Why Zambia insists on bringing former president Lungu's body home

Mail & Guardian

20 hours ago

Edgar Lungu.
The legal and diplomatic standoff over Zambia's former president Edgar Lungu's final resting place has captured headlines across Africa and the world. But beneath the political theatre lies a more fundamental question about how modern African states assert their authority and maintain institutional continuity.
When President Hakainde Hichilema speaks about bringing Lungu home, he is not merely voicing personal sentiment or party politics. He is channeling something far more enduring: the institutional imperative of the Zambian state itself.
This distinction matters more than many observers realise. Hichilema serves as the current vessel through which decades of institutional memory flow — a spokesperson for systems that have outlasted six presidential transitions since independence. The demand for Lungu's repatriation comes not from the ruling United Party for National Development, but from the permanent bureaucracy that sustains the republic regardless of who occupies Zambia's State House.
Understanding the architecture of state power helps explain why this matters. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama has written extensively about 'state capacity' — a government's ability to make and enforce rules regardless of leadership changes. Strong states maintain continuity despite political upheaval; fragile ones bend to the whims of personalities.
Zambia's insistence on repatriating Lungu demonstrates precisely the kind of institutional resilience that developing nations must cultivate for long-term stability. What critics dismiss as political vindictiveness actually represents the state apparatus functioning as designed. The broader African context makes this particularly significant, as post-colonial nations work to strengthen their institutions and maintain protocol across administrations — even amid political tensions.
The question of precedent looms large in this legal and diplomatic standoff. South Africa finds itself in a delicate position, with President Cyril Ramaphosa understanding that hosting the burial of a former Zambian president without his home government's consent could set a dangerous precedent for interstate relations across the continent.
The concern extends beyond this single case. When former leaders are buried abroad without their home government's approval, it can undermine the careful diplomatic architecture that African nations have built since independence. Zambia has buried all its former presidents within its borders, creating what amounts to a physical chronicle of national leadership. These moments of collective mourning have historically provided rare opportunities for unity beyond partisan divides.
Moving beyond personality politics reveals the deeper currents at work. Much of the current discourse focuses on Hichilema's perceived emotional detachment — a superficial reading that misses the institutional forces driving this situation. Political parties may come and go, but the Zambian state endures, maintaining protocols that ensure national continuity.
Hichilema's measured approach reflects his background as a business person who prioritises process over performance. His restrained demeanor represents not a deficiency but a different style — another step in Zambia's political evolution. Each of the country's leaders has brought distinct qualities: Kenneth Kaunda's emotional appeals, Frederick Chiluba's populist charisma, Levy Mwanawasa's technocratic precision, Rupiah Banda's diplomatic statesmanship, Michael Sata's sharp-tongued populism and Lungu's approachable dignity.
The weight of sovereignty adds another dimension to this dispute. For African nations still building institutional frameworks, asserting state autonomy marks the difference between countries governed by rules and those governed by personalities. When Zambia insists on following protocol for its former leaders, it demonstrates institutional maturity that strengthens democratic foundations.
This transcends the immediate political moment. The state's position on Lungu's repatriation isn't about the man himself but about establishing precedents that future generations will inherit. In an uncertain global order where institutionally weak states often find themselves vulnerable to external pressures, such assertions of sovereignty carry particular weight.
The challenge now lies in finding common ground that respects all parties involved. As negotiations continue between the Lungu family and the Zambian government, both sides face the task of balancing competing imperatives. The state must maintain its protocols and sovereign prerogatives while the family deserves respect for their grief and personal wishes. A solution that acknowledges both institutional requirements and familial concerns would demonstrate the kind of mature statecraft that builds rather than divides nations.
The current standoff ultimately reflects larger questions about state-building in contemporary Africa. When Zambia insists on bringing former president Lungu home, it reaffirms not just its sovereignty but its commitment to institutional continuity — a foundation increasingly crucial for the continent's future stability.
This isn't merely about one former president's final resting place. It's about cementing the institutional foundations that distinguish enduring states from fragile ones. In that sense, Zambia's position represents something larger than politics: it represents the ongoing work of building lasting democratic institutions in post-colonial Africa.
Dr Mundia Kabinga teaches post-graduate and executive education modules in business, government and society at the University of Cape Town's Graduate School of Business. He also serves as visiting faculty and research fellow at the Fernfachhochschule Schweiz in Brig, Switzerland.