HON. LUBINDA’S SILENCE: STRATEGY, SACRIFICE, OR SOMETHING MORE?

HON. LUBINDA’S SILENCE: STRATEGY, SACRIFICE, OR SOMETHING MORE?

Politics often speaks loudest through what is left unsaid. In recent days, a single, potent statement attributed to former presidential aide Kaizer Zulu has sparked intense debate across Zambia’s political landscape:

​”It is better to lose a position than an opportunity to govern.”

Though brief, the remark has generated widespread speculation. Was it merely a timeless piece of political wisdom, or was it a pointed message aimed directly at recent developments within the opposition? More importantly, does this profound philosophy finally explain the conspicuous silence of Hon. Given Lubinda?

Hon. Lubinda has long been regarded as one of the opposition’s most articulate, battle-tested, and influential leaders. Yet, at a time when both loyal supporters and fierce critics expect loud declarations, his total withdrawal from the public square has become the biggest political story in the country.

​Keen political observers are now asking the difficult questions:

Is this a tactical retreat for party unity? Has he chosen to absorb the current political noise quietly to prevent further fracturing of the opposition platform?
Is it a display of high statesmanship? Is he consciously placing the broader, long-term objective of national governance ahead of immediate personal ambition or title?
Or is it a quiet, dignified protest? A sign of deep dissatisfaction with unfolding events and opportunistic shifting alliances around him?

Kaizer Zulu’s statement adds a fascinating layer to these questions. If the ultimate message is that true leadership sometimes requires sacrificing immediate personal titles for a greater, long-term political objective, then Hon. Lubinda’s silence is far from a sign of weakness. Instead, it reveals itself as a masterclass in political discipline. In the turbulent waters of Zambian politics, the leaders who remain quiet during a storm are rarely defeated—they are usually the ones waiting for the absolute right moment to speak.

However, political silence is a double-edged sword; it naturally creates a vacuum. In the absence of direct communication, anxious supporters begin to speculate, clever opponents rush to shape a negative narrative, and the general public is left wondering exactly what is brewing beneath the surface.

History has shown that political silence can either powerfully rebuild a leader’s image or allow their enemies to define it. Which path Hon. Lubinda’s silence will take remains to be seen.

​One ultimate question now lingers over the nation: Are we witnessing the calculated calm before a major, landscape-shifting political statement, or is this simply the quiet dignity of a statesman who understands that losing a position is sometimes the precise price required to eventually govern?

​Only time—and perhaps Hon. Lubinda himself—can provide the answer.