The Smiling Strategist or Dividing General? What Does Emmanuel Mwamba Really Stand For?

The Smiling Strategist or Dividing General?

What Does Emmanuel Mwamba Really Stand For?

By Dr. Mwelwa

Every political moment produces its own narrators. Some narrate to illuminate. Others narrate to dominate the conversation. And a few narrate to test the waters—careful not to commit, eager to influence outcomes without bearing responsibility for them.

Ambassador Emmanuel Mwamba’s EMV platform began as a welcome intervention in Zambia’s shrinking democratic space. At its birth, it was hailed as a channel of courage—a voice for those silenced, a refuge for dissent, a megaphone for opposition unity. Many saw it as a necessary counterweight to state power, a platform that would interrogate authority and amplify the people.

But platforms, like swords, reveal their true nature not by how sharply they are forged, but by where they are pointed.

Today, EMV raises uncomfortable questions—not about government alone, but about the opposition itself. And that is where the dilemma begins.

Sun Tzu warned: “If you use spies, do not let them become generals.” In politics, this translates to a simple truth: influence without accountability is dangerous. When a platform becomes powerful enough to shape alliances, destroy trust, and redefine leadership legitimacy, the question is no longer about free speech—it is about responsibility.

So what, exactly, does Emmanuel Mwamba stand for?

He smiles with colleagues on camera, praises them as brothers in struggle, and then—sometimes in the same breath—subjects them to withering critique that weakens their public standing. Is this strategic honesty? Or is it friendly fire disguised as analysis?

The Bible cautions us: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Proverbs 27:6). The problem with EMV is not criticism—criticism is essential in democracy. The problem is direction. To what end is the criticism deployed? Toward reform and unity, or toward fragmentation and personal positioning?

One cannot escape the central contradiction: EMV claims to build the opposition, yet repeatedly places its sharpest spotlight not on state power, but on opposition leaders—especially those with presidential ambitions. Is this coincidence, or calculation?

Mwamba himself is a declared presidential contender, albeit in ex!le. He cannot campaign on the ground. He cannot test his appeal in Kang’ili, Nshinso, Nkulumashiba, or Matuku. He does not board minibuses in Lusaka, queue at City Market, or feel the daily pulse of survival politics. And yet, from afar, he speaks with certainty about who is relevant, who is misguided, who is strategic, and who must be resisted.

Sun Tzu again reminds us: “A general who commands from the rear without seeing the terrain will misjudge the battle.” Can one accurately arbitrate opposition legitimacy without sharing the risks, constraints, and ground realities of those inside the arena?

Another troubling question emerges: Is EMV a platform, or a political instrument? Platforms ask questions and let the audience decide. Instruments push outcomes. Increasingly, EMV feels less like a mirror and more like a lever—applied selectively.

Why do some opposition figures receive sustained scrutiny while others are treated with restraint? What criteria governs who is interrogated and who is affirmed? Is there an underlying strategy, or are we witnessing ideological improvisation?

Mwamba often speaks the language of principle, yet principles demand consistency. You cannot condemn factionalism while amplifying factional narratives. You cannot decry division while hosting conversations that deepen suspicion and rivalry. Christ himself warned: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation” (Matthew 12:25).

The opposition does not need a firing squad disguised as a think tank. It needs a compass.

There is also the unresolved question of alignment. EMV often sounds like a man tasting the political waters—testing multiple futures without committing to any. Is this prudence, or paralysis? Is it wisdom, or fear of backing the wrong horse?

In war, indecision at the top is fatal. In politics, it is corrosive. Followers do not demand perfection; they demand clarity.

So we must ask plainly:
Is EMV building a shared opposition vision—or auditioning for relevance in every possible outcome?
Is it correcting errors—or weakening contenders?
Is it guided by conviction—or by calculation?

None of these questions deny Emmanuel Mwamba’s intellect, experience, or past service. But leadership is not measured by brilliance alone. It is measured by what you strengthen and what you leave broken behind you.

The opposition’s greatest enemy is not disagreement—it is distrust. And any platform that multiplies distrust must reflect deeply on its mission.

In the end, history will not ask how sharp the questions were. It will ask whether the questions helped a people move forward—or merely entertained them while unity slipped away.

As Scripture reminds us: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16).

The time has come for Emmanuel Mwamba—and EMV—to answer the hardest question of all:

Are you here to build the house, or to test which walls will fall first?

As Long as you are in America Shut up ! Will you

Lily Mutamz Tv