🇿🇲 VIEWPOINT | Why Opposition Alliances Keep Failing in Zambia
Renowned Lusaka lawyer and Movement for National Renewal (MNR) leader John Sangwa has offered one of the clearest diagnoses yet of why opposition alliances in Zambia repeatedly collapse under their own weight.
Speaking on the EMV Verified Podcast on Tuesday, 3 February 2026, Sangwa argued that Zambia’s political architecture itself makes durable alliances almost impossible, not because of personalities alone, but because the system provides no legal glue to hold them together.
At the centre of his argument is a structural gap. Zambia allows virtually anyone to form a political party and contest elections, but provides no binding legal framework to regulate how alliances operate, how they resolve disputes, or how power-sharing agreements are enforced.
“The absence of a legal framework and the multi-party character of Zambia prevent successful political alliances and electoral pacts,” Sangwa said.
He explained that most opposition alliances in Zambia operate purely on memoranda of understanding (MOUs) that carry no legal force. Once disputes arise, there is no authority empowered to enforce compliance or arbitrate disagreements.
“There is no legal framework to provide for respect for a memorandum of understanding signed in an alliance that would give it legal effect,” he said.
Sangwa contrasted Zambia’s situation with jurisdictions such as Kenya, where political alliances are regulated by law. In Kenya, coalition agreements are deposited with the Registrar of Political Parties, giving them legal standing and enforceability.
“In Kenya, MOUs are deposited with the Registrar of Political Parties and they have legal effect,” he noted.
By contrast, Sangwa warned that any opposition alliance formed ahead of the 2026 elections would, in practice, rest on little more than goodwill.
“If opposition parties succeed in forming alliances before 2026, it will be based on a gentleman’s agreement,” he said, adding that such arrangements are inherently fragile.
Sangwa located part of the solution in the stalled Political Parties Bill, which he said had envisioned a clearer legal regime for alliances and electoral pacts. He cited Section 24 of the proposed legislation, which provides for the recognition and regulation of electoral pacts and political alliances.
Until such a framework exists, he argued, alliances will continue to fracture at moments of pressure, particularly when leadership contests, funding, or candidate selection arise.
Beyond legal mechanics, Sangwa also raised concerns about the substance of opposition unity efforts. He said he struggled with alliances whose central organising principle was simply the removal of the UPND government, rather than the articulation of alternative policies.
He stated bluntly that while the UPND has failed Zambians in certain respects, opposition politics has not sufficiently demonstrated what would be done differently.
“The initiatives are based on removing the UPND government, where policies are not the driving force,” he said.
Sangwa further observed that Zambia has repeatedly failed to internalise lessons from its own political history. He pointed to the country’s electoral transitions in 1963, 1991, 2011, and 2021, noting that despite multiple candidates on the ballot, presidential contests ultimately consolidated into two-horse races.
“We have not learnt anything from the details of electoral pacts or alliances of 1963, 1991, 2011 and 2021,” he said.
In his assessment, this pattern reflects voter behaviour rather than elite negotiation. When alliances fail or fragment, the electorate tends to resolve the contest on its own terms.
“The failure by the opposition leaves the wisdom to the people,” Sangwa said, citing the decisive outcomes of both the 2011 and 2021 elections
However, he acknowledged one constitutional factor that continues to exert pressure on opposition parties: the 50 percent plus one requirement for presidential victory. That threshold, he said, makes fragmentation costly and will inevitably force opposition actors to seek some form of convergence.
“The constitutional provision requiring a presidential candidate to win with 50 percent plus one will force the opposition to come together,” Sangwa said.
Still, his central warning remained unchanged. Without a legal framework to anchor alliances, unity efforts will remain vulnerable to ego, mistrust, and collapse.
Practically, Sangwa’s intervention reframes Zambia’s opposition problem as less about personalities and more about institutional design. Until alliances are backed by law rather than sentiment, unity will remain temporary, contested, and easily undone.
© The People’s Brief | Editors
Mr Sangwa Sir, the legal frame work for political parties alliances may be important yes but the challenge we have is adherence to the rule of law.Some People have been breaking the law with impunity finding themselves in court over avoidable offences.The framework on alliances will not stop differences I tell you.The sad thing is even lawmakers are found in trouble with avoidable offences and legal matters are on their heads.Some are failing to understand their own party constitution.The electoral process act is hard for some to follow.
Any political alliance cannot work here because everybody wants to be president.