THE TRAGEDY OF A CHALKBROKEN INTELLECT: SISHUWA’S 57-PARAGRAPH CONFESSION OF BITTERNESS, REJECTION, AND MENTAL DISTRESS DRESSED AS SCHOLARSHIP

February 17, 2026

Subtitle: When a Rhodes Scholar Becomes a Megaphone for Dimwits: A Paragraph-by-Paragraph Exposé of Propaganda, Demagoguery, and the Pitiful Spectacle of an Exiled Academic Fighting Ghosts He Ran Away From

Tagline: Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; those who can’t teach, hate-teach from Harvard while pretending to care about a country they abandoned

Preamble:

Dear Sishuwa Sishuwa,

I have read your 57-paragraph epistle this manifesto of misery masquerading as intellectual critique. Let me begin by acknowledging the sheer volume of your hatred. Fifty-seven paragraphs. That is not commentary; that is catharsis. That is not scholarship; that is therapy you should be paying for. That is not patriotism; that is obsession wearing an academic gown.

We have seen this movie before. Chile One dropped diss tracks wishing HH dead—today, silence. Edith Nawakwi cursed HH from every platform—today, silence. Edgar Lungu, who presided over economic collapse and literally begged for food at a funeral, wished HH dead—today, silence. They all discovered what you will soon discover: karma is real, and hatred projected outward is eventually reflected inward.

You sit in your Harvard office—rented, not owned—breaking chalk in a foreign land, writing 57 paragraphs about a president you fled from. You pay taxes in South Africa, not Zambia. You own no property here, invest nothing here, employ no one here. Yet you have the audacity to lecture us about patriotism? A patriot builds where he belongs. A patriot pays taxes where his children will live. A patriot invests in the soil he claims to love. You, sir, are a tourist with a laptop and a grudge.

Let me now dismantle this monument of mediocrity, paragraph by poisonous paragraph, exposing the demagoguery, the narcissism, and the pitiful spectacle of an educated man reduced to a megaphone for people who cannot spell their own names.

PART ONE: THE DEMAGOGUE’S CONFESSION—EXPOSING THE TACTICS

Paragraphs 1-5: The False Victimhood Complex

You begin by playing the victim, anticipating criticism, positioning yourself as a brave truth-teller besieged by the uneducated masses who “find no shame in confidently commenting on what they have neither read nor understood.” Classic demagoguery 101: preemptively dismiss all criticism as ignorance.

Exposed:
You are not brave. You are safe. You write from Harvard, 12,000 kilometers away, shielded by an American visa and a South African tax ID. Real bravery is what President Hakainde Hichilema showed—contesting five elections, facing political persecution, being arrested, spending nights in prison, having his property destroyed, watching his security detail withdrawn, surviving an assassination attempt, and still refusing to abandon his country. Real bravery is staying when leaving is easier. You left. He stayed. Remember that when you type your next paragraph from your air-conditioned office.

Paragraphs 6-8: The Free Speech Fundamentalist Pose

You wrap yourself in the flag of free speech, claiming to welcome all criticism, even insults. You present yourself as a paragon of democratic virtue who would never block anyone or mute dissenting voices.

Exposed:
This is performance. This is virtue signaling. You know perfectly well that free speech in Zambia is more protected today than it was under PF, when your kind of criticism would have earned you a visit from State House goons. You wrote similar critiques under PF—and survived. You write them under UPND—and survive. The only difference is the color of the insults you receive. But notice: you never criticize the system that actually silenced people—PF’s brutality. You only criticize the government that lets you speak. That is not principle; that is partisanship disguised as principle.

Paragraph 9: The “I Don’t Hate Him” Disclaimer

“I do not hate the President. I hate his bad leadership.” This is the oldest trick in the propagandist’s handbook—the “love the sinner, hate the sin” disclaimer that allows you to spend 57 paragraphs describing a man in the most hateful terms imaginable while maintaining plausible deniability.

Exposed:
If it walks like hatred, quacks like hatred, and fills 57 paragraphs like hatred—it is hatred. You are not fooling anyone. The difference between criticizing leadership and hating a leader is proportionality. When every single thing a person does is wrong, when not one positive achievement is acknowledged, when you actively wish for death—that is not critique. That is pathology.

