabazoka accusing me of “hate speech” for publishing a throwback newspaper clipping that highlighted tribal bias within the now-ruling UPND.

Before responding to Dr. Haabazoka’s diatribe, I would like to pose a few questions to him.

Doc, whom did you support for the FAZ presidency? Was it the same candidate I supported?

If Dr. Haabazoka is sincere, he will admit that he did not support Keith Mweemba. He should also explain why. Was his opposition related to tribe? I am aware of the private conversations he had with several individuals regarding Keith’s candidature.

Ironically, when similar concerns surrounding Keith Mweemba’s candidature were vigorously raised within football circles, I was among those outside his tribe who defended his aspirations based solely on his contributions to the game—not his ethnicity.

Can the same be said of Dr. Haabazoka? Certainly not. But that is a discussion for another day.

I expected Dr. Haabazoka to substantiate his allegations with empirical evidence and support his argument with qualitative or quantitative data that would demonstrate that I promote tribalism. He did no such thing.

Instead, he sounded like an ordinary political cadre shouting slogans without substance while seeking political relevance.

It is an undeniable fact, supported by electoral analyses, that regional voting patterns have long been a feature of Zambia’s elections. One does not need to be a rocket scientist—or even an A+ economist—to appreciate this reality.

A simple review of Zambia’s electoral history demonstrates the extent to which voting has often followed regional lines.

This reality also manifests itself in parliamentary elections, where some constituencies openly prefer candidates they consider “their own.”

Take Elvis Nkandu, for example. In his current political standing, he would almost certainly struggle to win in Choma. Whether one likes it or not, that reflects a broader challenge in our politics. Acknowledging that challenge does not make one tribal; pretending it does not exist is intellectually dishonest.

In my original post, I referred to voting patterns in Southern Province. The figures are there for everyone to see. President Hakainde Hichilema has never received less than 70 percent of the vote in Southern Province.

Beginning with the 2006 election against President Levy Mwanawasa, President Hichilema consistently outperformed President Rupiah Banda in 2008 and 2011, President Michael Sata in 2011, and President Edgar Lungu in 2015, 2016 and 2021 within Southern Province.

In the 2021 election, President Hichilema secured approximately 81 percent of the vote in Southern Province, while President Lungu received about 7 percent. Contrast that with Eastern Province, where President Lungu obtained around 39 percent compared to President Hichilema’s 20 percent.

These figures raise legitimate questions.

Why does one candidate consistently enjoy overwhelming support in his home region? Why do similar regional voting patterns emerge across different elections? Are these purely political, cultural, economic or ethnic dynamics? If there is an element of regional or tribal bias, what can be done to address it?

These are legitimate research questions deserving thoughtful analysis—not emotional outbursts.

I expected Dr. Haabazoka, as an academic, to formulate research questions and rigorously interrogate these issues instead of reacting as though he had emerged from a barrel of intoxicating liquor.

It is both disappointing and intellectually shallow for someone of his academic standing to pretend that tribe plays no role in Zambian politics or in public appointments. Such hypocrisy is dangerous because it discourages honest national reflection.

It is incumbent upon all Zambians to confront these questions fairly, honestly and objectively. I have absolutely no interest in promoting tribal politics.

In fact, I speak Tonga despite not having grown up in Southern Province. Some of my relatives, including nieces and nephews, are from that region. Many of my closest friends are also from Southern Province. I have never had any intention of using tribe as a weapon against anyone.

At the same time, we must condemn tribalism regardless of who practises it. Calling it out—especially where there appears to be a consistent pattern—is one of the most responsible things we can do if we genuinely want to build a united Zambia.

Let us not raise a generation that normalises discrimination, favouritism or exclusion based on tribe or region.

I hope this message has reached Dr. Haabazoka.