28/06/2025
Criticism Should Not Be Viewed as Hatred
Today, I wish to address an important perspective that often shapes the health of our democracy and national progress: the distinction between criticism and hatred. Throughout history, and across the globe, leaders and governments have faced scrutiny, opposition, and even hostility. However, it is crucial to understand that criticism, when based on genuine concerns and constructive feedback, is a vital component of democratic development and accountable governance. It should never be mistaken for personal animosity or hatred.
A Reflection on Our Political History
In Zambia, our political journey has been marked by different governments—namely, the United National Independence Party (UNIP), the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), and the Patriotic Front (PF)—each of which faced varying levels of criticism, some intense enough to threaten their stability.
UNIP Government (1964-1991):
Under Kenneth Kaunda, UNIP's governance experienced commendable strides towards independence and early nation-building. However, as time progressed, the dissatisfaction with authoritarian tendencies, economic hardships, and perceived suppression of political opposition led to sharp criticism. Opposition voices accused the government of excessive control, restricting freedoms, and mismanaging the economy. This climate of criticism culminated in the 1991 democratic elections that saw the end of UNIP's rule.
MMD Government (1991-2011):
The MMD, under Frederick Chiluba, ushered in a multi-party era and promised economic reforms. Nonetheless, as their tenure extended, critics challenged issues such as corruption, mismanagement, and the erosion of democratic principles. Throughout this period, there were attempts to impeach leaders on various allegations, and the regime faced protests and legal challenges. While some confrontations escalated, Zambia avoided violent upheavals, demonstrating that opposition and criticism can coexist with stability.
PF Government (2011-2021):
Led by Michael Sata and later Edgar Lungu, the PF government encountered relentless criticism from opposition parties, civil society, and media. Allegations of corruption, misuse of power, and authoritarian tendencies led to protests, legal suits, and at times, calls for impeachment. There were also fears of political instability, which sometimes flared into protests and confrontations, but Zambia avoided a coup or violent overthrow of government.
Critics of the UPND party and its government in power have raised several concerns. They argue that the administration has faced challenges in stabilizing the economy, citing issues such as inflation, unemployment, and declining foreign investment. Despite pledges to fight corruption, perceptions of ongoing corruption allegations within the party and government officials persist. Additionally, critics point out the slow or incomplete implementation of campaign promises, particularly in rural development, education, and healthcare. Ethnic and regional divisions are also a concern, with some alleging that UPND's engagement in such politics may threaten national cohesion. Furthermore, there are fears about the repression of opposition voices, media freedom, and civil liberties under the current administration.
Beyond party-specific issues, the government’s effectiveness is often questioned, especially regarding policy clarity and long-term planning. Economic hardships faced by citizens, including high fuel and commodity prices, remain unresolved. Public service delivery is another point of criticism, with concerns over the quality and efficiency of health, education, and infrastructure projects. Allegations of human rights abuses and suppression of dissenting voices, along with a perceived approach of intimidation towards protestors and opposition groups, have also been noted, contributing to fears of stifled democratic space.
The Global Reality of Criticism
Around the world, no government or leader is immune to criticism. Democracy’s strength lies precisely in this openness—allowing citizens and institutions to voice concerns, seek accountability, and advocate for change. Leaders like Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, and Barack Obama faced opposition and criticism, yet they used it as an impetus to strengthen their leadership and serve better.
What Should Leaders Do in the Face of Criticism?
In confronting criticism, leaders should adopt a constructive perspective. Here are several principles:
Listen Actively: Engage with critics genuinely; their concerns often highlight areas needing improvement.
Avoid Personal Attacks: Respond professionally; criticism is about policies and actions, not personal enemies.
Reflect and Adapt: Use criticism as an opportunity for introspection and necessary reforms.
Communicate Transparently: Clarify government actions, explain challenges, and be open to dialogue.
Maintain Focus on Leadership and Institutions: Uphold the rule of law, protect democratic processes, and prioritize national interests over personal or partisan conflicts.
By doing so, leaders not only maintain their credibility but also foster a culture of accountability and resilience.
In Conclusion
Criticism is an essential thread woven into the fabric of democracy. It signifies engagement, concern, and the desire for national progress. Viewing criticism as hatred is a misconception that can hinder development, suppress dissent, and weaken leadership. Instead, embracing it responsibly can fortify institutions and deepen democratic values.
Let us remember, that a nation’s strength lies in its capacity to listen, adapt, and grow through honest and constructive dialogue. Leaders who embrace criticism with humility and resolve will earn the respect and trust of their people.
Thank you.
Faith Munthali
Peace building specialist.
