I supported Hakainde Hichilema when he was in opposition- Hopewell Chin’ono

By Hopewell Chin’ono

It is absolutely correct that I supported Hakainde Hichilema when he was in opposition. When he became President and appeared to start well, I continued supporting him.

Just like you, many people warned me. Some were Zambians, while others were people in South Africa who knew him better than I did. They said, “Be careful, this man is not what you think he is.” However, my position has always been simple: as long as someone is delivering and doing the right thing, I will support that person.

I applied the same principle to Nelson Chamisa. When we were pushing for political change in Zimbabwe and he appeared to be the right person for the job at that time, I supported him. I withdrew that support when I realised that I was wasting my time and that we were headed nowhere. I said so publicly in 2022, and many people insulted me for it. Now we are here today.

There is nothing wrong with supporting someone when that person is doing the right thing, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with withdrawing that support when the person abandons the path that he promised to follow. Support is not a marriage vow, and it is not a blank cheque. It must always depend on performance, conduct and principle.

How could I continue supporting Hakainde Hichilema after he began sending people to prison on accusations of witchcraft and of attempting to kill the President through witchcraft? How could I continue supporting him when he allowed oppressive laws that he had promised to repeal while campaigning against Edgar Lungu to remain in force?

How could I support the prevention of opposition campaigns, the stopping of vote counting and the release of election results, the killing of a former minister, or the shutting down of courts precisely when political rivals wanted to petition against his declared victory? These are terrible and authoritarian acts. There was no possibility of my continuing to support such behaviour.

I have an international reputation to protect, and my work must remain grounded in principle. If you examine everything I said before and during the election, you will notice that international organisations are now raising many of the same concerns. I simply saw the warning signs earlier than some of them did.

Even people such as Professor Stephen Chan, who continued supporting President Hichilema after the election, now express disappointment on their timelines. That is because human beings and political leaders are not always consistent. Someone can begin by saying and doing the right things, then change after acquiring power.

I come from a school of thought where everything I say must be grounded in principles and ideas, not personalities, political cults or blind loyalty. That is one reason I have succeeded as a journalist.
I focus on ideas and conduct, not personalities. I do not bootlick politicians, and I do not surrender my conscience to political fashion. My work can withstand the scrutiny of time because my standards do not change according to who occupies State House.

Unfortunately, we live on a continent that remains very backward in many respects. In some places, people are still trapped in the political dark ages, with their heads firmly lodged up the backsides of politicians. They worship personalities instead of defending principles. In Zambia, they are called cadres. In Zimbabwe, they are called varakashi. The names may differ, but the intellectual slavery is the same.

This is not the political culture we should encourage our children to inherit. I am 55 years old. I am an old man now, and that is why I repeatedly say that I have no interest in going into politics.

The future belongs to younger generations. Presidents and prime ministers in successful countries are increasingly emerging in their thirties and forties.

We must therefore mould our young people into smart, intelligent, focused and ideas-driven citizens. They must not become prisoners of personality cults. They must learn to support what is right, oppose what is wrong and change their position when the facts change. Blind loyalty is not integrity. It is intellectual surrender.

To my Zambian friends who warned me about Hakainde Hichilema, yes, you warned me, and you were right. However, at that time, he had not yet done anything that justified my condemning him. Perhaps, as Zambians, you possessed an insight into his character that I did not have then.

I will never condemn someone merely because others tell me to do so, just as I will never continue supporting someone after the evidence shows that he has abandoned the principles he claimed to represent.

My loyalty is to truth, justice and ideas, not to Hakainde Hichilema, Nelson Chamisa or any other politician.
Principled people are allowed to change their assessment when a leader changes his conduct. That is not inconsistency. It is intellectual honesty. That is why such people succeed in life.