Find us on Google+

Monday, 16 May 2011

The Real Truth About The PF Manifesto (Guest Blog)

The Patriotic Front (PF) - the largest opposition party in Zambia - has adopted "change" as their core theme for their campaign this year. Indeed, their recently unveiled manifesto promises a significant departure from virtually all policies implemented by the ruling part - the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) - in the last 20 years. This essay offers an analysis of the promises contained in the PF manifesto and attempts to assess whether they represent genuine, viable change and an alternative to the current policies of the MMD.

In the balance of this assessment is a host of critical questions: PF proposed approach to converting Zambia's vastly improving economic growth forecasts into meaningful and sustainable economic development (that creates viable jobs and consequently reduces poverty); policy on how to handle revenues from mining operations (the single most important sector in the Zambian economy); and finally, constitutional (as well as institutional) reforms that Zambians hope can advance their young democracy, help curb corruption and foster a sense of responsible governance.

PF Utopia - The Promises

Beginning with the foreword by the PF president, the promise of the PF manifesto is a Zambia where jobs are plenty, individuals (and companies alike) pay low taxes (even lower for families with children), while the value of incomes and savings is protected by a low inflation rate and a fixed exchange rate. For those that want to borrow, there will be government assured low interest rates.

This is a fantastic scenario for individuals particularly, as they most certainly will have much larger disposable incomes. But the good news of the PF manifesto doesn’t end there! Add to these awesome perks for a Zambian citizen under a PF government, free education from grade 1 to 12 and free health-care for all. Furthermore, the “responsibility” that most working Zambians have of helping their less economically able relatives will be taken off their shoulders as the PF government provides welfare benefits for the poor.

And of course, the promised large (very large indeed) government driven infrastructure programme will ensure better transportation, electricity and communication infrastructure, while improving service delivery in all public sectors of the economy.

You could be forgiven for mistaking this idealistic picture the PF manifesto creates with the biblical description of paradise. The PF manifesto promises to deliver for Zambians in five years, what has eluded previous Zambian governments in the last five decades.

The Missing Details

What fascinates - or worries - most about this manifesto is not what it says, but rather, what’s missing; the details of how this PF utopia can be achieved! Exactly how would PF simultaneously (and vastly) increase public sector spending, while lowering taxes and refusing to borrow from external partners? As a matter of course, the PF manifesto does not put a value to how much all these promised freebies will cost, nor does it specify where it will raise additional financing.

Lower Taxes, Increased Demand?

The promise of low taxes (income tax, VAT, fuel levy, corporate tax) is not supported by any numbers. Nowhere in this manifesto are the numbers given of what current revenues are from these taxes (although they are publicly available in the national budget), and consequently how any shortfall reaulting from increased government spending will be met.

In theory, one would argue (as does the PF manifesto), that increased household disposable income will increase demand (which, stated in economics 101 jargon means shifting the aggregate demand curve to the right). The premise (or perhaps, assumption) is that there will be a corresponding increase in supply (or, a shift in the aggregate supply curve to the left) i.e., local production of goods and services increasing correspondingly to meet this hoped-for increase in demand.

In other words, as Zambians spend more on goods and services, employment should (and the PF manifesto promises it will) increase and the economy will move to a new and higher level of production i.e., positive GDP. The cycle should go on, and on, leading to sustainable economic growth and consequently development. But this is in theory! In reality, the Zambian economy is not closed - Zambia is part of the global economic village.

Zambia Not A Closed Economy

As you may have guessed by now, the apparent PF assumption is that ours is a closed economy where all goods and services are produced in Zambia. Put differently, that the increased demand arising from higher disposable income will only be for goods and services produced in Zambia, by Zambians. The reality, unfortunately, suggests Zambians have an appetite for foreign manufactured goods - cellphones, vehicles, TVs etc (Zambia does not currently manufacture these goods - although some are assembled locally. PS: PF subtly proposes imposing protectionist tariffs - a tax increase anyone?). Is it possible, as I suspect, the nuveau rich Zambians under a PF government may opt to import more and more foreign goods and services that are not locally produced? After all, higher disposable incomes from lower taxes, inevitably, should make this (demand for foreign manufactured goods) a very attractive option.

The Local Manufacturing Solution

This conundrum - where increased disposable income may encourage more imports from abroad, the PF manifesto supposes, will be addressed through a new and productive manufacturing sector in Zambia. Indeed it maybe the only hope, since surely increasing tariffs on imports would be increasing taxes which the PF have insisted will not happen.

