● OPPOSITION INFIGHTING AND WHY IT LOWERS THE BAR FOR INCUMBENCY
Zambia’s opposition is not losing ground because voters are content. It is losing ground because internal disputes continue to consume attention that should be focused outward.
The Tonse Alliance conflict is a case study. Competing factions are arguing over who has authority to convene meetings, set fees, and define membership. None of this speaks to jobs, prices, or public services. Yet it dominates the opposition conversation.
For the ruling party, this environment is advantageous. Incumbents do not need to win arguments when their opponents are busy fighting among themselves. Electoral systems reward coherence. Fragmentation lowers the threshold needed to retain power.
The absence of a clear opposition command structure also delays the emergence of a single national figure around whom support can coalesce. Every potential leader becomes contested from within before they are tested by voters. This slows momentum and weakens confidence.
History shows that opposition alliances succeed when they resolve leadership and authority questions early. When they do not, elections become exercises in damage control rather than mobilisation. The Tonse dispute signals unresolved fundamentals at a time when clarity is most needed.
Unless addressed decisively, this pattern risks turning legitimate public dissatisfaction into electoral inefficiency. That outcome benefits incumbency, not because it is popular, but because it remains intact.