The Monetization of Zambian Politics: When Public Office Becomes Private Investment
Mutinta Mazoka
By Mutinta Mazoka
I usually don’t write and post but I was compelled to say something about the subject below this as it affects so many of us Zambians
The Monetization of Zambian Politics: When Public Office Becomes Private Investment
Over the past three decades, Zambia’s multiparty democracy has matured in form but grown increasingly distorted in practice. One of the most corrosive trends has been the monetization of politics—the steady transformation of public office into a high-stakes financial enterprise, where political competition is driven less by ideas and more by money.
From the era of Frederick Chiluba and the rise of the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy, through the dominance of the Patriotic Front under Michael Sata and Edgar Lungu, to the electoral victory of the United Party for National Development led by Hakainde Hichilema, money has increasingly become the lifeblood of political survival.
Politics as Investment
In contemporary Zambia, contesting a parliamentary or local government seat requires substantial financial resources. Campaigns demand branded materials, transportation fleets, media exposure, mobilization funds, and “allowances” for supporters. In many constituencies, candidates are expected to personally finance funerals, school fees, church donations, and community projects long before elections are announced.
As a result, political office is often viewed not as public service but as investment. The logic becomes transactional:
• Spend millions to secure adoption.
• Spend more to win elections.
• Recoup costs once in office.
This investment mentality reshapes governance. When politics becomes capital-intensive, only the wealthy—or those backed by wealthy sponsors—can compete effectively. Merit, integrity, and vision struggle against financial muscle.
Cadreism and Informal Taxation
One manifestation of monetized politics has been cadreism—the informal control of markets, bus stations, and public spaces by politically connected groups. Particularly during the height of the Patriotic Front era, party-aligned cadres allegedly collected levies and “fees” outside formal state systems. Public spaces became revenue streams tied to political loyalty.
Although reforms under the current administration have aimed to curb such practices, the deeper culture remains: political access equals economic opportunity.
The Cost of Party Adoption
Within major parties, adoption as a candidate is itself often influenced by financial capacity. Campaign financing inside party structures—logistical support, mobilization networks, and patronage relationships—frequently favors those able to contribute materially.
This dynamic weakens internal democracy. Grassroots popularity may matter, but financial leverage often tips the scales.
State Capture and Procurement
Monetization does not end at elections. Once in government, procurement contracts, infrastructure deals, and public appointments can become avenues for political reward. Supporters expect returns. Business allies anticipate preferential access. Civil service appointments may reflect loyalty over competence.
The risk is state capture—where institutions serve networks rather than citizens.
Voter Complicity and Survival Politics
It would be simplistic to blame politicians alone. Zambia’s high levels of unemployment and poverty have normalized vote-buying and gift-based mobilization. For many citizens, elections present rare opportunities for immediate material gain.
When voters expect cash or goods in exchange for support, and politicians budget for such expenditures, democracy becomes a marketplace.
The Consequences
The monetization of politics produces several long-term consequences:
1. Policy distortion – Decisions prioritize financiers over citizens.
2. Rising corruption risks – Public office becomes a mechanism for cost recovery.
3. Exclusion of capable leaders – Those without wealth are marginalized.
4. Public distrust – Citizens lose faith in institutions perceived as transactional.
Over time, democratic legitimacy erodes.
Pathways to Reform
Addressing monetization requires structural change:
• Stronger enforcement of campaign finance regulations.
• Transparent political party funding laws.
• Public financing mechanisms tied to performance and accountability.
• Civic education to shift voter expectations from short-term benefits to long-term governance outcomes.
• Independent oversight institutions insulated from political pressure.
Ultimately, democracy must return to its ethical foundation: public office as public trust.
Conclusion
Zambia’s democratic journey remains resilient. Peaceful transfers of power—most recently in 2021—demonstrate institutional strength. But monetization threatens to hollow out that progress from within.
If politics continues to operate primarily as investment and extraction, governance will serve capital before citizens. Reclaiming politics from money is not merely a legal challenge; it is a moral and cultural one.
The future of Zambia’s democracy depends on whether leadership is defined by wealth—or by service.
About The Author
