The Paradox of Leadership: Nepotism, Tribalism, and Meritocracy in Zambia- Linda Banks
The Paradox of Leadership: Nepotism, Tribalism, and Meritocracy in Zambia
Linda Banks Writes ✍️ ©
In a nation as richly diverse as Zambia, leadership is more than just governance—it is the art of uniting disparate cultures, tribes, and regions under a common purpose. Unfortunately, President Hakainde Hichilema’s recent appointments have stirred a storm of public opinion, dividing the nation and raising critical questions about the balance between meritocracy, nepotism, and tribalism in Zambia’s leadership.
At the center of this controversy is the appointment of retired Supreme Court Justice Evans Hamaundu as Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Board. What should have been a celebrated step in the fight against corruption has instead been marred by accusations of tribal favoritism and nepotism. Skeptics argue that Hamaundu’s appointment is just one of many that reflect a troubling pattern of regionalism in Zambia’s governance.
Justice Hamaundu’s appointment has been met with both applause and condemnation. Critics highlight unresolved corruption allegations against him and his controversial judicial decisions, such as his refusal to register the Fredrick Chiluba Zamtrop London judgment, which might have recovered millions in plundered resources. Furthermore, his close association with President Hichilema has sparked claims that the appointment was based more on personal ties than merit.
This trend is not isolated. Observers have pointed out that President Hichilema’s appointments disproportionately favor individuals from Tonga-speaking regions and North-Western and Southern Provinces, with a few Lozi appointments from Western Province. For instance, the appointment of Greenwell Malumani to the judiciary and Kenneth Mulife to the Constitutional Court followed similar patterns, raising concerns about a systemic bias toward certain regions.
When appointments are perceived as biased toward specific tribes or regions, the consequences can be dire. Regionalism erodes national unity, brings up resentment among marginalized groups, and undermines public trust in government institutions. This is particularly dangerous in Zambia, where ethnic diversity should be a strength, not a point of division.
Historically, countries like Rwanda under Habyarimana and Nigeria under various military regimes have shown how regional favoritism can lead to unrest, even conflict.
However, Singapore’s transformation under Lee Kuan Yew is a testament to the power of meritocracy. By prioritizing competence and inclusivity over nepotism, Singapore emerged from poverty to become a global economic powerhouse within three decades.
Countries that have embraced meritocracy have reaped substantial benefits:
1. Singapore (1965–1990): Under Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore invested in education and infrastructure, appointing the most qualified individuals to key positions regardless of ethnicity. Within 25 years, the country transformed from a struggling port city to a global hub for finance and technology.
2. South Korea (1960s–1980s): South Korea’s focus on industrialization and education, paired with a merit-based public service, lifted the nation from poverty to become one of the world’s leading economies.
3. Botswana (Post-1966): Unlike Zambia, Botswana utilized its diamond wealth effectively, emphasizing good governance and merit-based appointments. Today, it is one of Africa’s most stable and prosperous nations.
Despite its abundant natural resources, Zambia remains entrenched in poverty, with GDP per capita lagging behind peers. Why? The answer lies in poor governance, corruption, and tribal politics that prioritize personal connections over national development. For instance, the appointment of board members and directors in Zambia’s major institutions often reflects regional biases:
• Energy Sector: Former Permanent Secretary Francesca Zyambo, a Tonga, was replaced amid allegations of favoritism.
• Judiciary: Judges such as Kenneth Mulife and Greenwell Malumani have been linked to regional favoritism.
• Electoral Commission of Zambia: Critics argue that appointments lean heavily toward individuals from Southern, Western and North-Western Provinces.
Zambia’s leadership must learn from nations like Singapore and Botswana. To achieve this, the following steps are imperative:
1. Transparent Appointment Processes: Key government roles should be filled through competitive, transparent procedures.
2. Meritocracy Over Regionalism: Appointments must prioritize qualifications, not tribal affiliations.
3. Public Accountability: Institutions like the ACC must demonstrate independence and integrity to regain public trust.
4. Inclusivity in Governance: Leaders must ensure that all regions and tribes feel represented in national decision-making.
President Hichilema faces a critical test. His legacy will depend on whether he can bridge Zambia’s regional divides and restore public faith in government institutions. Tribalism and nepotism are seductive short-term strategies, but they are corrosive to national unity and progress. Zambia’s future lies in inclusivity, meritocracy, and the shared commitment to building a better nation for all its citizens.
The parallels between Zambia’s current trajectory and the failures of other nepotistic regimes are too frightening to ignore. But so too are the lessons from countries that have risen above such divisions.
The choice is clear,will Zambia rise to the challenge? Or will it continue to stumble under the weight of tribalism and regionalism? Well, as the British say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating . So, I guess only time will tell.
The Author Is A Journalist And Lecturer In Sussex, United Kingdom 🇬🇧