This leads to some big-ticket questions: do Zambians currently have the skills, innovation potential and capital (PF promises less reliance on foreign direct investment) to setup a manufacturing sector (or services, for that matter) able to compete with what is produced in other countries; and given a choice, will Zambians demand more local goods (at least in the medium term) to support the PF encouraged "labour intensive" local manufacturing and services sectors?

Tried, Tested and Disastrous

If all what the PF promises sounds eerily familiar to the reader, it is because we have tried a lot of this before - under UNIP between 1973 and 1991. During that 18 year period a manufacturing sector was established along with protectionist policies (both of which the PF manifesto promises to re-introduce albeit under a different guise). Pointless to re-hash how that turned out, but critical in understanding how these second republic policies under PF will pun out!

Economic Reality & The Numbers

Zambia’s 2011 budget is approximately US$4.4 billion, funded predominantly by tax revenues which account for nearly three-quarters of the total (or approximately US$3.2 billion). A significant proportion of tax revenues comes from a combination of income tax (PAYE) and value added tax (VAT) - US$1.1 billion. One would assume - as this is not stated in the PF manifesto - the shortfall in revenues once taxes are reduced will come from the promised revision of taxes on mining operations and a more efficient - and broad - tax system (street vendors beware). Without detail on what the new proposed mining tax regime will be (since 2001, Zambia has experimented with three regimes on taxing copper mining operations[1]), it is impossible to determine what revenues will be collected.

Whatever the case, taxes from mines and revenues from other sources, hitherto unspecified in the PF manifesto, would have to be significantly large - perhaps astronomically so - to finance free education, free health-care, provide welfare to the very poor, build 2 million new houses, improve roads and electricity etc - all of which the PF manifesto promises to do between 2011 and 2016.

In fact, of the 28 sections comprising the PF manifesto, increases in budget allocations are promised for 14 of them (including four sections of what the manifesto terms “core programmes”[2] - mining is conspicuously absent). Increases in budget allocation are promised largely in percentages. In the PF world "whole" must not be represented by 100%. I find these glaring incongruity in the numbers presented in this manifesto insulting to most Zambians, as promised increases in budget allocations to the various sectors can never add up to 100%[3]. Stated differently, since PF promises to increase allocations in virtually all sectors, either the size of the budget has to grow to account for the increase, OR as I suspect is the case here, authors of the PF manifesto have a low aptitude in mathematics. Remember, Zambia's budget is only $4.4 billion and PF has not specified how it can grow this.

Unspecified Hopes

One has to consider that an alternative source of funding for the ambitious PF programmes would have to be borrowing. However, in the most pointed language, the PF promises to do away with lending (or at least reduce it). This potentially means that the current MMD government plans to issue bonds (on the back of a Standard & Poors B+ rating for Zambia's Soveriegn bonds) will be scraped! It must be pointed out, and as is typical of this PF manifesto, it is silent on the specifics. Surprising indeed, as one can scarcely think of a country that has developed in the last 300 years without issuing bonds on the back of solid fiscal and monetary policies. However, the ill defined fiscal and monetary policy in the PF manifesto would be a hindrance to the bond issue route.

Agrarian Reforms Anyone?

A very ambitious programme under the PF manifesto is the promise to diversify the agricultural sector, away from Zambia’s staple crop - maize (a resource intensive crop that is not indigenous to Zambia nor suitable for Zambia’s climate). In other words, PF is promising to end Zambians love affair with Nshima. On paper, this is a great proposal but in reality it is more idealistic than it is practical. In fact, crop diversification has been tried many times before (most recently between 2001 and 2006) and failed, for the simple reason that Zambians just cannot give up Nshima - easily! The market for maize far outstrips that of more traditional crops such as cassava. The question is, will Zambians change their menus to provide the market that supports crop diversification? Here again, the PF manifesto promise is not supported by any detailed study - the details are missing!

A Little Good News

Although the fundamental premise of the PF manifesto is badly broken i.e., it does not make financial sense, there are few twinkles of hope. Perhaps the most promising piece over the 52 page length of a largely fantastical manifesto can be found in Section 21. Here the manifesto ventures into a crucial element for sustainable development (which has largely been ignored in the last 20 years) - a prioritization of teaching science and maths in schools, coupled with a corresponding investment in scientific research and promotion of collaboration between science and industry. There is even an interesting and entirely fresh idea to create national awards for achievements in scientific and technological research!

