THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL MOBILISATION IN ZAMBIA The changing dynamics of political mobilisation in Zambia highlight a persistent tension between political opposition and state law enforcement. When Mr. Hakainde Hichilema was the leader of the opposition United Party for National Development (UPND) he faced numerous police summonses and arrests. During that period, the UPND […]

THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL MOBILISATION IN ZAMBIA

The changing dynamics of political mobilisation in Zambia highlight a persistent tension between political opposition and state law enforcement.

When Mr. Hakainde Hichilema was the leader of the opposition United Party for National Development (UPND) he faced numerous police summonses and arrests. During that period, the UPND frequently called upon supporters to accompany him to police stations. Opposition parties viewed these mobilisations as a peaceful show of solidarity, a response to what they considered politically motivated intimidation, and a defence mechanism against state overreach.

Conversely, the ruling administration at the time, the Patriotic Front (PF), condemned these gatherings. The state argued that organising crowds to accompany individuals to police stations was a tactic to intimidate law enforcement, disrupt the peace, and cause civic chaos.

Now in power, the UPND administration under Mr Hichilema faces similar criticisms regarding political space and opposition rights. Critics and opposition figures point out a contradiction, arguing that the state now prevents political rivals from mobilising supporters or holding gatherings under the guise of maintaining national security.

Recent high-profile cases, such as the post-election detention and treason charges brought against opposition leader Mr Brian Mundubile and others, have heightened these concerns among civil society and international monitors.The administration and the Zambia Police maintain that their current actions are guided strictly by the law and the preservation of national stability.

Government officials and police spokespersons assert that the law, including the Public Order Act, must be enforced uniformly to prevent street violence, hooliganism, and security threats. They reject accusations of political targeting, arguing that no political figure or grievance justifies actions that undermine public order and the rule of law.

When Mr. Hichilema took power most Zambians believed the long night of political oppression was finally ending. What has gone wrong? What has happened to Mr Hichilema’s democratic convictions? Today, under Mr Hichilema’s reign, Catholics and other people of goodwill are not allowed to do what UPND members and supporters did when he summoned by police! Why? Isn’t what is good for the goose good for the gunder? What about the Golden Rule of Do to others as you would like them to do unto you?

But, increased political or systemic repression often triggers a proportional rise in resistance because oppression generates moral outrage, solidarity, and the realisation that survival requires pushback.
Repression fuels resistance and moral outrage. Visible acts of government crackdowns anger neutral observers and turn private sympathisers into active participants.

Harsh tactics expose the fragility and injustice of a ruling system, stripping away its moral authority.
When peaceful existence or basic rights are choked off, communities realise compliance offers no safety, making resistance a matter of necessity.

It’s very important for excersing power to try and understand the dynamics of the repression-resistance nexus and the backfire effect. Punitive measures frequently backfire on regimes if a movement has already gained public visibility and broad support. Activists evolve their tactics, shifting from conventional organising to decentralised, resilient networks.

A psychological shift occurs. Overcoming fear breaks the invisible barrier of intimidation, transforming collective trauma into collective strength.

Fred M’membe