By Brian Matambo
For many years, Zambian politics has been described using foreign vocabulary that does not always fit our reality. The language of left and right, which originated in European history, cannot easily capture the ideological choices that have defined Zambia since its independence. Our parties are hybrids. They borrow ideas from both sides of the foreign spectrum and mix them in ways that confuse the ordinary voter. This paper argues that Zambia needs its own language to understand political ideology. Instead of importing labels from elsewhere, it is more accurate to describe the two main traditions as Green and Red. Green represents resource sovereignty, pro-poor populism, and socially conservative values rooted in Christianity. Red represents global market integration, investor-friendly policies, and socially liberal attitudes that tolerate minority rights. The task for political parties is to be clear about whether they lean toward the Green or Red side and then to align their policies with that choice.

The difficulty with calling one side left and the other right is that both Patriotic Front and United Party for National Development combine ideas that cross the conventional line. Patriotic Front embraces a strong state role in the economy and emphasizes pro poor policies, which sounds left wing. At the same time it openly defends Christian identity, pro life positions, and traditional family values, which are right wing in cultural terms. United Party for National Development in contrast emphasizes market liberalization and foreign investment, which is right wing in economic terms, but it also embraces a more socially liberal outlook that tolerates minority rights and projects a looser connection with the church. Trying to call either side simply left or right is misleading. It is clearer to describe Patriotic Front as Green and United Party for National Development as Red.

Green stands for a political idiom that believes Zambia must control its natural resources, assert sovereignty in strategic industries, and use the state to promote infrastructure, jobs, and local content. It is pro poor in tone and emphasizes that citizens must directly benefit from Zambia’s wealth rather than only the foreign companies that extract it. It is comfortable with China and Russia and uses the language of non alignment to resist being drawn into Western influence. At the social level Green openly identifies with Christian values, proclaims pro life positions, and projects an image of the family as central to the national ethos. Its risk is that without transparency state control can slide into patronage or corruption and foreign investors may retreat if they perceive unpredictable rules. Yet with proper guardrails the Green idiom resonates deeply with Zambia’s cultural and historical instincts.

Red on the other hand stands for market openness and global integration. It encourages foreign direct investment, offers tax incentives, and emphasizes credibility with Western lenders and investors. It speaks the language of fiscal consolidation and debt sustainability, and it prioritizes stability clauses and predictable contracts over state participation. In foreign policy it aligns more closely with the West and the institutions of global finance. At the social level Red tolerates minority rights, uses the language of civil liberties, and is less insistent on integrating churches into public life. Its risk is that the benefits of growth may flow more to foreign companies than to ordinary Zambians, while local small businesses may feel overtaxed. Yet with proper safeguards Red can deliver capital inflows, macroeconomic stability, and a place in global supply chains.

The history of Zambia since independence can be read as a movement between Green and Red. During the UNIP era from 1964 to 1991 Kenneth Kaunda promoted humanism, parastatal dominance, import substitution, and non alignment. It was a Green economy with a conservative society, though expressed in the framework of a one party state. In 1991 the MMD government swept to power and ushered in privatization, deregulation, and Western re engagement. The MMD era was a Red economy with a society that remained culturally conservative but less overtly religious in government. In 2011 Patriotic Front entered State House with a return to nationalist rhetoric. Michael Sata fought to reclaim assets such as Zamtel, pushed infrastructure, and reasserted bargaining power over foreign investors. Patriotic Front represented a Green return that linked sovereignty with Christian nation identity. In 2021 United Party for National Development replaced PF and brought back Red language. The government courted Western investors, embraced international financial institutions, and projected tolerance on social issues. It became a textbook example of the Red idiom.

Looking at Zambia today the choice between Green and Red is not about nostalgia or foreign dogma. It is about clarity and accountability. Green argues that sovereignty and pro poor populism matter most. Red argues that investor credibility and global integration matter most. Green emphasizes that Zambia must never give away its mines or strategic assets. Red emphasizes that without foreign capital Zambia cannot modernize. Green insists that the Christian ethos and traditional family values must remain the anchor of society. Red insists that tolerance and rights language matter for modern governance. Both idioms can succeed if their weaknesses are addressed. Green must discipline state firms and ensure transparency. Red must design safeguards so that Zambians do not feel excluded from their own economy.

This redefinition is not just academic. It provides a tool for citizens, media, and investors to evaluate parties. If a party claims to be Green it must declare how it will manage parastatals, secure local content, and guard against fiscal slippage. If a party claims to be Red it must declare how it will balance investor incentives with support for domestic enterprise and how it will cushion the poor who may be left behind. Political leaders cannot afford to oscillate between the two without coherence. Such oscillation creates confusion and erodes trust. Clarity creates accountability and accountability is the engine of progress.

The case for naming one side Green and the other Red is strong. These colors are already embedded in our political culture. They provide a simple, visual way to describe the ideological choices that matter. More importantly they reflect Zambia’s own history rather than imported categories. Green represents the tradition of Kaunda’s humanism and Sata’s resource nationalism. Red represents the tradition of MMD liberalization and UPND’s investor friendly program. Going forward every party should declare in plain language whether it leans Green or Red. This clarity will allow voters to make informed decisions, media to hold leaders accountable, and policymakers to align manifestos with reality. Zambia’s democracy will benefit when ideology is no longer a muddle of imported words but a clear compass rooted in our own experience.