What Truly Matters to a Swing Voter in Zambia's Upcoming General Election: Purchasing Power

I do not claim to be a macroeconomics expert. However, I understand a thing or two about economic outcomes and why they matter to ordinary citizens like me.

It is easy to throw around economic figures and celebrate declining inflation, improved growth rates, or a strengthening local currency. Yet, as long as these changes do not translate into tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary people, many voters will remain unconvinced. This is why, when asked how things are going, many people continue to respond simply: "The economy is bad."

Dinner-time conversations in Zambia have become increasingly interesting as the country approaches the 2026 general election. Last night, I sat with two fellow voters. Like many Zambians, we are paying close attention to the messages emerging from political parties. What are they promising? What do their manifestos say? What are their campaign slogans? Most importantly, how do they intend to improve people's lives?

I argued that, among the many issues likely to influence voter behaviour, the economy will be one of the most important.

"A substantial body of political science research on economic voting suggests that voters frequently judge governments by their perceived economic performance. In many democracies, citizens reward incumbents when economic conditions improve and punish them when living standards deteriorate."

Why the economy?

Zambia is a developing country with a large youth population. Many young people face significant barriers to employment, education, and skills development. Even those who complete academic or vocational training often struggle to secure meaningful employment. Consequently, many households continue to shoulder the financial burden of supporting dependents for longer periods than expected.

This places considerable pressure on household budgets and increases voter expectations. For many citizens, elections represent an opportunity to choose leaders and policies that will improve their economic well-being. Ultimately, voters want to know whether a government can enhance their purchasing power and improve their standard of living.

The challenge for politicians is that it is difficult to persuade people that they are better off than they were five years ago if they do not feel it themselves.

Economic progress is something people experience before they believe it.

A family that struggles to pay school fees, purchase mealie meal, afford transport, or meet medical expenses may find little comfort in hearing that inflation has fallen or that the exchange rate has improved. Their judgment is shaped by daily realities, not economic reports.

This creates enormous pressure for both the ruling party and the opposition. Each must develop a message that resonates with voters and speaks directly to their lived experiences. This is where communication strategists and economic advisers become indispensable. It is not enough to cite macroeconomic indicators. Political parties must explain, in practical terms, how their policies will improve everyday life.

In political communication, this is often described as "meeting voters where they are."

The temptation, of course, is to promise more than can realistically be delivered. History offers many examples of campaign promises that generated excitement during elections but proved difficult to fulfil once governments confronted economic realities.

The danger of overpromising is obvious. When expectations are raised beyond what can reasonably be achieved, disappointment follows. In the long run, unmet promises can undermine public trust and reduce a party's chances of re-election.

As campaign season gathers momentum, voters will be exposed to a mixture of promises, narratives, rhetoric, and competing visions for the future. Some promises will be realistic. Others will be overly ambitious. Distinguishing between the two will be one of the electorate's greatest challenges.

My advice to political candidates is simple: clearly explain how your policies will improve the purchasing power of those who currently believe "the economy is bad." Show how life will become better in practical terms. Be honest about the challenges. Avoid exaggeration.

Zambia does not exist in isolation. Its economy is interconnected with regional and global economic forces. Commodity prices, exchange rates, international investment flows, debt obligations, and global economic conditions all influence domestic outcomes. Responsible leadership therefore requires balancing ambition with realism.

I am reminded of the 1991 election campaign. I recall hearing then-presidential candidate Frederick Chiluba acknowledge the country's economic difficulties and the challenges posed by high debt levels. My recollection is that he appealed for patience and time to implement reforms rather than promising immediate transformation.

Voters gave him that opportunity. They granted him a first term and then a second. Ultimately, however, they drew the line at a third term.

There is a lesson in that history.

Voters are often willing to be patient when leaders are honest about the difficulties they face. What they are less willing to accept is a gap between promises and outcomes.

As Zambia moves closer to the next general election, political parties would do well to remember that while economic statistics matter, purchasing power matters more. For many swing voters, the ultimate question will be simple:

"Am I better off than I was before?"

References

Lewis-Beck, C., & Martini, N. F. (2020). "Economic Perceptions and Voting Behavior in U.S. Presidential Elections." Research & Politics.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2000). "Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes." Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 183–219.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Paldam, M. (2000). "Economic Voting: An Introduction." Electoral Studies, 19(2–3), 113–121.