PART TWO: THE 14-POINT MANIFESTO OF HYPOCRISY—DEBUNKING THE PROPAGANDA

Paragraph 10: “Bad leadership means representing everything he spent 15 years in opposition fighting against”

Exposed:
Let us apply this logic to you, Sishuwa. You spent years under PF criticizing tribalism, regionalism, and poor governance. Today, you have formed an unholy alliance with the very PF apologists you once condemned. You now share platforms with people who defended Edgar Lungu’s incompetence. You have become the megaphone for the very “dundaheads” and “dimwits” you once mocked. By your own definition, you represent everything you spent years fighting against. The difference? HH changed because governing requires compromise. You changed because rejection hurts. His evolution is policy-driven; your transformation is ego-driven.

Paragraph 11: “Bad leadership means tribalism, regionalism, and sectarian tendencies”

Exposed:
Name one appointment HH has made that was tribal. Just one. The UPND government has appointed people from all provinces—Bembas, Easterners, Luapulans, Northerners. The Chief Justice is from Northern Province. The Attorney General is from Eastern Province. Key security appointments cut across regions. You make this accusation without evidence because evidence would destroy your narrative. Meanwhile, your new friends in PF presided over actual tribalism—remember the “Bembas must rule” chants? Remember the systematic exclusion of Tongas from key positions during PF’s decade? Your selective memory exposes your agenda.

Paragraph 12: “Bad leadership means tolerance for corruption including the kind that has facilitated ongoing plunder in mining, health, agricultural, and energy sectors”

Exposed:
Provide evidence. Name names. Produce bank statements. File court cases. You are an academic—where is your data? Where are your sources? The government has actually arrested people for corruption—including from the mining sector. The ACC is working. The courts are functioning. Compare this to PF, where corruption was systematized, where ministers stole with impunity, where the President’s own relatives were implicated and protected. You know this. Every Zambian knows this. But you cannot acknowledge improvement because acknowledgment would undermine your narrative of total failure. So you lie by omission.

Paragraph 13: “Bad leadership means his refusal to publish asset declarations”

Exposed:
HH’s assets are publicly known—they were debated throughout five election campaigns. Everyone knows he is wealthy. He never pretended otherwise. The issue is not secret wealth; the issue is whether he uses office to accumulate more. Show us one piece of evidence that he has. Just one. Meanwhile, your PF friends—where are their asset declarations? Where are Lungu’s? Where are the ministers who left office with unexplained billions? You demand transparency from your enemy while granting amnesty to your new allies. That is not principle; that is partisanship.

Paragraph 14: “Bad leadership means his compulsive lying”

Exposed:
Name five lies. Specific lies, not generalities. We will wait. Actually, let us help you: HH promised to fix the economy—and inflation is down. He promised to stabilize the currency—and the kwacha has strengthened. He promised to engage the IMF—and we have a program. He promised to remove subsidies gradually—and he has. He promised to fight corruption—and arrests have been made. Where are the lies? The only lie is your claim that he lies.

Paragraph 15: “Bad leadership means his vindictiveness”

Exposed:
Who has HH persecuted? Name them. Edgar Lungu—enjoying freedom, traveling, even attending funerals where HH was present. Davies Mwila—walking free. PF ministers—living normal lives. Compare this to what HH suffered under PF: arrest, detention, security withdrawal, property destruction, assassination attempts. If HH were vindictive, half your new friends would be in prison. They are not. That is not weakness; that is magnanimity. Something you clearly cannot comprehend.

Paragraph 16: “Bad leadership means unbridled faith in the IMF”

Exposed:
What is the alternative? Continue the PF approach of printing money, destroying the currency, and begging from questionable sources? The IMF program is restoring discipline, restructuring debt, and bringing credibility. Every responsible economist—including those at Oxford, your alma mater—supports this approach. You criticize IMF engagement while offering no alternative except vague populism. That is not economics; that is demagoguery.

