Challenges of Opposition Unity

By Brian Matambo | 5 February 2026

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs in the PF Government and Citizens First President Harry Kalaba gave a fiery prognosis of the Patriotic Front’s role in the opposition on Emmanuel Mwamba Verified, arguing that opposition unity in Zambia has repeatedly collapsed because of PF’s insistence on dominance rather than partnership.

Kalaba rejected claims that Citizens First is resistant to unity, insisting instead that his party has been at the forefront of outreach efforts. He said he personally engaged several opposition leaders in search of common ground, only to encounter what he described as a recurring pattern: PF’s expectation to act as the anchor of any alliance, to provide the presidential candidate, control the secretariat, and effectively dictate terms. In his framing, this reduces other parties to escorts whose role is to validate PF’s political comeback rather than participate as equals.

He warned that such arrangements weaken smaller or newer parties, stressing that Citizens First was not formed to escort anyone to power. Kalaba linked this dominance mentality to the collapse of previous alliances, including the United Kwacha Alliance, which he said failed after outside actors associated with the former ruling party attempted to impose leadership structures and terms of reference. Unity, he argued, must be genuine, ideologically aligned, and mutually strengthening.

However, the electoral reality emerging from the most recent by-elections complicates Kalaba’s position.

In both Chawama and Kasama, Citizens First finished a distant third. Importantly, the Patriotic Front did not contest either election directly. Instead, PF partnered with the Forum for Democracy and Development under the Tonse Alliance banner. In Chawama, the FDD candidate won the parliamentary seat. In Kasama, FDD emerged second in the mayoral contest, outperforming Citizens First in both cases.

This detail is central to understanding PF’s confidence and negotiating posture. The results suggest that PF’s strength is not merely institutional or historical, but transferable. Even when contesting indirectly, PF-backed formations continue to command significant electoral support. Voters who identify with PF appear willing to consolidate behind allied candidates, reinforcing PF’s belief that it remains the most effective opposition vehicle on the ground.

Kalaba’s critique, while principled, appears to understate this factor. PF’s insistence on anchoring alliances is not driven solely by entitlement or arrogance, but by demonstrated electoral influence. In contrast, Citizens First’s growth, though measurable in percentage terms, has yet to translate into competitive positioning in high-stakes by-elections.

This exposes a deeper contradiction within the opposition. Kalaba argues for unity built on equality, ideological coherence, and mutual respect. PF, emboldened by alliance-backed victories and near-victories, operates from the assumption that leadership should follow proven vote-mobilising capacity. One side resists absorption. The other resists dilution of control.

Until this tension is confronted honestly, opposition unity will remain stalled. Kalaba’s intervention highlights the moral and structural risks of dominance politics. Chawama and Kasama, however, highlight the electoral risks of standing alone.

Between principle and pragmatism, Zambia’s opposition remains divided, not for lack of dialogue, but for lack of agreement on what should ultimately lead the coalition: ideals, or votes.