ARTICLE BY BARBRA CHAMA MUSAMBA
When did holding leaders to account become synonymous with begging for employment?
When did asking uncomfortable questions translate into bitterness?
Since when did patriotism require a payslip?
It is lazy, dangerously lazy to assume that every citizen who once supported the United Party for National Development did so with a CV in hand. That narrative is not only dishonest, it insults thousands of Zambians who invested time, resources and courage in the belief that the country could be governed better.
Let us reason this through.
Did people march, campaign and defend democratic space because they wanted a desk in an office?
Or because they wanted a nation anchored in integrity?
Did those in the diaspora mobilise support because they were angling for contracts?
Or because they believed Zambia deserved transparency, the rule of law and accountable leadership?
If loyalty to principles is now equated with job-seeking, then what exactly was the struggle to kick out PF about?
Support for reform was never meant to be transactional. It was moral. It was civic. It was anchored in the hope of functioning healthcare, reliable social protection, credible institutions and the dismantling of corruption networks. That hope was not for individuals, it was for the republic.
Criticism, when grounded in fact and principle, is not sabotage. It is participation.
A democracy without internal critics decays. A movement that cannot withstand scrutiny begins to resemble the very systems it once condemned. If we demanded accountability yesterday, we cannot criminalise it today simply because the colours of power have changed.
Let us also confront a deeper question:
Is patriotism only valid when it flatters authority?
Those who contributed to political change whether in Lusaka, Kitwe, Mongu or London did so believing in a Zambia governed by ethical men and women, by institutions stronger than individuals, by a leadership that embraces oversight rather than resents it.
If calling out wrongdoing makes one bitter, then what do we call silence in the face of it?
If raising concerns is job-seeking, then what is blind praise?
Democracy is not sustained by applause. It is strengthened by vigilance.
No one owes their conscience to any political party. Citizens do not mortgage their voice after an election. Support was given for good governance, not for permanent loyalty regardless of performance.
The real issue is not bitterness.
The real issue is whether we still believe in the standards that were promised.
Integrity does not expire after victory.
The rule of law is not seasonal.
Anti-corruption is not selective.
Good governance is not optional.
Those who sacrificed at home and abroad did so for a better Zambia, not a better résumé.
If asking for accountability is now controversial, then perhaps the more urgent question is this:
Who truly understands the meaning of democracy?
The Debate
Congratulations Barbara. This is a well thought out, well written factual expression of facts. Speaking Truth to Power, you have articulated your thoughts well, written objectively and with a wisdom that is rare to find these days.