There are few examples in the world where sustainable development has been achieved without the bedrock of science and maths. Here (section 21), the PF manifesto get a B+ (would have been an A+ had the details - regarding specific budget allocations, numbers of science specific schools envisioned to be built and number of teachers to be trained - been provided).

Of course, no serious critique would ignore the proposals in the PF manifesto which require legislative reform and not just the promise to throw more money at the problem. These mainly covered in sections 22 (Legal and Constitutional Reform); 23 (Electoral Reforms); 24 (Good Governance and Public Service Reforms); 25 (Judicial Institutional Reforms); 26 (The Church and Civil Society Organisations in National Development); 27 (Media Reforms); and 28 (International Relations and Cooperation).

Most commendable are the proposals for amendments to the Electoral Commission Act (that established the Electoral Commission of Zambia - ECZ - in 1996), reform of the Electoral Act of 2006 and corresponding promise for government (or public) funding of political parties with representation in parliament. These suggested proposals, if implemented correctly, should strengthen the independence of ECZ and possibly lessen foreign influence (as Americans call it, lobbyists) on policies crafted by political parties (especially those in opposition). These proposed reforms, along with reforms to strengthen the Office of the Auditor General, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), Office of the Investigator General and the Human Rights Commission are what Zambians have been asking for and expect. Another B+ here.

The PF manifesto promises to make civil service appointments purely on merit, sound promising. In a diverse society such as is Zambia, this promise ought to have been followed by a requirement for tribal balancing (this is an inescapable reality in a country with a reported 73 tribes and 16 tribal groupings). We have seen how in the past, merit has been applied to promote into the civil service only individuals from politically favourable regions or tribes. There has to be an open, even legislated process, that ensures fair tribal representation (based on merit, of course). Here, I am afraid, the promises in the PF manifesto fall short of the expectations of many Zambians! Merit alone will not cut it!

On constitutional reform, the PF manifesto promises a process that includes “a Committee of Experts.” As the details are not provided on who the stakeholders in this “Committee of Experts” will be, one can only hope it will not be a fiasco on the proportions of the recently failed constitutional amendment bid.


The PF manifesto is heavy on "good-to-hear" soundbites, but incredibly thin on detail - the "how?" question. Without the details, and specifics, the PF manifesto is nothing more than hollow rumblings aimed at exciting the uninformed and unsophisticated masses! Even the very positive constitutional and institutional governace reforms promised are only as good as the people making the promises (the question is, can PF be trusted to keep their word on the good aspects of their manifesto?). Frankly, the last time I read similarly crafted and fantastic promises was in the bible - but PF is no God! In fact, without divine intervention, it is inconceivable how this utopia can be achieved. It is certainly not change you can believe in.

[1]2001 - 2009 mining houses were exempt from taxes through the development agreements; 2008 - 2009 windfall taxes were introduced which attracted 25% for copper copper prices at US$2.5 per pound, 50% for copper prices between US$2.5 and US$3 per pound and 75% for copper prices above US$3. Corporate taxes were also increased from 25% to 30% and mineral royalties were also increased from 0.3% to 5% (NB: the windfall taxes are effective only when revenues of a mining house are twice the cost of production); 2009 - present windfall taxes were scrapped, in favour of taxes of 15% on profits. Corporate taxes were reduced to 25% but mineral royalties remained flat at 5%.
[2]Education Development; Health Services; Agriculture Development; Local Government and Housing.
[3]If there is proof that Zambia desperately needs investment in science and mathematics, this is it - a political party manifesto with promises that cannot stand up to basic mathematics.


The above post was written by a special guest. We have withheld the name at the exceptional request of the author. 

The Zambian Economist encourages guest contributions from leading Zambian thinkers on matters relevant to national development. The purpose of these notes is to stimulate discussion and ensure logic and impartial critique plays a leading role in shaping public debate. See the special observers page for more information.


  1. FRANCIS NGENDA SIPALO16 May 2011 at 23:22

    i love the analysis......however,the annalyst forgot that the whole manifesto is dependant on the bugdet that is passed by parliament.THE MANIFESTO IS A PLAN......A DREAM....HOW TO ACHIVE THE DREAM IS DONE BY THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND EVENTUALLY PARLIAMENT ENDORSES...

