Kelly kaunda writes: WHO TOLD YOU THAT THERE’S NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE CURRENT UPND ECONOMIC WISDOM? Here is the copy of how I have been described. “Criticism Should Be Built on Evidence, Not Contradiction. Kellys Kaunda, a former junior diplomat under the PF regime has written an article to the effect that because hippos are […]

Kelly kaunda writes:

WHO TOLD YOU THAT THERE’S NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE CURRENT UPND ECONOMIC  WISDOM?

Here is the copy of how I have been described.

“Criticism Should Be Built on Evidence, Not Contradiction. Kellys Kaunda, a former junior diplomat under the PF regime has written an article to the effect that because hippos are still attacking human beings in Luangwa, then President Hichilema has failed to govern the country.

His article attempts to present itself as a sophisticated policy critique. Instead, it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

It begins by accusing President Hakainde Hichilema of taking credit for successes while blaming his predecessor for failures. Yet, in the very next breath, the author blames virtually every current challenge on Hichilema while dismissing the economic and fiscal conditions his administration inherited. Apparently, historical context matters only when it supports the author’s conclusion.

That is not objective analysis; it is selective reasoning.

More fundamentally, Mr Kaunda, a media advisor to Mundubile attacks the restoration of economic fundamentals as though macroeconomic stability is some academic luxury detached from ordinary people’s lives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No nation has ever built lasting prosperity on unsustainable debt, chronic fiscal deficits, currency instability, runaway inflation and collapsing investor confidence. Economic stability is not the destination—it is the road that leads there. Without it, governments eventually cannot pay teachers, equip hospitals, build infrastructure or sustain social protection programmes.

Ironically, the author criticises capitalism while offering no credible alternative. What exactly should replace investment-led growth? State-owned enterprises? Borrowing without restraint? Price controls? Isolation from international capital? These are not theoretical questions. Many countries have experimented with such approaches, and the results are well documented: stagnant growth, shrinking private sectors, declining public revenues and worsening poverty.

Mr Kaunda himself is a former ‘reporter’ for Voice of America, a capitalist owned and focused media house.

It is easy to denounce investment. It is much harder to explain how jobs, exports, tax revenue and economic growth will materialise without it.

Ba Kellys also tries to create a false expectation of governance by implying that if poverty still exists after five years, then the economic strategy has failed.

That is not how development works.

Transforming an economy is a long-term process. Debt restructuring, restoring fiscal credibility, improving investor confidence, expanding mining production, strengthening agriculture and rebuilding public finances are not overnight achievements. They are reforms whose benefits accumulate over time. Judging them solely by whether every household has already experienced prosperity is intellectually dishonest.

The Luangwa anecdote illustrates this problem perfectly.

Human-wildlife conflict has affected communities for decades under successive governments. To suggest that its continued existence proves the failure of an entire national economic strategy is a leap in logic that no serious policy analyst should make. Wildlife management requires investments in conservation infrastructure, community compensation mechanisms, fencing, rapid-response teams and local development—not simply a presidential appearance.

The article further argues that government achievements have benefited only “a few businesses” and “a few shareholders.” Yet it provides no evidence to support this sweeping claim. If investment is increasing, mining output is expanding, infrastructure is improving, tourism is recovering and government revenues are strengthening, the relevant question is not whether every citizen is already wealthy. The question is whether the economy is becoming more capable of creating opportunities than it was before.

Criticism without evidence is simply opinion.

Perhaps the greatest contradiction appears at the end. The author acknowledges that many voters intend to support President Hichilema despite local frustrations, then concludes that those voters simply do not understand their own interests. That is an astonishingly paternalistic position. It assumes that citizens are incapable of weighing national direction against local challenges and making informed political choices.

Democracy requires respecting voters, even when they reach conclusions different from our own.

Government should never be immune from criticism. Every administration must be held accountable for its promises and performance. But accountability demands intellectual consistency. If inherited problems cannot be mentioned because they are dismissed as “blame shifting,” then inherited achievements should not be credited either. If macroeconomic reforms are declared irrelevant, then critics must explain how sustainable development occurs without them. And if an alternative development model is proposed, it should be described in sufficient detail to allow public scrutiny.

It is not enough to argue that the current path is wrong. One must also demonstrate that a better path exists.

Until that is done, this article remains less a serious policy critique than a political opinion dressed in the language of economic analysis.”

MY RESPONSE

First, it’s become typical of supporters of President Hichilema to make personal attacks and make allegations of association as though they were a law unto themselves.

Typical of the arrogance they have acquired, anyone who holds a contrary view is a small human being in their eyes.

Because President Hichilema is an economist, we must be ignorant to tell him or his party otherwise. We must accept that there’s no alternative to his development wisdom.

Consistently, I have said that there is an alternative path or better still a complementary route which can take off side by side with the stabilization of macroeconomic indicators and debt restructuring negotiations.

For instance, each of Zambia’s ethnic groupings and regions have had indigenous economic systems which have always supported societies even before the Whiteman came to this part of Africa.

For instance, cattle has always supported indigenous livelihoods in Southern Province. Government recognition of this knowledge system has helped sustain it.

If a similar model had been applied to regions with large bodies of water, a blue economy with its multifaceted nature would have resulted in the transformation of the societies connected with it.

On creative arts, we have both indigenous and imported artforms that need not wait for debt restructuring to create economic opportunities for our people. And yet, you get a paltry 150,000 USD to refurbish Lusaka Play House!

The simple question to guide you in unlocking the idle potential in Zambia is simply this: what does a Zambian do every day for a living? Answer that question and you will get a development approach unique to this country. You guys rely too heavily on textbooks.

I can go on and on to demonstrate that there has always existed a complementary economic pathway which no government since 1991 has ever followed.

It’s against this backdrop that I argue that the Hichilema economic wisdom is not relevant to Zambia’s persistent economic challenges.