ZAMBIA’S President-elect, Edgar Lungu, leader of the populist Patriotic Front (PF) has been retained in office after securing a narrow victory against his rival Hakainde Hichilema, leader of the United Party for National Development (UPND).
Last week’s vote was the first in which the victor would have to garner 50 percent or more of the vote to form a government.
This had brought speculation of a run-off since in the past three elections, no political party garnered an outright 50 percent.
Some feared the ramifications of a tie.
About 56,54 percent of registered voters cast their ballot in the presidential race, a sharp increase from the 2014 figure, which was just 32,36 percent.
There’s no doubt Zambians appreciated the stakes and that the margins of victory would be slim.
And so it proved: incumbent Lungu won with 50,35 percent, compared to contender Hichilema’s 47,63 percent.
The difference between the two candidates was a little over 100 000 votes – and Hichilema, on the losing side for a fifth consecutive election, was not happy.
Hichilema, affectionately known as ‘HH’, immediately challenged the outcome and claims the vote was rigged.
He has refused to accept the result.
He accused the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) of manipulating the vote in Lungu’s favour, insisting the result should be nullified by the country’s constitutional court on the grounds of corruption.
This had led to clashes between UNPD and PF supporters in areas where there is no clear support for either party, including in the capital, Lusaka, and sections of the Copperbelt. 
Since the announcement on Monday, Zambian police have arrested 133 opposition supporters for violent behaviour. 
The European Union (EU) observers group raised concerns about the credibility of the results.
In unison, the Western press and some voices from America raised mummers about the fairness of the poll, especially during the campaign period.
They had tipped Hichilema, one of Zambia’s richest businessmen, to be the winner.
Elizabeth Trudeau, US Department of State spokeswoman, noted statements by ‘many’ of the international election observer missions, which highlighted concerns with the pre-electoral environment, specifically increased violence and restrictions on freedom of the press and assembly.
As expected, they (Europeans) always meddle in Africa’s politics.
And when the political winds fail to favour their preferred candidate, they cry foul.
No wonder these countries, with preconceived ideas, are not always welcome to
l To page 7
l From page 6
observe elections in Africa.
But the pertinent question that HH should be asking is: What made Lungu win this election?
It was the Patriotic Front’s relevant, timely, acceptable and appropriate campaign message in their 2016-2021 Manifesto.
It was a people-centred document which talked to the poor.
It was in stark contrast to the flamboyant one of Hichilema which appealed to the elite rich and the West.
Lungu’s policies resonated with the electorate, rich or poor.
His manifesto was people-oriented, just like ZANU PF’s July 31 2013 election manifesto.
Less than a year after the July 2013 harmonised elections in Zimbabwe, the then MDC-T secretary-general, Tendai Biti, admitted defeat, saying, ZANU PF had a ‘sexy electoral message’ that helped it win the general elections in 2013.
Biti, in March 2014, told a policy dialogue meeting held at the Sapes Trust in Harare that ZANU PF’s ‘Bhora Mugedhi’ message resonated with the electorate.
“ZANU PF in the last election had a very simple message, ‘Bhora Mugedhi’,” said Biti.
“Even a little woman in Chendambuya or Dotito knew one thing, ‘Bhora Mugedhi’.
“Perhaps we were too sophisticated, but what was our message because the message of change of 2000 is not the message for now.
“We were selling hopes and dreams when Zanu PF was selling practical realities.
“We (ZANU PF) are going to give you a farm, it’s there.
“We are going to give you US$5 000 through (Saviour) Kasukuwere’s ministry.”
This was the same with Lungu.
He was selling practical realities while Hichilema was selling hopes and dreams.
Hichilema’s business bias and his Bretton Woods stunt was out in the open when he time-and-again talked about free market reforms and good governance.
Besides his policies, Lungu’s persona, which demonstrated that he meant what he said won him the election.
In his campaign, Lungu marketed himself around notions of humbleness, faith, and love of family and nation.
He presented himself as a humble man who respects others as equals rather than a saviour with all the solutions to Zambia’s problems.
This was in contrast to Hichilema, a wealthy British-trained economist, who surrounded himself with rich business people such as running-mate Geoffrey Bwayla Mwamba (GBM).
Lungu also marketed himself as a loving family man devoted to his wife, children and Mai Jere (his mother).
For instance, one of his campaign videos showed Mai Jere selling tomatoes, with Lungu narrating: “She didn’t have much, but made sure she gave all to her family…she didn’t have much but she had love…My mother is just one of the millions of women with the same story in Zambia, it is mothers like her who continue to be the backbone of this nation.”
This story resonated with many Zambians from humble backgrounds and this image of Lungu tactically contrasted him with GBM who faced allegations of domestic abuse and was seen by some gender activists as a symbol of oppressive patriarchy.
This is why Lungu won and HH did not see it coming.
For HH to declare the result ‘a coup of Zambia’s democratic process’ was to be expected.
There is bound to be sympathy for the presidential hopeful whose latest defeat is the fifth in a row.
He had hoped his war cry, ‘HH will fix it!’, would carry the day.
For Zambia’s economy had taken a significant turn for the worse during the presidency of Lungu.
However, a lesson for Hichilema and those of his political persuasion, no matter where, is: The electorate cannot be easily swayed by mere rhetoric.
Lungu was able to convince voters that he was not responsible for the falling price of copper on the world market.
This inevitably adversely affected the Zambian economy which heavily relies on this commodity.
So this is a lesson to all challenging presidential aspirants; that the electorate can instead sympathise with a ruling party dealing with problems which are not of its making.
There are instances of opposition campaigners, in some cases, who might like to discredit a sitting government for a poor harvest following a drought.
The electorate can see through all this, as Lungu has just shown Hichilema in Zambia.