AUTHORITARIANISM IS A GAMBLE AND DEMOCRACY IS A GUARANTEE OF MEDIOCRITY.

In the ongoing global debate over governance systems, the contrast between authoritarianism and democracy is often painted in moral terms, with democracy presented as the indisputable ideal. However, the reality is more nuanced. While authoritarian regimes carry the obvious risk of tyranny and collapse, they also offer the possibility of rapid transformation and extraordinary progress. Democracy, on the other hand, is structured to deliver stability, inclusion, and peace, but often at the cost of bold reforms and visionary leadership.

In a region frequently marked by coups and autocratic rule, Zambia stands out for its democratic endurance with peaceful transitions of power and regular elections that have earned it a reputation as a model of stability in Africa. Since the reintroduction of multiparty democracy in 1991, Zambia has managed to avoid major violent conflict and has maintained civil order. This record is commendable and has earned the country praise from international observers. But a closer look reveals that beneath this democratic stability lies a deeper story, one of unfulfilled potential, cautious leadership, and underwhelming national progress.

Despite maintaining democratic rule for over three decades, Zambia’s development has been sluggish and inconsistent. Persistent challenges like high youth unemployment, an overdependence on copper exports, a fragile industrial base, a power crisis and extreme debt remain unresolved.  The pattern is familiar: campaign promises of transformation give way to political compromise, followed by disillusionment, and finally, a peaceful handover to the next leader in line. The system functions, but rarely excels.

One reason for this mediocrity lies in the nature of democratic incentives. Democratically elected leaders are often driven to chase quick wins that appeal to voters, rather than commit to tough long term policies that may be essential but politically risky. Complex but necessary reforms in areas such as taxation, education, or public sector restructuring are frequently postponed or diluted to avoid alienating the electorate. As a result, politicians become masters of managing sentiment, not engines of transformation.

This is not unique to Zambia, but it is particularly limiting in a country with such urgent developmental needs. Zambia captures the essence of the argument: democracy wards off collapse but also limits ambition. It offers safety over speed, with leaders constrained by electoral accountability, encouraging prudence but trapping the country in a loop of hesitant, often average governance.

In contrast, authoritarianism, for all its dangers, can at times deliver strategic continuity and national coherence. The fate of a nation under such a regime often hinges on the foresight and capability of just one person or a select few at the top. When that leadership is competent and visionary, the results can be extraordinary. Examples include Lee Kuan Yew’s transformation of Singapore from a poor port city into a global financial hub, or China’s rapid rise under Deng Xiaoping. These successes were not guaranteed, they were gambles that happened to pay off.

Zambia, by comparison, has not produced a commanding, visionary leader in the mold of Lee or Deng since Kenneth Kaunda, a result in part of a democratic structure that fragments authority. Power is distributed, contested, and constrained. While this protects individual freedoms, it often comes at the cost of bold and unified leadership. Each president must navigate a web of party interests, parliamentary pushback, and public opinion, making decisive action not only difficult but politically dangerous.

Moreover, Zambia’s policy environment is often shaped by the short horizons of electoral cycles. New administrations frequently reverse or freeze the initiatives of their predecessors, leading to inconsistency and confusion. In this environment, it is nearly impossible to implement a coherent, multi decade national vision.

While democracy has brought Zambia peace and political inclusion, it has fallen short of delivering excellence. Presidents must constantly balance competing interests, from party loyalists to parliament and the electorate, making transformative leadership rare. The architecture of democracy is built to avoid catastrophe, not to pursue greatness. It lowers the risk of failure, but in doing so, also limits the potential for extraordinary success.

None of this is to argue for authoritarianism as a preferable system. The dangers of unchecked power are real and often catastrophic. But it is to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth: democracy may protect nations from collapse, but it also tends to entrench them in a state of careful, competent, and ultimately mediocre governance. Zambia’s experience demonstrates that while democratic institutions preserve order and protect rights, they often fall short of the boldness required to radically change a nation’s fortunes.