  2. Francis i deeply disagree with you, a budget is built around a manifesto. in other words you first have a manifesto and then you create a budget that can support that manifesto.
    that aside i find that this article raise numerous issues,issue which me and many others have raised on this same blog. the analysis cuts through the unrealistic nature of the manifesto but also displaces what a politician can do to win at all costs.i know that for these politicians to win they need to present such a manifesto but to gov they will abandon it almost entirely.
    what is more disturbing to me is that many believe that in this day and age we can have free services given to a national population and the nation survives the shortest possible life span. history has shown that this is not a sustainable way of doing things.
    the second thing upsetting me is the strange belief that zambia doen't necessarily need FDI. that zambia will raise above countries like bostwana, S.A without FDI. this simple euphoria. according to what i know Zambia does not have the capital investment to undertake the necessary projects that can propel zambia to the next level.

  3. PF proposed approach to converting Zambia's vastly improving economic growth forecasts into meaningful and sustainable economic development (that creates viable jobs and consequently reduces poverty);

    The 'vastly improving economic growth forecasts' are meaningless of they are foreign owned. What exactly has been the effect on job creation of the increase in GDP? Certainly the MMD have nothing to do with the rise in copper prices or the good rains they have had the luck to occur under their watch.

    Beginning with the foreword by the PF president, the promise of the PF manifesto is a Zambia where jobs are plenty, individuals (and companies alike) pay low taxes (even lower for families with children), while the value of incomes and savings is protected by a low inflation rate and a fixed exchange rate. For those that want to borrow, there will be government assured low interest rates.

    This is a fantastic scenario for individuals particularly, as they most certainly will have much larger disposable incomes.

    It is not 'a fantastic scenario'. It is possible, when there is a shift back in the tax burden. Remember that the MMD did not lower taxes, they shifted taxes from corporations to workers.

    In fact, under the MMD, Zambia forfeiting about 1.3 billion a year, by not collecting corporate income tax and dividends owed to ZCCM-IH.

    When that is done, there can be a lowering of taxes on workers, without an decrease in government revenues.

    At the same time, at least $300 million a year can be saved by stamping out corruption in procurement, and increasing transparancy of government finances in other areas. For instance, look at the completely unneccessary expenditure of about $100 million on the NCC. I don't understand where all that money went. There already was the Dean Mungomba Draft Constitution, so whey convene a conference?

    Add to these awesome perks for a Zambian citizen under a PF government, free education from grade 1 to 12 and free health-care for all.

    Remember that universal education was a reality during the UNIP days. That was when there were half as few students, but then copper prices where about $1500 per tonne too - today it is over $10,000.

    Why not have a windfall tax of 100% over $10000 per tonne?

    What fascinates - or worries - most about this manifesto is not what it says, but rather, what’s missing; the details of how this PF utopia can be achieved! Exactly how would PF simultaneously (and vastly) increase public sector spending, while lowering taxes and refusing to borrow from external partners? As a matter of course, the PF manifesto does not put a value to how much all these promised freebies will cost, nor does it specify where it will raise additional financing.

    We have discussed this issue of costing and figures online. Neither have the MMD costed their manifesto. Nor has the writer produced the numbers to show why this manifesto is: utopian, fantastic, promised, or any of the adjectives he substitutes for data.

    Rather than slag off the PF's manifesto, why not produce a positive (and costed) commentary on the MMD's plans for the country?

    Of course, we have experience with the MMD, so the room for fantasy is rather limited.

  4. Brilliant analysis! This is exactly what we mean when we say the PF manifesto is a replica of the old UNIP manifesto. A lot of hot air, little substance. How can you cut taxes, increase expenditure, but reduce borrowing at the same time? The mathematical inadequacies are just too glaring for my liking.
    I just think MrK above should not refer to the MMD's failures at the moment, but concentrate on what updates are required to turn the PF manifesto into a saleable document that appeals not only to the Kabova, but to the intellectual as well.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. I just think MrK above should not refer to the MMD's failures at the moment

    I'll refer to whatever I want, MMD cadre.

  7. MrK,
    The 'vastly improving economic growth forecasts' are meaningless Because they are foreign owned. What exactly has been the effect on job creation of the increase in GDP?'

    I would like you to revisit this statement. When Chiluba, Sata, Scott et al took over govt in 1991 the annual govt budget was just under US$1 billion. After ten years in power with Chiluba, Sata, et al the annual budget was still just under US$1 billion. Mwanawasa and Banda in a corresponding period have taken this to US$ 4 billion. Chiluba, Sata et al lost just under 100,000 Formal sector jobs in 10 years Mwanawasa , Banda have seen a rise of close to 100,000. So yes Jobs have been created. To quote the late US Senator Patrick Moynihan "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.Let us agree that on the Jobs and GDP front massive progress has happened

    What we can argue about are the factors that have contributed to this job creation. We can argue whether with copper going close to 10 000 we should/could have done better! I share your belief that we could/can do better on this front.