Paragraph 17: “Bad leadership means anti-democratic behavior”

Exposed:
Under HH, the media is freer than under PF. Under HH, the opposition speaks without fear. Under HH, courts rule independently. Under HH, civil society operates openly. You are proof—you write 57 paragraphs of hatred and face no consequences. Under PF, you would have been “disappeared.” Yet you call HH anti-democratic? The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

Paragraph 18: “Bad leadership means wasting money while failing to fund higher education”

Exposed:
UNZA workers are being paid. Pensions are being cleared—slowly, because the economy was destroyed, but progressively. Meanwhile, under PF, universities went months without funding, workers went years without payouts, and the education system collapsed completely. You know this. You lived through it. But acknowledgment would require honesty, and honesty would destroy your narrative.

Paragraph 19: “Bad leadership means packing institutions with loyalists”

Exposed:
Every president appoints people they trust. Kaunda did it. Chiluba did it. Mwanawasa did it. Banda did it. Sata did it. Lungu did it spectacularly, appointing relatives and unqualified cronies. HH’s appointees include some of the most qualified professionals in Zambia—the ECZ, the judiciary, the police, the security services. Are some political? Yes. But the difference is competence. Compare the current ECZ to the PF-era ECZ that tried to steal elections. Compare the current judiciary to the PF-era judiciary that jailed opposition leaders. The improvement is obvious—unless you refuse to see.

Paragraph 20: “Bad leadership means his Uncle Tom syndrome and contempt for black Zambians”

Exposed:
This is the lowest blow. This is demagoguery at its most dangerous. You accuse HH of racial self-hatred? The man who built businesses employing thousands of Zambians? The man who educated hundreds of Zambian children through scholarships? The man who invested in every sector of this economy? You call him an “Uncle Tom” while you sit in America, benefiting from the very Western education and opportunities you now weaponize against a fellow African? The hypocrisy is breathtaking. HH engages with the world because Zambia needs investment, technology, and partnerships. You would know this if you understood economics—but you prefer cheap racial demagoguery to substance.

Paragraph 21: “Bad leadership means poor record on governance and human rights”

Exposed:
Under HH, no journalist is in prison. Under HH, no opposition leader fears arrest. Under HH, no one is detained for criticizing the president—as your 57 paragraphs demonstrate. Under PF, we had the “GBM” detention, the imprisonment of Chishimba Kambwili, the harassment of journalists, the closure of media houses, the beating of opposition supporters. You know this. You wrote about it. But today, your new allies are the very people who defended those abuses. Your credibility is zero.

Paragraph 22: “Bad leadership means loyalty to self-gain and private business interests”

Exposed:
HH was wealthy before office. He will be wealthy after office. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he uses office to enrich himself further. Show us evidence. Just one piece. Meanwhile, your PF friends left office with unexplained wealth—houses, farms, businesses, bank accounts they could not explain. The contrast is so stark that only willful blindness can miss it.

Paragraph 23: “Bad leadership means embarrassing foreign policy”

Exposed:
Zambia’s foreign policy under HH has restored relationships with traditional partners, opened new markets, attracted investment, and regained respect. The West trusts Zambia again. International financial institutions engage constructively. Neighboring countries respect our leadership. You call this “pro-colonialism”? This is the language of the gutter, Sishuwa. This is what uneducated people say when they cannot engage with substance. You are educated—or claim to be—yet you parrot slogans that would embarrass a grade-schooler.

Paragraph 24: “Bad leadership means constant reference to PF as standard”

Exposed:
When you inherit a completely destroyed economy, when you find empty treasuries, when you discover hidden debts, when you uncover systematic looting—the only comparison that makes sense is with the previous administration. HH is not comparing himself to an ideal; he is comparing himself to the disaster he inherited. And by that measure—the only honest measure—he is succeeding. Inflation down. Currency stable. Debt restructuring underway. Growth returning. Are we where we want to be? No. But are we better than 2021? Yes. You cannot admit this because admission would require honesty.

