By Taonga Musukwa Musa Silungwe
LUSAKA. The unveiling of the so-called Pamodzi Alliance by the faction led by Given Lubinda has done more than merely rearrange political chairs within the Patriotic Front. It has exposed, with brutal clarity, the deep culture of self-preservation, opportunism and leadership fatigue that has haunted the former ruling party since its loss of power in 2021.
What is being presented as strategic reorganisation increasingly appears to be a desperate attempt by politically diminished actors to reinvent themselves without confronting the fundamental reasons why citizens withdrew their trust.
Lubinda and his close associates, among them Miles Sampa, Nkandu Luo, Chishimba Kambwili, Mumbi Phiri, Jean Kapata, Ephraim Shakafuswa and Emmanuel Mwamba, appear less focused on rebuilding a credible opposition than on carving out survival spaces within a rapidly shrinking sphere of political relevance.
The optics of launching yet another alliance in an already fractured opposition landscape send a troubling signal to voters. It reinforces the perception that sections of the PF leadership elite are more invested in negotiating positions and personal influence than in articulating a compelling national vision grounded in economic recovery, governance reform and social stability.
The debate surrounding this faction has further intensified with the verified rumors that Kaizer Zulu, a figure whose name remains closely linked in public discourse to past governance controversies is now their number one funder with 500,000USD already thrown in to reorganize themselves. It’s a known fact that Kaizer Zulu is known to have stashed millions of dollars in offshore accounts, and he continues to live in self-imposed exile.
Equally revealing has been the treatment of figures such as Brian Mundubile and Makebi Zulu within these internal realignments. Rather than projecting unity or strategic discipline, the apparent marginalisation and expulsions have conveyed insecurity and fear of emerging centers of influence.
Political history consistently demonstrates that movements which suppress alternative leadership voices often accelerate their own fragmentation. In this instance, the outcome has been to reinforce perceptions that a different axis of leadership within the PF may command greater grassroots sympathy and organisational momentum.
This unfolding power struggle is particularly unfortunate at a time when Zambia requires a robust and coherent opposition capable of offering credible checks and balances. Citizens are grappling with economic pressures, employment anxieties and governance expectations that demand mature political engagement.
Yet what is increasingly on display is a theatre of factional ego battles, legacy contests and tactical manoeuvres aimed at internal supremacy rather than national solutions.
Ultimately, the PF’s internal turbulence is evolving into a broader credibility test. Zambians are not merely observing political manoeuvres. They are evaluating sincerity, competence and moral authority.
Unless opposition leaders shift from personality-driven calculations to principled and policy-driven renewal, they risk entrenching public scepticism and prolonging their own political irrelevance.
In the end, alliances built on ambition rather than vision rarely inspire national confidence, and history has shown that voters eventually reward clarity of purpose over recycled political survival strategies.