Zambia at a Crossroads: Will the Nation Choose HH’s Reforms or Lungu’s Legacy?
Zambia at a Crossroads: Will the Nation Choose HH’s Reforms or Lungu’s Legacy?
Zambia finds itself at a critical juncture, facing tough questions about the nation’s direction. Since Hakainde Hichilema (HH) assumed the presidency in 2021, comparisons between his administration and that of his predecessor, Edgar Lungu, have sparked fervent debate. While HH has taken on the mantle of reformer, critics argue that his successes are built upon the very foundation that Lungu laid during his time in office. This begs the question: have HH’s policies truly altered Zambia’s trajectory, or is he riding the coattails of Lungu’s infrastructure legacy?
As the country grapples with economic difficulties, political polarization, and regional divisions, the choice between these two figures representing starkly different approaches to governance has come to symbolize more than just a political rivalry. It is a reflection of the broader struggle over Zambia’s future direction. Should the nation look forward with optimism for long-term reform, or do the visible benefits of Lungu’s populism justify a return to his leadership style?
Infrastructure: Foundation or Burden?
One of the most pressing aspects of this debate centers around infrastructure. Under Lungu, Zambia witnessed rapid infrastructure growth, with the construction of schools, hospitals, and roads, especially in rural areas. Supporters of Lungu argue that these developments were crucial in providing the necessary foundation for sectors such as healthcare and education, which HH has been credited for expanding. In their view, Lungu’s government created the infrastructure, and Hichilema is merely completing a project that had already been initiated. This has led some to suggest that HH’s administration is reaping the benefits of seeds sown by his predecessor.
However, it is important to note that Lungu’s ambitious infrastructure drive came with significant financial consequences. The country’s debt soared during his time in office, raising concerns about Zambia’s economic stability. By the time HH assumed office, Zambia was one of the most indebted nations in Africa, with a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 120%. While the physical infrastructure exists, critics of Lungu highlight the immense financial burden it placed on the nation. They argue that without economic reform, the infrastructure Lungu built could become a liability.
On the other hand, HH’s administration has shifted its focus to stabilizing the economy and restructuring Zambia’s debt. His economic approach contrasts sharply with Lungu’s populist policies, as he has implemented austerity measures, including the removal of fuel and electricity subsidies, to secure an IMF bailout. While this has caused significant hardship for ordinary Zambians, HH and his supporters believe that these difficult decisions are necessary for long-term stability.
Populism vs. Reform: A Battle of Economic Ideologies
The debate between short-term relief and long-term reform is central to the discussion surrounding HH and Lungu. Under Lungu’s administration, the government subsidized fuel and essential goods like mealie meal, which helped maintain low living costs. This earned him widespread support among the general populace, particularly in rural areas where the impact of infrastructure development was most visible.
However, this economic model was unsustainable in the long run. Lungu’s critics argue that by focusing on immediate gains, his government neglected the long-term consequences of rising debt. They contend that his populist approach left Zambia vulnerable to economic collapse, with the country struggling to service its loans and facing significant economic challenges when HH took office.
Hichilema’s government, in contrast, has taken a more pragmatic approach. Faced with an economic crisis, his administration sought a $1.3 billion bailout from the IMF to stabilize Zambia’s finances. This decision, while necessary, came at a high price for ordinary Zambians. The removal of subsidies led to soaring fuel and electricity costs, which had a cascading effect on prices across the economy. Many Zambians, particularly those who benefitted from Lungu’s populist policies, have expressed dissatisfaction with HH’s reforms, leading to a rise in public discontent.
Yet, HH’s supporters argue that the pain is temporary and that his policies are geared toward securing a more stable economic future. They believe that without Hichilema’s interventions, Zambia’s financial situation would have worsened, and the infrastructure built during Lungu’s presidency might have become unsustainable. In this view, HH’s administration represents a necessary course correction after years of unchecked borrowing and spending.