Paragraph 25: “Bad leadership means congratulating oneself for normal government deeds”

Exposed:
When you fix what was broken, you celebrate. When you achieve what was impossible under your predecessor, you acknowledge it. This is not arrogance; this is leadership. Or would you prefer the PF approach—celebrating nothing while everything collapsed? The problem is not that HH celebrates; the problem is that you cannot bear to see him succeed.

PART THREE: THE REJECTED APPLICANT’S LAMENT—EXPOSING THE REAL MOTIVATION

Paragraphs 26-28: The Confession of Disappointment

Here it is—the heart of the matter, buried in paragraphs 26 through 28. You admit: “In a sense, the blame is on me. Whatever has come out is on me, not him.”

Exposed:
Finally, honesty. You blame yourself—not for helping elect a bad leader, but for expecting recognition. You thought your “commentaries” during PF rule entitled you to something. You thought Dr. Elayas Munshya’s appointment as High Commissioner should have been your appointment. You thought the UPND owed you. When the call never came, when the recognition never materialized, when you were left out—the hatred began.

This is the tragedy of the rejected applicant. You built expectations on sand. You assumed that criticizing PF automatically made you a UPND loyalist. You assumed that commentary deserved reward. You assumed that your Oxford degrees and Harvard office entitled you to a position you never earned through party work, never campaigned for, never sacrificed for.

HH spent 15 years in opposition. He was arrested, imprisoned, impoverished, humiliated. He lost properties. He faced death. He kept going. Dr. Munshya paid his dues. Others who received appointments worked for the party, contributed to campaigns, sacrificed time and resources. What did you sacrifice? A few paragraphs from a safe distance? And you expected a reward?

Your bitterness is not patriotism. Your hatred is not principle. Your 57 paragraphs are not scholarship. They are the howl of a rejected applicant, the tantrum of a man who thought his pen deserved a palace.

Paragraphs 29-31: The Quoting of Levy Mwanawasa

You quote Levy Mwanawasa calling HH a cheat and a fraud. You claim you should have listened. You claim you owe Levy an apology.

Exposed:
Levy Mwanawasa also said many things about many people. He said Michael Sata was irresponsible. He said the PF were troublemakers. He said many things that time proved wrong. More importantly, Levy Mwanawasa was a great leader—but he was also a politician with political rivals. Quoting him selectively proves nothing.

The real question: If HH is the same person he was in 2006, why did Zambians keep voting for him? Why did his vote share grow in every election? Why did he finally win in 2021? Was everyone blind except you and Levy? Or did HH evolve, learn, grow—as leaders do? You refuse to acknowledge growth because acknowledgment would undermine your narrative of permanent villainy.

PART FOUR: THE EXILE’S DILEMMA—WHY YOU WRITE WHAT YOU WRITE

Paragraphs 32-35: The Declaration That You Won’t Miss Him

You won’t miss him if he leaves office or dies. You would “rejoice with relief.” You would be sad at a personal level but relieved as a citizen.

Exposed:
This is where your hatred becomes indistinguishable from pathology. Wishing for death—even indirectly, even with caveats—is not critique. It is not scholarship. It is not patriotism. It is sickness.

There is a saying: simple minds discuss personalities, average minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas. You have spent 57 paragraphs discussing one personality—obsessively, compulsively, pathologically. You have not discussed one idea for Zambia’s development. Not one policy proposal. Not one economic strategy. Not one constructive suggestion. Just hatred, wrapped in academic language, dressed in Oxford credentials, served cold from Harvard.

What have you written about mining sector reforms? Nothing constructive. What have you written about agricultural transformation? Nothing. What have you written about manufacturing, technology, education, health, infrastructure? Nothing. You have written about HH—and only HH—as if Zambia’s entire existence revolves around one man.

This is not the mark of an intellectual. This is the mark of an obsession.

Paragraphs 36-38: The Claim That You’ve Tried to Give Benefit of Doubt

You claim you have “tried—really tried—to give this president the benefit of the doubt.” You claim you have hoped.

Exposed:
No, you haven’t. Fifty-seven paragraphs of hatred do not come from someone who has tried to be fair. Fifty-seven paragraphs of one-sided negativity do not come from someone who has sought balance. Fifty-seven paragraphs without a single acknowledgment of achievement do not come from someone who has given benefit of doubt.

