ZAMBIANS CANNOT EAT ECONOMIC INDICATORS _Why President Chishala Kateka’s argument cannot be dismissed by insults, statistics and elite economic triumphalism_ By Brian Matambo – Media Director | 13 July, 2026 There is something profoundly wrong with a political argument that asks hungry citizens to admire the condition of the national balance sheet while their own […]

ZAMBIANS CANNOT EAT ECONOMIC INDICATORS

_Why President Chishala Kateka’s argument cannot be dismissed by insults, statistics and elite economic triumphalism_

By Brian Matambo – Media Director | 13 July, 2026

There is something profoundly wrong with a political argument that asks hungry citizens to admire the condition of the national balance sheet while their own household balance sheets are collapsing.

There is something equally dangerous about a government that points to the continued existence of courts, churches, opposition parties and newspapers as conclusive evidence that democracy is healthy, even while credible independent institutions are recording restrictions on assembly, harassment of opposition figures, arrests of journalists and an increasingly hostile environment for dissent.

This is the central weakness in the United Party for National Development response to New Heritage Party President Chishala Kateka.

The response attempts to bury a serious national argument beneath macroeconomic vocabulary, personal insults and unsupported accusations of tribalism. It treats the ordinary Zambian’s experience of hunger, unemployment, expensive food, restricted political space and deteriorating public services as though these were minor inconveniences that must be endured in reverence to debt restructuring.

That is not a progressive government. It is elitism wearing the robes of economics.

President Kateka’s argument is not that economic stability is irrelevant. Neither is she required to deny every achievement of the UPND Government. Zambia entered the current administration under enormous fiscal pressure. The country was in debt default, public finances were severely constrained, investor confidence had weakened, and a devastating drought had damaged agricultural production and electricity generation. And if UPND attempted to be sincere, they should also recall that in the last 3 years of the Patriotic Front in power, the world was facing the Covid19 pandemic that shut down world economies.

Whereas, on paper, the Government’s debt restructuring programme and restoration of a measure of macroeconomic stability are genuine accomplishments. The International Monetary Fund reported in May 2026 that inflation had declined to 6.8 per cent in April and that international reserves had risen to approximately US$6.4 billion.

But acknowledgement is not surrender. The sharper truth is that debt restructuring and improving macroeconomic indicators cannot erase widespread poverty, the cost-of-living burden, democratic regression or the growing concentration of political power.

A government cannot demand applause merely because it has repaired certain national accounts. It must demonstrate that the repair has reached the market trader, the subsistence farmer, the pensioner, the unemployed graduate, the miner, the teacher and the mother standing in a clinic without essential medicines. Otherwise, all the good work that UPND claims to have done will be counted as “cooking the books” if ordinary Zambians do not experience economic relief.

The purpose of economics is human welfare. When economics becomes detached from the human being, it ceases to be development and becomes accounting. The UPND response makes the familiar mistake of confusing macroeconomic recovery with household prosperity.

These are related, but they are not the same thing. A falling inflation rate does not mean that prices have returned to where they were. It means prices are rising more slowly. A family that could not afford enough mealie meal, cooking oil, transport, rent and school requirements when inflation was high does not suddenly become prosperous when the rate of increase begins to fall. The accumulated price increases remain.

The debt restructuring agreement may improve the Government’s repayment schedule. It does not automatically increase the salary of a teacher, reduce the price of food or place medicine on a clinic shelf. This distinction is not opposition propaganda. It is contained in the same international evidence often invoked to celebrate Zambia’s economic progress.

There is nothing economically illiterate about a mother asking why stabilisation has not reduced the price of food. There is nothing ignorant about a farmer asking why national growth has not created a reliable market, affordable inputs or sufficient household income. There is nothing irresponsible about citizens asking who has benefited first, who continues to carry the sacrifice and when recovery will finally enter their homes.

The UPND response asks citizens to appreciate economic theory. President Kateka asks whether they can afford food, transport, medicine and education. That is not populism. It is lived economics.

Debt restructuring may repair the Government’s balance sheet, but an election is also a judgment upon the household balance sheet. The relevance of government must therefore be measured by the degree to which it lifts the poorest people from poverty, not merely by the praise it receives from lenders, foreign investors and international financial institutions.

A government that stabilises the economy without substantially improving the condition of the poor will lose an election.