Governance and Human Rights: Contrasts and Continuities
The differences between the two administrations extend beyond economic policy to issues of governance and human rights. Under Lungu, Zambia faced significant criticism for human rights abuses, with accusations of political repression and the misuse of the Public Order Act to suppress opposition voices. The police were accused of harassing opposition leaders, and the ruling Patriotic Front (PF) was often seen as using its influence to stifle dissent.
Hichilema campaigned on a platform of restoring democratic governance and eliminating corruption. While his government has made some strides in improving governance, critics argue that political persecution has continued under his watch. The arrests of several high-profile PF officials, including former ministers, have led some to accuse HH of using the judiciary to settle political scores. This has only deepened the political divide in Zambia, with tensions between HH and Lungu supporters simmering.
The personal rivalry between Hichilema and Lungu has also played a significant role in shaping the current political climate. The 2023 incident in which Lungu’s motorcade was stopped by police during an unscheduled public appearance fueled speculation about ongoing tensions between the two leaders. While Hichilema described the incident as a mistake, it highlighted the fragile relationship between Zambia’s political factions.
Social Policies: Education and Health at the Forefront
Despite the challenges, one area where Hichilema has been widely praised is his introduction of free education. This policy has been lauded as a significant step toward reducing inequality and providing more opportunities for Zambia’s youth. Along with the hiring of additional teachers, doctors, and nurses, HH’s government has made substantial strides in improving access to essential services.
However, critics argue that these achievements would not have been possible without the infrastructure laid down by Lungu’s administration. Schools and hospitals that were built under Lungu now serve as the backbone of Hichilema’s expanded social services. This has led some to suggest that HH’s successes are, in fact, a continuation of Lungu’s legacy, rather than a product of his own policies.
Nevertheless, supporters of Hichilema point out that building infrastructure alone is not enough. Without the fiscal adjustments made by HH’s administration, it is unlikely that these jobs would have been created or sustained. In their view, Hichilema’s budget prioritization and policy focus are what truly allowed for the expansion of services in education and health.
Tribalism and Regionalism: Old Wounds Resurface
One of the most divisive aspects of Zambia’s political landscape under both Lungu and Hichilema has been the issue of tribalism and regionalism. Lungu’s support base was primarily in Eastern Province and Muchinga, while Hichilema’s stronghold lies in Southern Province. This has led to accusations of favoritism and tribalism, with critics on both sides accusing the other of advancing their own ethnic group’s interests.
Since taking office, Hichilema has sought to promote national unity and reduce the influence of tribalism in politics. However, the deep-seated regional divisions in Zambia continue to shape political discourse. Opposition parties, particularly the PF, have accused Hichilema of sidelining regions that supported Lungu, contributing to an increasingly polarized political climate.
Cadreism has also been a persistent issue under both administrations. While HH has made efforts to curb the influence of political cadres, the problem persists, with allegations that UPND-aligned cadres are now exerting control in markets and public spaces. This has led some to argue that while the faces may have changed, the underlying issues remain the same.
The Choice Before Zambia: HH’s Vision or Lungu’s Legacy?
As Zambia looks to the future, the debate between Hichilema’s long-term reforms and Lungu’s populist legacy will continue to shape the nation’s political landscape. HH’s supporters argue that his government is laying the groundwork for a more stable and prosperous Zambia, despite the immediate economic hardships. In contrast, Lungu’s backers believe that his infrastructure projects and populist policies provided tangible benefits that the current administration has yet to replicate.
The question that looms large is whether Zambians will choose to endure the short-term pain of HH’s reforms for the promise of a brighter future, or if nostalgia for the perceived stability of Lungu’s era will lead to a return to his leadership style. Either way, the road ahead for Zambia will be shaped by the legacy of these two contrasting visions—one focused on reform and long-term sustainability, the other on immediate relief and populist appeal.
Zambia stands at a crossroads, and the nation’s future hangs in the balance. The choice between HH and Lungu is not just about two men—it is about two competing visions for the country. The decision will have profound implications for generations to come, as Zambia navigates the delicate balance between economic reform, infrastructure development, and political unity.