You have approached this presidency like a prosecutor who has already decided the verdict. Everything is evidence of guilt. Nothing is evidence of innocence. This is not analysis; this is confirmation bias.

Paragraphs 39-41: The Tribal Defense

You claim you would “shut up and understand” if you were a tribalist, if you came from HH’s region, if you voted for him, if you feared Bembas and Easterners returning to power.

Exposed:
This is projection. You accuse others of tribalism while organizing your entire critique around regional identity. You mock “herd mentality” while your own thinking is shaped by your rejection and bitterness. You claim to transcend tribe while constantly invoking it. The difference between you and the “tribalists” you mock is that they are honest about their biases. You pretend objectivity while swimming in subjectivity.

PART FIVE: THE EGO TRAP—EXPOSING THE INTELLECTUAL ARROGANCE

Paragraphs 42-44: The Name-Dropping Tactic

You list names—James Skinner, Akashambatwa Lewanika, Edith Nawakwi, Fred M’membe, and others—as if association with great names confers greatness upon you.

Exposed:
This is the name-dropping tactic of the intellectually insecure. You cannot stand on your own achievements, so you stand beside the achievements of others. You cannot claim your own legacy, so you borrow from theirs.

But notice:
some of those names—Edith Nawakwi, Fred M’membe—are now your political allies. The very people you once criticized are now your friends. The very PF apologists you once condemned are now your partners. Your name-dropping reveals not your connections but your contradictions.

Paragraphs 45-47: The “Low Expectations” Lecture

You lecture Zambians about “the chronic syndrome of low expectations.” You tell us we expect too little from our leaders. You tell us we must demand more.

Exposed:
From your Harvard office, you lecture Zambians about expectations? You, who fled the country and pay taxes elsewhere, lecture us about what we should demand? You, who will not live with the consequences of your advocacy, tell us to be braver?

Real courage is what Zambians show every day—surviving economic hardship, building businesses despite challenges, raising families despite uncertainty, hoping despite disappointment. You do not get to lecture us from a distance. You do not get to prescribe bravery from a place of safety. You do not get to demand sacrifice from people whose sacrifice you will never share.

Paragraphs 48-50: The Government Job Revelation

You reveal that Michael Sata, Edgar Lungu, and HH all offered you government jobs. You claim you declined them all. You mention this to prove your independence.

Exposed:
This revelation destroys your credibility. If you were offered jobs by three different presidents from three different parties, you are not a principled critic—you are a perennial applicant. You keep making yourself available. You keep positioning yourself for appointment. And when it doesn’t happen—when the call finally doesn’t come—you react with 57 paragraphs of hatred.

The pattern is clear: you criticized PF because they didn’t give you what you wanted. You now criticize UPND because they didn’t give you what you wanted. Your “principles” are simply the mask your ego wears when rejected.

You claim you declined. But if you truly declined, why mention it? Why reveal confidential offers? Why name-drop presidents who wanted you? Because you want us to know you were wanted. You want us to know you could have been somebody. You want us to know the rejection hurts.

It shows, Sishuwa. It shows.

Paragraphs 51-53: The Oxford and Harvard Flex

You remind us repeatedly: University of Zambia degree, two Oxford postgraduate qualifications, Rhodes Scholar, Harvard office. Your salary is higher than the Zambian president’s. You are sufficiently educated. You are marketable anywhere.

Exposed:
This is the insecurity of the educated elite—the desperate need to prove worth through credentials. Real intellectuals do not need to announce their qualifications. Real scholars let their work speak. Your constant credential-flaunting reveals what you fear: that without Oxford and Harvard, without Rhodes and research, you are just another bitter commentator with a laptop and a grudge.

You are educated, yes. But education without wisdom is mere information. Learning without humility is mere arrogance. Oxford gave you knowledge; it did not give you grace. Harvard gave you an office; it did not give you perspective. You have degrees; you do not have depth. You have credentials; you do not have credibility.

