🇿🇲 EDITORIAL | Elections Are Not Supposed to Be Cash Festivals
One of the most repeated complaints in this election season is that the campaigns are “boring.” There are no massive roadshows. There are fewer branded convoys. There are fewer musicians on campaign stages. The streets are not flooded with money. Candidates are not distributing gifts with the same abandon witnessed in previous elections.
For some politicians, this is evidence that something is wrong. For us, it may be evidence that something is finally right.
A curious narrative has emerged from sections of the opposition. The argument goes something like this: campaigns are quiet because government is withholding money from the economy. Citizens have no money. Candidates have no money. Therefore, political activity has slowed down.
The question is simple.
What money is government supposed to release for campaigns?
Political campaigns are not a state-funded entertainment programme. Elections are contests of ideas, leadership and organisation. Every political party has a responsibility to mobilise its supporters, raise its resources and communicate its vision to voters. That burden belongs to politicians, not taxpayers.
No government treasury exists to bankroll campaign activities.
Perhaps what some politicians are really saying is something different. Perhaps they are lamenting the disappearance of the old campaign model, where elections became festivals of spending. A model where politics was measured by the size of a convoy, the number of musicians hired, the amount of cash distributed and the spectacle created around candidates.
Zambians have seen that movie before.
The Patriotic Front’s final campaigns before losing power in 2021 were among the most expensive in the country’s political history. Money flowed freely. Musicians became campaign tools. Social media influencers became political assets. Public rallies resembled concerts. Cash became a language of persuasion. Yet when the election arrived, voters still removed the government from office.
The lesson was obvious. Money can attract a crowd. It cannot guarantee a vote.
A democracy becomes dangerous when citizens begin confusing political mobilisation with political spending. The loudest campaign is not necessarily the strongest campaign. The richest candidate is not necessarily the best candidate. The convoy with the most vehicles is not necessarily carrying the best ideas.
If anything, the current environment offers voters a clearer view of those seeking office.
Without money dominating the conversation, candidates are being forced to speak. They are being forced to explain themselves. They are being forced to articulate policies, defend records and present alternatives. That is precisely how elections should work.
This is particularly important for opposition parties.
Criticising government is easy. Building a compelling alternative is difficult. But many candidates continue to spend more time explaining why campaigns are quiet than explaining what they would do if elected. They complain about economic conditions but provide little detail about how they would improve them. They talk about hardship but rarely present costed solutions.
Voters deserve more.
A campaign should not be judged by how many musicians are on stage. It should be judged by the quality of the ideas being offered. It should not be judged by how much money changes hands. It should be judged by how clearly candidates explain their plans for jobs, education, healthcare, agriculture, mining and governance
There is another benefit to quieter campaigns.
Peace.
Many older voters remember elections where money, violence and political patronage often travelled together. Campaigns became displays of power rather than exercises in persuasion. Supporters were mobilised not by conviction but by incentives. The result was often tension, confrontation and instability.
This year’s campaign has been remarkably different.
It is calmer. It is less extravagant. It is less intimidating. It is less transactional. Some call that boring. We call it progress.
Democracy is not supposed to be a carnival of spending. It is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. Citizens should not be voting for the candidate who spends the most money. They should be voting for the candidate who offers the best leadership.
The politicians complaining that there is no money may be missing the point. Perhaps the real story of the 2026 election is not the absence of money.
Perhaps it is the return of politics.
—For story tips, opinion submissions, advertising, partnerships or corrections:
📩 editor.peoplesbrief@gmail.com
Strong journalism depends on informed readers, trusted partners and community support.
© The People’s Brief | Editor-in-Chief
Verified. Contextual. Independent.