ON DEMOCRACY
The second major weakness in the UPND response is its claim that Zambia’s democracy cannot be in danger because opposition parties, courts, churches, civil society organisations and independent media platforms still exist.

Let me say from the outset that that is a remarkably low standard. Democracy does not cease to exist only when Parliament is dissolved, newspapers are closed, and every opposition leader is imprisoned. Modern democratic decline is often gradual.

Institutions remain standing, but their independence is weakened. Elections continue, but competition becomes increasingly unequal. Opposition parties remain registered, but their meetings are restricted. Newspapers still publish, but journalists risk arrest, intimidation or forced deletion of material. Citizens continue speaking, but some learn that criticism may carry legal consequences. This is our story here in Zambia.

Amnesty International’s review of Zambia stated that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly had been repressed, opposition members had been harassed and intimidated, journalists had been arrested, and the Public Order Act had been misused to restrict peaceful protests. Take, for instance, Patriotic Front Secretary General Honourable Raphael Nakacinda, who is in jail not because of what he did, but because of political statements he made on the political playing field. Xavier Chungu, among others, is a perfect example of how the UPND are an undemocratic institution. Their undemocratic tendencies are so deep that they are not just unleashed on people outside their party, but even those within UPND do not have any democratic right – case in point – Gary Nkombo.

So, President Kateka does not need to prove that Zambia has already become a dictatorship. Her warning is that democratic space has narrowed and that the direction of travel should concern every citizen who remembers the sacrifices required to restore multiparty democracy in 1991.

The question is not merely whether institutions exist. The question is whether they operate fairly. A police service does not prove equal policing. A court system does not prove politically neutral prosecutions. An Electoral Commission does not automatically establish equal campaign conditions. And we can all see what is happening on that front.

A Parliament does not prove that the Executive is sufficiently restrained. Institutions are not democratic decorations. Their value lies in whether they protect every citizen equally, especially the citizen who opposes the government.

The UPND writer argues that the existence of insults and hostile commentary against the Head of State on social media demonstrates that freedom of expression is alive and well.

That reasoning is shallow. The fact that some citizens continue to criticise the President does not establish that critics are safe from arrest, prosecution, intimidation or selective enforcement. A person may publish criticism today and be summoned tomorrow.

Freedom of expression is not measured by counting the number of critical Facebook posts that have survived for twenty-four hours. It is measured by whether lawful criticism can be expressed without unreasonable fear of punishment.

The response then asks which country has never arrested “troublemakers.” But who is a troublemaker? That word has no respectable place as a substitute for a criminal charge in a constitutional democracy.

Citizens are not supposed to be arrested because the Government finds them troublesome, irritating, disrespectful or politically inconvenient. They are arrested where there is reasonable suspicion that a clearly defined offence has been committed, and they must receive equal protection and due process.

The Government’s record on digital rights also requires scrutiny. Freedom of speech is not measured by how many citizens have not yet been arrested.

It is measured by whether the law protects supporters and critics equally. However, in Zambia, we know UPND supporters can insult anyone, and they will enjoy their freedom. But how many people are behind bars because of what they said?

ON BILL 7

The UPND response accuses President Kateka of offering vague warnings about democracy. Bill 7 made the argument concrete.

The constitutional amendments expanded the National Assembly from 167 members to approximately 280, introduced additional constituencies and reserved representation, and increased the number of presidentially appointed Members of Parliament from eight to eleven. The legislation was signed into law only eight months before the August 2026 general election.

Critics, including Catholic leaders and civil-society organisations, argued that the process was rushed and risked strengthening the governing party’s political position. A joint civil-society statement specifically warned that increasing the number of presidential nominees would expand Executive influence over Parliament and undermine the separation of powers.

The original Bill itself proposed increasing constituency seats from 156 to 211 and revising the composition and electoral structure of the National Assembly.  This is precisely why President Kateka’s proposal for a people-driven constitutional process cannot be dismissed as political poetry.

The constitutional question is not abstract. It concerns how much authority should be held by the President, how Parliament should be composed, how appointments should be made, how institutions should be protected, and how power should be transferred from the centre to provinces, districts and communities.

Constitutional reform should reduce the ability of the President to dominate public institutions. It should not enlarge the President’s capacity to shape Parliament. There is a fundamental difference between reform that distributes power and reform that rearranges institutions while preserving the political supremacy of Community House.

