Bootlickers Are Incapable of Objective Thought: Dr. Elias Munshya, A Case Study in Hypocrisy
By Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma
In every society, there are individuals who, when presented with the opportunity for personal advancement, are willing to abandon principle for proximity to power. In contemporary Zambia, few exemplify this betrayal more starkly than Dr. Elias Munshya, a figure who has demonstrated that a bootlicker cannot, and will not, engage in objective discourse.
When positioned outside the corridors of influence, Dr. Munshya was among the most vocal critics of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Bill. He strongly argued that the proposed legislation posed a grave threat to freedom of expression, infringed upon the right to privacy, and opened the door to authoritarian abuse. At that time, he presented himself as a principled advocate for the rights and liberties of ordinary Zambians, warning of the dangers of unchecked state surveillance. His voice resonated with many who feared the erosion of fundamental freedoms.
However, upon his appointment as a diplomat under the UPND government, Dr. Munshya’s stance shifted dramatically. Today, he openly supports the very same law he once vehemently opposed, praising it as a “progressive tool for national stability.” This reversal occurred after the strengthening of the law. He is now in support of the very dangers he previously decried. His transformation from a vocal critic to a steadfast defender of the law is not just surprising; it is indicative of a man who has abandoned any pretense of ideological consistency in exchange for political rewards.
Such a transformation cannot be characterized as growth or evolution based on new information. Rather, it represents a clear case of political expediency and unprincipled self-preservation. It is, in essence, pure and unfiltered bootlicking. The line between conviction and opportunism is so thin in Dr. Munshya’s case that it is all but invisible.
An individual who subordinates principle to personal ambition cannot be engaged in meaningful or objective conversation. Their allegiance is no longer to truth, to justice, or to the public good; it lies solely with those who secure their personal advancement. Objective dialogue requires integrity, consistency, and courage — virtues that those who practice bootlicking inherently lack. To converse with such individuals is futile, as they cannot be trusted to offer honest analysis or insight; they will always parrot whatever narrative benefits their position.
Engaging such individuals is akin to debating a weather vane: their direction is dictated entirely by the prevailing winds of political advantage. They shift without hesitation to accommodate whatever suits their interests in the moment. They are not participants in honest discourse; they are mouthpieces for those in power. In this case, Dr. Munshya has traded the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of comfort and power.
Dr. Elias Munshya’s complete reversal on the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act is not merely a personal failing; it represents a broader warning about the erosion of integrity among those who aspire to public office. When loyalty to truth is replaced by loyalty to political patronage, the entire democratic fabric is placed at risk. This shift from principled opposition to sycophantic support for an oppressive law undermines the very notion of public service. Leaders are supposed to act in the interest of the people, not to secure personal privileges.
Zambia must remain vigilant against individuals who abandon principle at the first opportunity for personal gain. This is not just a cautionary tale about Dr. Munshya, but a reminder for all Zambians: political expediency often trumps the pursuit of justice, and those who promise change can become the architects of their own betrayal. True leadership demands steadfastness, not opportunism. It requires individuals who are willing to stand for what is right, even when it is not politically advantageous.
A free and just society cannot be built on the shifting sands of self-interest. It requires men and women whose convictions withstand the tests of time, circumstance, and political pressure. Those who bend to power at the first opportunity cannot be trusted to uphold the values of democracy and freedom. They will always prioritize their own advancement over the greater good.
Dr. Munshya’s conduct serves as a reminder: those who bend to power will ultimately betray the people when it matters most. His actions stand as a cautionary tale to all who place their own ambitions ahead of their country’s well-being. If we are to protect Zambia’s democratic ideals, we must reject such opportunistic behavior at every level and demand leaders who uphold their principles, no matter the cost.