Opinion | Zambia: Beyond election winners and losers

By Dr Tendai Mbanje

In the aftermath of Zambia’s recent elections, much of the public discourse has been reduced to a simplistic binary: President Hakainde Hichilema won; the opposition lost.

Hakainde was a strong candidate; elections were not perfect, but he won the elections.

Commentators have echoed variations of this refrain, portraying the outcome as little more than a contest of personalities and numbers. Such assessments, while convenient, are dangerously narrow. They obscure the deeper essence of what elections truly represent and risk eroding the standards by which democratic progress is measured.

Elections are not a sporting match where one side triumphs and the other concedes defeat. They are the lifeblood of democratic governance, a rights‑based mechanism through which citizens exercise sovereignty, renew the social contract, and hold institutions accountable. To reduce them to winners and losers is to strip them of their meaning and weaken the democratic fabric itself.

At their core, elections embody rights. They are not merely about ballots cast and tallies counted; they are about the recognition and protection of fundamental freedoms. The right to vote, the right to stand for office, the right to participate freely and fairly, and the right to have one’s choice respected are indivisible and interconnected. They are reinforced by freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and association without which participation becomes hollow.

When citizens are denied these rights, or when they are curtailed through intimidation, censorship, or administrative manipulation, the legitimacy of the electoral process collapses. A genuine election is not defined by who emerges victorious but by whether the rights of all participants were secured and respected. The question is not simply who won, but did the people have the freedom to choose? Beyond rights, elections are about procedure. A flawed process undermines credibility, regardless of the outcome. Transparent administration, impartial oversight, and adherence to constitutional and statutory safeguards are essential. The credibility of elections rests not only on the act of voting but on the integrity of counting, tabulation, and dispute resolution.

In Zambia, concerns have been raised about the management of sensitive stages such as vote counting, the declaration of results and the accessibility of courts for petitions. If procedures are opaque or manipulated, the legitimacy of the outcome is compromised. Citizens must trust that the process is fair, not merely that the numbers add up. Without procedural integrity, elections risk becoming rituals devoid of meaning. Elections are also about participation. They are not merely contests of numbers but nation‑building exercises. Through elections, citizens engage in shaping the sovereign state, reinforcing accountability, and renewing the social contract.

Participation is not limited to casting a ballot; it encompasses the broader engagement of citizens in debates, campaigns, and civic life. When participation is restricted, whether through disenfranchisement, exclusion of critical populations, or suppression of dissent, the democratic project falters. Elections must be inclusive, reflecting the diversity of society and ensuring that all voices are heard. The measure of success is not the margin of victory but the breadth and depth of participation.

The Danger of the Winners‑Losers Narrative: Reducing elections to a narrative of winners and losers is dangerous for several reasons.

First, it erodes democratic legitimacy. By focusing solely on outcomes, we neglect the rights, procedures, and participation that give elections meaning. A victory achieved through flawed processes or restricted rights is not a democratic triumph. Second, it weakens accountability. When elections are seen as contests of personalities, the responsibility of institutions to uphold standards is diminished. The focus shifts from systemic integrity to individual success. Third, it undermines nation‑building. Elections are opportunities to strengthen the sovereign state, not merely to install leaders. The winners‑losers narrative reduces them to transient battles rather than enduring exercises in collective governance. Finally, it silences critical questions. The real questions—Did these elections secure rights? Was participation free and meaningful? Were freedoms protected? Was the procedure credible?—are overshadowed by simplistic declarations of victory and defeat.

The recent elections in Zambia illustrate these dangers. While President Hichilema secured re‑election with a significant margin, analysts and civil society groups have criticised the management of the polls. Concerns about administrative lapses, restricted access to courts, and suppression of opposition voices highlight the fragility of procedural integrity. These issues cannot be dismissed simply because one candidate won decisively. The narrative of victory obscures the deeper challenges facing Zambia’s democracy. If rights were curtailed, if participation was restricted, if procedures were flawed, then the elections did not fully serve their purpose. The measure of success is not the percentage of votes secured but the extent to which the process strengthened democratic governance and nation‑building.

The Real Questions We Must Ask: To assess the quality of elections, we must ask whether they secured the enjoyment of rights, whether participation was free and meaningful, whether freedoms were open and protected, whether the procedure was credible and transparent, and whether the process ultimately strengthened nation-building. If the answer to any of these questions is no, then there is a serious problem that must be addressed, because elections are not a game or a joke; they are the lifeblood of democratic governance and the true measure of a sovereign state’s progress and commitment to its people.

Zambia’s experience offers lessons for other democracies.

First, rights must be protected not only in law but in practice. Constitutional guarantees are meaningless if citizens cannot exercise them freely. Second, procedures must be transparent and credible. Electoral commissions, courts, and oversight bodies must operate impartially and openly. Third, participation must be inclusive. Critical populations must be empowered to engage meaningfully. Finally, the narrative must shift. Elections must be understood not as contests of winners and losers but as exercises in rights, procedure, participation, and nation‑building. Only then can they fulfil their purpose as the lifeblood of democratic governance.

Zambia’s elections remind us that to reduce elections to winners and losers is to trivialise their essence and weaken their role in nation‑building. Elections are about rights, procedure, participation, and strengthening the sovereign state. They are the measure of a nation’s commitment to its people and its progress toward democratic governance. The challenge for Zambia—and for all democracies—is to move beyond simplistic narratives and to confront the deeper questions of legitimacy, integrity, and inclusion. Only then can elections serve their true purpose: not merely to decide who governs, but to affirm the sovereignty of the people and the vitality of democracy itself.

Dr Tendai Shephard Mbanje is an expert in International Human Rights Law, with specialisation in governance, peace and security, and electoral democracy across Africa. He has held significant roles within continental institutions, serving as a Technical Assistant at the Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Banjul, The Gambia, and at the Pan‑African Parliament in Midrand, South Africa. He is an accredited international election observer with the African Union Election Observation Missions (AUEOMs) and has served as an Election Analyst with the European Union Election Observation Mission for Zimbabwe’s 2023 Harmonised Elections. In addition, Dr Mbanje has worked as Deputy Head of Mission with the African Centre for Governance, contributing to several election observation missions across the continent.