President Kateka’s call for devolution, institutional independence and a reduction in personalised presidential power therefore deserves engagement on its merits.

Mockery is not an answer. Insults are not an implementation critique. A government confident in its constitutional record should defend the distribution of power it has created, not merely ridicule those proposing to redistribute it.

ON TRIBALISM

The most reckless part of the UPND response is its declaration that former President Rupiah Banda lost the 2011 election because of “thuggery and tribalism.” No convincing evidence is provided. This is particularly ironic because the same writer accuses President Kateka of making claims without proof.

The 2011 election was shaped by several factors, including unemployment, inequality, dissatisfaction over the distribution of mining wealth, public demand for change, leadership perceptions and Michael Sata’s mobilisation of urban and younger voters.

President Banda received approximately 36 per cent of the vote, while Michael Sata received about 42 per cent. Millions of citizens participated in that national decision.

To reduce their democratic verdict to tribalism is contemptuous. When citizens remove one government and elect another, that is democracy. To dismiss their decision as tribalism merely because one dislikes the result is to deny them political agency.

It tells voters that they did not understand their own hardship, aspirations or judgment. It suggests that only political elites are capable of interpreting elections correctly, while ordinary citizens are driven by primitive loyalties. That is the same elitist impulse that asks poor people to ignore the condition of their kitchens because national indicators are improving.

The UPND writer’s tribalism claim also undermines the party’s professed commitment to national unity. One cannot claim to be healing national divisions while casually interpreting democratic competition through an ethnic lens.

Indeed, the claim strengthens President Kateka’s concern that Zambia’s politics is increasingly being filtered through regional and sectarian categories. The remarks directed at Counsel Honourable Makebi Zulu are equally revealing.

To describe him as “our boy,” claim that others taught him how to think strategically, and suggest that a demon now possesses him is patronising, unserious and politically possessive.

A national leader is not anybody’s boy. Political cooperation does not create ownership. A citizen does not become demon-possessed merely because he reaches an independent conclusion or leaves the political direction preferred by former associates.

That language says more about the writer than it does about Makebi Zulu. It exposes the belief that some people are entitled to think only within political boundaries approved by the UPND.

THE INHERITANCE DEFENCE HAS AN EXPIRY DATE

The UPND inherited a difficult economy. That is true. The drought was severe. That is also true. But an inheritance cannot remain the complete explanation for every failure after nearly five years in office.

Governments are elected precisely because citizens expect them to transform what they inherit.

By August 2026, Zambians will be entitled to ask what was inherited, what was corrected, what deteriorated, who benefited from the recovery and whether the sacrifices demanded from ordinary families produced a visibly better life.

The Government cannot perpetually remain a new tenant, blaming the previous occupant for every leaky roof. At some point, the house becomes its responsibility.

The intellectually honest assessment is that the UPND has stabilised important areas of the national economy, but it has not adequately converted that stability into affordable living, broad local ownership, political tolerance and reliable public services.

That is not denial. It is judgment. And government exists to be judged.

FROM THE BOTTOM UP

The deepest disagreement between President Kateka and the UPND response is philosophical. The UPND response measures government from the top. It looks at creditors, investors, GDP, reserves, fiscal balances and institutions as they appear on paper.

President Kateka, on the other hand, measures the government from the bottom. She asks what economic stability means to the person with the least money, the least power, the weakest connections and the smallest voice. That is the correct moral starting point.

The rich can often survive bad government. They can purchase private education, private healthcare, backup electricity, secure transport and legal representation. The poor cannot.

For the poorest citizen, government is not an academic subject. It is the clinic, the school, the price of food, the fertiliser programme, the police station and the freedom to speak without fear.

That is why the welfare of the poor must be the highest measure of national progress. The greatness of a government is not demonstrated by how comfortable it makes those who are already comfortable. It is demonstrated by how decisively it lifts those who began at the bottom.

Macroeconomic stability matters. Debt restructuring matters. Investment matters. But none of these is a sacred object demanding unquestioning admiration. They are instruments whose success must ultimately be measured in human outcomes.

A government is not relevant because economists say the numbers are improving. It is relevant when the poorest citizens can feel an improvement in their food, incomes, schools, hospitals, freedoms and opportunities.