RECKLESS RHETORIC HAS NO PLACE IN NATIONAL MOURNING

RECKLESS RHETORIC HAS NO PLACE IN NATIONAL MOURNING

In politics, disagreement is expected. In democracy, criticism is protected. But there is a line between legitimate opposition and reckless provocation. When that line is crossed during a moment of national mourning, it demands a clear and unapologetic response.

Recent remarks by Socialist Party President Fred M’membe, asking whether President Hakainde Hichilema “wants to eat the body” of former President Edgar Lungu, do not represent courageous opposition. They represent a troubling descent into political sensationalism at the expense of national dignity.

The death of a former Head of State is not a partisan event. It is a constitutional moment. The sitting President does not involve himself in funeral or state matters out of appetite or rivalry, but out of duty. The office of the presidency carries institutional obligations that transcend past political competition. To reduce constitutional responsibility to grotesque imagery is not only disrespectful to the presidency — it is dismissive of the Republic itself.

Whether one supports or opposes President Hichilema, the fact remains: he occupies an office bound by law, protocol and national expectation. Engaging in arrangements or dialogue regarding a former president’s passing is not optional. It is required.

Zambia’s democracy benefits from a vibrant opposition. It requires voices that challenge policy, interrogate decisions and offer alternatives. But when opposition leaders abandon substance for shock rhetoric, they weaken the very democratic culture they claim to defend.

Mr. M’membe is not an ordinary commentator; he leads a political party and seeks national office. Leadership demands discipline in speech. The country expects serious debate on economic reform, governance, debt management and social equity — not language designed to provoke outrage.

Strong opposition is measured by the quality of its arguments, not the extremity of its metaphors.

The passing of former President Edgar Lungu is, first and foremost, a family loss and a national moment of reflection. Attempting to convert such a moment into a rhetorical weapon cheapens both politics and humanity.

Zambia has endured competitive elections, heated campaigns and sharp ideological divides. Yet it has also maintained a reputation for relative peace and institutional continuity. That stability has not come by accident. It has been preserved by leaders who understood that certain moments require restraint.

Inflammatory language during national mourning does not strengthen democracy — it strains it.

This episode presents a broader question: What kind of political culture does Zambia want to cultivate? One defined by policy rigour, intellectual debate and principled disagreement? Or one driven by provocation, spectacle and emotional escalation?

The answer will determine not only the tone of today’s politics, but the legacy future generations inherit.
If Zambia’s political leaders aspire to govern, they must demonstrate the temperament required for national stewardship. Words matter. They shape public trust. They influence civic behaviour. They either cool tensions or ignite them.

President Hichilema’s engagement in matters concerning a former Head of State is a constitutional responsibility — not a personal indulgence. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent the role of the presidency itself.

Zambians deserve a political environment grounded in seriousness and respect for institutions. Democracy thrives on contestation, yes — but it also depends on maturity.

At moments of national loss, the Republic must come first. Not party advantage. Not rhetorical point-scoring. Not provocation.

History will not reward those who inflame. It will remember those who upheld the dignity of the nation when it mattered most.

By Chilufya Kasonde

Ilelanga News. February 26, 2026.