    Secondly- GDP increase is important. In my book any increase, any sort of increase is better than a reduction in GDP.( GDP is an imperfect measure and may produce distorted views - I know all those arguments!)But GDP figures used together with other HDI indicators in an objective manner tells the complete picture.

    Kaunda oversaw a reduction in real per capita GDP . This reduction started in the early 70s but the general public only started feeling the pain much much ,much later. Similarly the GDP gains take time to be felt.

    Sometimes I get worried that we do not appreciate the scale of our problems. Health, Education , roads will not get sorted out if we do not get to at least double our GDP every few years. The US$4 Billion that GRZ oversees is just slightly more than what the Johannesburg municipality spends per annum. In short the Mayor of Johannesburg in fiscal terms is equal to the Zambian President.GDP must grow to allow us space to implement any of the ambitious programs we have in the manifestos. Let us take Health as an example.We spend US$79 per capita on health. South Africa is 67th in the world and it spends US$715. To get to similar levels of expenditure we will have to increase spending by over 800%. If 100% of current tax revenues were to go to health and health alone we would still be spending only half of what RSA spends on a per capita basis. So that is why we have to strive for GDP growth. To paraphrase and extend Nhkruma's thought " Seek ye first GDP growth and everything shall be added unto you." It would be nice to have windfall taxes, it would be nice to tax the street vendors, but all of that at US$4 billion will still not be enough to fund even a quarter of PF manifesto promises.

    But strangely enough while knowing that the PF promises are pie in the sky. That PF is undemocratic - I somehow feel with the right leash on Sata he alone can deliver the 12% growth that we need . How to ensure that the leash stays on after the election is the solution we have to seek!


  8. Kaiba,

    Mwanawasa and Banda in a corresponding period have taken this to US$ 4 billion.

    An excellent, excellent point.

    The MMD claim to be neoliberals, don't believe in government interference, basic services etc.

    Wouldn't that mean that, when government does less and less and the private sector grows, the government budget would to DOWN instead of quadruple?

  9. MrK,
    If we cut through the rhetoric and look at what policies have actually been implemented in the last 40 years. It is very difficult to see any dramatic changes at all. The biggest change was of course the Kaunda/ Chiluba handover. But even this was not as drastic as made out to be. KK in the end-days was under the IMF cosh and Zambia's economic policy direction was essentially Washington driven. Chiluba also took up the Washington lead , but strayed by sprinkling it liberally with Mobutu-isms.

    So to answer you, Zambians with US$1 billion got more value from KK than with from MMD. But the same MMD at 1 billion should give four times more at 4 Billion. The problem is that we are starting from a very low base so we need to quickly ramp up to 20 billion plus before we start to see noticeable benefits to the man in the street.

  10. I think it all comes down to setting priorities. If we put health or education as top priority in our budget it would get funded. Right now we have no priorities beyond Ministerial and parliamentary allowances and gratuities. We are trying to fund everything and as a result everything is inadequately funded. (except the aforementioned priorities.)
    I run a business for which there is never enough funding. Survival comes down to correctly prioritising expenditure between income generating expenses, expansion, and unavoidable maintenance. If I get my expenditure decisions wrong, I make less profit or go out of business.
    For a government or a party policy we can have a utopian vision of what we would like but we need to set priorities for expenditure now with what resources we have. We need to consider where money spent would give the greatest return.
    Personally I believe education and passable dirt roads should be our highest priorities. Ministerial allowances, MP’s gratuities, the defence forces, and most of the civil service would be a long way down the list if not off it.
    South Korea did a study that found that increasing education added 3% GDP for every year added to the education that all children receive. This means that increasing education in Zambia up to Grade 12 for everyone would add 15% GDP. Educating girls drastically reduces the birth rate which brings population growth down to manageable levels.
    Many civil servants exist merely to collect enough funds to fund their existence. They produce nothing, facilitate nothing and serve no useful purpose. A reduction in the numbers of such would actually improve things.
    There is no justification at all for Zambia to have defence forces. Our enemies are poverty and ignorance. Except as a form of employment creation they cannot be justified and that employment is just a tax on others.
    Tarring of roads would be something that would have to be seriously justified economically. Tar roads are a luxury that we cannot afford for two vehicles a day. Good dirt roads are much, much cheaper and if properly maintained almost as passable. Efficient railways ought to be 10 or 20 times cheaper than roads for hauling goods. Giving our railways to someone else to make a profit on probably isn’t the best way to achieve this.

