The Price of Dishonesty: Why British Leaders Fall and Zambian Leaders Flourish
By Linda Banks ©
SUSSEX, FEB 7- There is something i absolutely love about my adopted home, the British electorate possesses in abundance, an allergy. Not to error or complexity, but to lies. Once exposed, the reaction is swift. Authority weakens, colleagues retreat and exit becomes inevitable..
Britain’s recent political history reads like a warning label on how not to govern, David Cameron promised closure and delivered rupture. Theresa May promised certainty and offered paralysis, Boris Johnson denied what everyone else could see. Liz Truss sold fiction as economics, Rishi Sunak promised integrity and found himself explaining fines and family interests. Each fell, not because governance is hard, but because truth was treated as optional.
Britain forgives mistakes, but she does not forgive contempt for honesty.
The Pattern of Political Accountability or lack there of.
David Cameron assured the Nation that a referendum would settle the question of whether a divorce from Europe would bring the much needed prosperity and sovereignty. It did the opposite, when the promise collapsed, so did his authority. In waltzed Theresa May, she insisted that her Brexit deal was workable- even as Parliament rejected it repeatedly. The gap between rhetoric and reality widened, and Trust quickly drained away.
Before we could say fish and chips; In bumbled Boris, Johnson danced the nights away as elderly citizens died alone in nursing homes & hospital beds. He denied that his team was having lockdown parties, not once, not twice but he denied them again and again. Sadly for him, evidence later emerged that he lied, and police fines followed. Parliament was clearly misled and that was the moment his premiership ended in substance, even if he did not immediately leave office.
Liz Truss strutted into number 10 as the 3rd female PM under a Conservative government, but the 4th in one tenure. She was also a poor student of history, she withheld the full truth about the ambitious economic risks she had embarked on. The markets responded within days, Confidence quickly evaporated and so did she: lasting only a record breaking 49 days.
Right, surely by now the Tories would have learnt that the Brits are allergic to leaders who tell pokies, oh no… so in staggered in a sharp looking Rishi Sunak. The chap was excellent with numbers and popular with his peers (though the British public didn’t vote for him, rumours circulated that his Indian heritage was blamed by some) Rishi promised integrity but found himself explaining fines and pandemic-era conflict of interest. His millionaire wife and father in law ‘s multimillion business was alleged to have been benefiting from the UK’s Covid policies; the same policies made by Rishi. Though no laws were proved to have been broken, but it broke the British trust.
I am sure by now you’ve caught my drift?The pattern is unmistakable, Brits tolerate error but they will not tolerate dishonesty.
Sir Keir Starmer: A Test of Judgement
Which brings us to Sir Keir Starmer, the man did not socialise with Jeffrey Epstein- that must be stated plainly. Politics, however, is not only about personal innocence. It is about judgment, perception, and the company one keeps in positions of power. He Appointed a man to the position of Ambassador to the United States who is embroiled in the life of the infamous disgraced sexual offender, Jeffery Epstein. Peter Mandelson has since been fired from his position as Ambassador to the USA.
Now, Will Sir Keir survive a storm built on association, scrutiny, and questions of due diligence? In Britain, even proximity to scandal tests credibility. The public asks not only, “Did you do it?” but also, “Should you have known better?” As things stand politically, ousting Sir Keir will inevitably- unwittingly and inadvertently usher in Trump’s best buddy, the unapologetic far right leader; Nigel Farage. Will the British have foresight not to throw out the bath water out together with the baby? Well, I guess as they say; ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating’, time will tell.
Nyuko mwangala
Now turn to Zambia, 🇿🇲 a country where promises are made loudly, revised quietly, and forgotten officially. Where the language of reform thrives, but consequences struggle to appear.
President Hakainde Hichilema came to office on a moral platform, he promised a new way of governing: transparency, restraint, respect for institutions. Yet several pledges remain unfulfilled, and in some cases blatantly ignored.
He said he would never tamper with the Constitution, yet a constitutional process was pushed forward aggressively against the wishes of the people. He celebrated publicly, and even bragged about it at a rally; where Parliament was described as having been “outmanoeuvred.” In Britain, that alone would have triggered resignations. But in Zambia , it triggered applause.
He spoke of compassion and reconciliation. Yet questions linger around former President Edgar Lungu’s health and pension entitlements.
He promised cheaper living. Citizens ask, Akabunga, is it at K50? He promised farmer support. They ask, Nga ama farmers, are they getting eight bags at K250?
He promised freedoms. Has the Public Order Act been repealed, or merely renamed? Was cyber law reversed, or enhanced under another guise? Ministers have repeated assurances contradicted by facts.
And still, the President remains in power.
Why does Zambia tolerate what Britain would not? Because institutions are weaker than personalities. Loyalty outranks truth. Calling out your own is mistaken for betrayal. Voters are told to be patient while standards quietly lower.
In Britain, institutions outlive leaders. In Zambia, leaders often outgrow institutions. Progress does not come from slogans or hashtags. It comes from standards applied consistently, especially to friends. Development does not survive selective honesty, neither does democracy.
A leader may survive broken promises, a nation does not survive normalised dishonesty.
Power built on half-truths is borrowed, and borrowed power eventually, is reclaimed.
Linda Banks is a Journalist covering politics, justice, social issues and international affairs across Africa and the UK.
© 2025 Linda Banks. All rights reserved.
SHARE- LIKE- FOLLOW 👁️
@Linda,
You are now becoming another Sishuwa Sishuwa or whatever he is called.
Madam Sussex, we were raised in the UK, unlike you, who arrived there in your later years in an attempt to survive and succeed in life. Even in your current residence, you are associated with an elderly man, a pensioner whom you are attempting to deceive is taking care of you. Only someone as economically uninformed as you would anticipate immediate prosperity following years of mismanagement by your political faction ,pf. HH is striving to stabilize the currency and mitigate inflation by rebuilding reserves. Zambia was in a critical condition. I reside in Canada, but I return to Zambia every three months; the UK, which you are attempting to elevate your status in, is also my home, and I visit almost every month. Please refrain from misleading the public.
Very foolish and myopic write up, for Britain you have highlighted and compared several leaders, why are you only talking about HH in the case of Zambia, what did Kaunda, chiluba, mwanawasa, RB, Sata and Edgar lungu promise versus what they delivered?.