PART SIX: THE FINAL DECONSTRUCTION—EXPOSING THE PATHOLOGY

Paragraphs 54-56: The Vision of a Better Zambia

You describe the Zambia you want—a president who cares, restores democracy, fights corruption, promotes unity, builds professional institutions.

Exposed:
This is exactly what HH promised. This is exactly what HH is trying to build. The difference between you and HH is not vision; it is patience. HH knows that destruction takes years to repair. You demand instant perfection. HH understands that economic recovery is a process. You demand magic. HH accepts that change is incremental. You demand transformation yesterday.

Your impatience is not principle; it is petulance. Your criticism is not constructive; it is destructive. Your vision is not a plan; it is a fantasy.

Paragraph 57: The Final Warning

You warn that the damage being done will take decades to repair. You warn that power used vindictively today will create something worse tomorrow.

Exposed:
The damage to Zambia was done by PF—by the looting, the borrowing, the destruction of institutions, the normalization of corruption, the division of the people. That damage will take decades to repair. HH inherited that damage. He did not create it.

The vindictiveness you warn about is projection. You are the one consumed by bitterness. You are the one wishing death. You are the one whose hatred fills 57 paragraphs. The toxicity you fear in others lives in you.

CONCLUSION: THE REJECTED APPLICANT’S EPITAPH

Dear Sishuwa Sishuwa,

You have written 57 paragraphs. I have responded with more—not because you deserve the attention, but because the record must be corrected. Propaganda cannot stand unanswered. Demagoguery cannot go unchallenged. Hatred cannot be normalized, even when dressed in academic robes.

You asked earlier: “What would his former self think of him now?” Let me ask you: What would the Sishuwa of 2016 think of the Sishuwa of 2024? The one who condemned PF now embraces PF apologists. The one who fought tribalism now practices it. The one who demanded integrity now defends the indefensible. The one who claimed independence now serves as a megaphone for the very people he once exposed.

You have become what you beheld. You have joined the company you once condemned. You have sold your credibility for the fleeting pleasure of hatred. And for what? Because one man—Hakainde Hichilema—did not give you what you wanted? Because your expectations were disappointed? Because your ego was bruised?

This is the tragedy of the rejected applicant. This is the pitfall of the unexamined life. This is the danger of education without wisdom, credentials without character, intelligence without integrity.

You sit in Harvard, breaking chalk, writing hatred. HH sits in State House, breaking the back of poverty, rebuilding a nation. You have Oxford; he has experience. You have theory; he has practice. You have words; he has work. You have 57 paragraphs; he has 18 million Zambians whose lives are slowly, painfully, incrementally improving.

You will not miss him when he’s gone. But Zambia will. History will. The record will show that while HH fought to restore a nation, you fought to destroy his reputation. While he worked for the living, you wrote for the bitter. While he sacrificed in country, you criticized from abroad.

One day, you will get what you wish for others. Karma is real. The hatred you project will find its way home. The bitterness you spread will poison its source. The death you wish for will knock on doors you did not expect.

And when it does—when you finally understand that love builds and hatred destroys, that constructive criticism helps and destructive hatred hurts, that patriots stay and fight while exiles watch and curse—perhaps you will remember this moment. Perhaps you will recall that you had a choice: to be part of the solution or part of the noise. You chose noise.

HH chose solution. Zambia chose HH. History will choose accordingly.

The difference between you and him is simple: He failed five times and kept going. You wrote 57 paragraphs and called it a day. He built wealth that serves the nation. You built resentment that serves only your ego. He governs with the weight of a nation on his shoulders. You critique with the comfort of a foreign office around you.

He is a president. You are a pamphlet.

End of rebuttal.

” Simple minds discuss personalities, average minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas.”
— Anonymous

You, Sishuwa, have discussed one personality for 57 paragraphs. Draw your own conclusions.

Ghost -WriterTHE TRAGEDY OF A CHALKBROKEN INTELLECT: SISHUWA’S 57-PARAGRAPH CONFESSION OF BITTERNESS, REJECTION, AND MENTAL DISTRESS DRESSED AS SCHOLARSHIP