  11. Hi R. Henson,

    I'm sure there is the matter of priorities. Obviously, the MMD's priority is staying in power. In fact selfpreservation will always motivate central government politicians to some extent.

    However, there is a space for decentralisation of government, not in the least because it allows local people to set priorities.

    South Korea is an interesting example, because it is often presented by neoliberals as a example of free trade. The facts are the opposite - South (and North) Korea both have heavy government presence in the economy, directly through parastatal companies, and indirectly, through it's support of the large family based conglomerates, the Chaebol. The same for Japan, Taiwan, China, etc.

    A big problem in both setting priorities and government taking the lead in economic growth has been the ideology foisted upon the countries of the world by the IMF and World Bank, followed by neoliberal politicians like the MMD.

    The Utopian idea 'free markets' will find their own equilibrium and that they are 'efficient' in allocating resources, has led to the situation where there are no real national development plans, just the UN created 'Millennium Development Goals'.

    Together with that has been the lack of taxation of the mining industry, which would easily finance educational initiatives.

    On education, mentioning the country with the highest literacy level in Africa, and how they did it:

    Zimbabwe tops Africa literacy rate
    14/07/2010 00:00:00
    by Xinhua/Staff Reporter

    ZIMBABWE has overtaken Tunisia to become the country with the highest literacy rate in Africa, according to statistics from the latest UNDP Digest.

    Tunisia had held pole position for years with Zimbabwe second- best and number one in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    But according to the UNDP Digest, Zimbabwe's literacy level jumped to 92 percent, up from 85 percent while Tunisia remains on 87 percent.

    And on why this is so...

    "The government has expanded the number of teachers' colleges to 13, producing 2, 500 teachers per year," he said, adding that other countries in Africa produce between 200 and 400 teachers annually on average.

    "This has seen other countries like Namibia requesting us to train teachers for them and this shows that we are well-recognized on the continent," Mbizvo said.

    Government intervention in the provision of basic services is essential.

  12. MrK,

    What is it with you with Zimbabwe? Sometimes you give the impression that you mistake Zambia for Zimbabwe. You might as well own-up, your untiring zeal, campaigning for a despotic, totalitarian set-up, as Bob (Robert) Mugabe's, to steer a kind of sympathy, exposes you. You don't mean well for Zambia and not that you avow to the ideologies you purport to hold but as a propaganda to steer course after Zimbabwe's journey of self destruction.

  13. Mr.K,

    Be reminded that despite your Zimbabwe having the highest literacy levels, Zambia remains well ahead of you IQ wise if you wish to toe this statistics point of view. So, don't think we Zambians can fall for your cheap and petty propaganda.

  14. 'Anonymous',

    The reason we have different views of Zimbabwe and what happened there, is because I have done years of online research into it, and you have not.

    I have been running my blog since 2007. You on the other hand, are going to disappear from cyberspace as soon as the 2011 elections are over.

    In fact, the entire MMD may disappear, and go the way of UNIP.

    You belong to a party, the MMD, whose finance minister is on record as having said that following the MMD's policies, there will be no dent made on poverty for another 30 years. A time at which Zambia's population will not be 13 million, but 29 million.

    It is the MMD that has bad intentions for Zambia, and specifically the people.

  15. MrK,

    You are not even ashamed to admit your inkling for Zimbabwe which you have singled out, unashamedly, from all the nations of the world as a must be model for Zambia.

    Don't you think there are, out there, better countries we could learn from. Unless, of course, you are so dearly attached to Zimbabwe by an umbilical cord. Don't cheat with that blog nonsense for many years as I am not as daft as you think I am. Keep dreaming for your utopia pf, I careless.

  16. Is this whole homo thing in the manifesto or is the PF manifesto completely detached from REALITY?

  17. For those of us who know Sata, this manifesto means nothing to him once he gets into state house. He is known to destroy anyone who opposes him and will spare no favourites. In the interim, he will fill his pockets and all those who support his cruel ways will benefit, a little. Zambia will have no choice but to take the law into their hands and brutally remove Sata and his minions from office, execution style.

    Do we really want this for Zambia?


All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.