By Tonderai Godknows Mapfumo
An Austrian School Perspective on Amnesty International’s 2026 Briefing
I. Introduction: The Broken Promise of 2021
HARARE – IN August 2021, Hakainde Hichilema ascended to Zambia’s presidency carrying the hopes of a nation weary of authoritarian rule. His victory was celebrated as a democratic renaissance—a repudiation of the increasingly repressive Patriotic Front era and a reaffirmation of Zambia’s place as a beacon of democratic governance in southern Africa. The new president promised reforms: the repeal of criminal defamation of the president, the abolition of the death penalty, and the enactment of an Access to Information Act.
Yet on the eve of the August 2026 general elections, Amnesty International has released a damning briefing titled “Authoritarian Practices Eating Away at Human Rights in Zambia.” The report documents an “alarming regression” into authoritarian practices that undermine human rights, restrict freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly through repressive laws, intimidation, and surveillance.
For those who view political economy through the lens of Austrian economics, this is not merely a human rights crisis—it is a profound governance challenge with serious consequences for economic development, institutional trust, and the long-term prosperity of the Zambian people. This article examines the Amnesty International findings through an Austrian framework, analyzing how the suppression of civil liberties, the weaponization of law, and the erosion of the rule of law systematically dismantle the foundations upon which sustainable economic growth is built.
II. The Amnesty International Findings: A Pattern of Regression
The Amnesty International briefing, released just days before Zambia’s August 13 general elections, paints a troubling picture of a government that has “resorted to the familiar playbook of using the law to criminalize peaceful dissent and silence independent media.” Tigere Chagutah, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East and Southern Africa, captured the disillusionment succinctly:
“In 2021, Zambians voted in the hope for change following promises to respect human rights. Instead, authorities have resorted to the familiar playbook of using the law to criminalize peaceful dissent and silence independent media.”
2.1 The Legislative Arsenal of Repression
Amnesty International’s investigation, based on interviews conducted in May 2026 with 14 human rights defenders, seven journalists, four student leaders, and two opposition politicians, documents a systematic pattern of harassment, intimidation, and legal persecution. Central to this crackdown are several pieces of legislation that have been weaponized against dissent:
The Cyber Crimes Act of 2025
The Cyber Security Act and Cyber Crimes Act of 2025 have been identified as particularly pernicious tools for silencing government critics. According to Amnesty International:
“The Cyber Crimes Act, particularly its provisions relating to defamation and harassment, raises serious concerns for human rights including the right to freedom of expression. It has become a tool to silence independent media and government critics, and to suppress public debate at a time when scrutiny of government actions and media freedom are essential ahead of the elections.”
The arrest of Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation journalist MacPherson Mukuka in July 2026 exemplifies this pattern. Mukuka was detained for allegedly recording and sharing a private conversation involving public officials discussing election tactics. Amnesty International’s Tshidi Leatswe warned that:
“Using these criminal laws against journalists for carrying out their work can create a climate of fear. Journalists, whistleblowers, and sources may become reluctant to investigate or report on matters of public interest because they fear prosecution. That kind of self-censorship undermines accountability.”
The Proposed Non-Governmental Organizations Bill
The proposed NGO Bill currently before Parliament has drawn sharp criticism for granting the government “excessive powers over the registration, regulation, suspension and dissolution of civil society organizations.” Chagutah noted:
“The intention appears to be the selective use of these powers to curtail the work of civil society organizations, by weakening their vital role in promoting transparency, accountability, and human rights.”
The Public Order Act and the Rejected Public Gatherings Bill
Despite repeated calls for reform, the colonial-era Public Order Act remains in effect, imposing “severe restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly.” While Parliament passed a replacement Public Gatherings Bill on May 12, 2026, President Hichilema declined to assent to it, citing inconsistencies with judicial precedent. This leaves the repressive colonial-era law in force, continuing to enable the “selective use of these powers to curtail” civic participation.
2.2 The Shrinking of Civic Space
The cancellation of RightsCon—the largest global tech and human rights conference—in Zambia in May 2026 serves as a stark symbol of the shrinking civic space. The briefing concludes that authorities have “created an environment conducive to abuses ahead of the general elections.”
This pattern of repression has been described by one Zambian media outlet as a “serious clampdown on free speech and legitimate dissent,” with “politically motivated violations” involving “state actors with the most notorious ones being law enforcement agencies and the courts.” The result, according to Amnesty International, is “weaker accountability for human rights violations, erosion of the rule of law, and increasing barriers to access information.”
III. An Austrian Economic Analysis: The Costs of Repression
From the perspective of Austrian economics, the repression documented by Amnesty International is not merely a political or moral failing—it is a significant impediment with profound implications for Zambia’s development trajectory. The Austrian school, with its emphasis on the role of institutions, the knowledge problem, and the importance of individual freedom for economic calculation, provides a powerful framework for understanding why the erosion of civil liberties systematically undermines prosperity.
3.1 The Rule of Law as a Foundation for Economic Calculation
For Austrian economists following in the tradition of Friedrich Hayek, the rule of law is not a luxury but a necessity for economic calculation. Hayek argued that a functioning market economy requires a stable legal framework in which individuals can make decisions with reasonable certainty about the consequences of their actions. This predictability enables the price system to function as a mechanism for communicating dispersed knowledge throughout the economy.
When the law becomes a weapon of political repression, this foundation crumbles. The weaponization of Zambia’s Cyber Crimes Act against journalists and political opponents introduces radical uncertainty into the business environment. Entrepreneurs cannot calculate risks when the laws under which they operate can be selectively enforced against government critics. The “climate of fear” that Amnesty International documents is not merely a human rights concern—it is a fundamental disruption of the information economy that drives innovation and growth.
The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises understood that private property and free markets are insufficient for prosperity without the rule of law that protects those institutions. When governments use legal instruments to silence critics, they signal that property rights are equally vulnerable to political manipulation. The proposed NGO Bill, which would give the government “excessive powers over the registration, regulation, suspension and dissolution of civil society organizations,” threatens the associational freedoms that underpin the discovery and dissemination of economic knowledge.
3.2 The Knowledge Problem and the Suppression of Dissent
Hayek’s seminal insight about the knowledge problem—that economic information is dispersed among countless individuals and cannot be centralized—has profound implications for understanding the economic costs of political repression. When a government suppresses dissent, it is not merely silencing critics; it is systematically destroying the channels through which vital information flows.
The crackdown on independent media, the harassment of journalists, the “persistent harassment, intimidation, alleged unlawful surveillance and criminal investigations” that journalists face when covering “allegations of government corruption and rights abuses”—all of these actions block the transmission of knowledge essential to rational economic calculation.
In the Austrian framework, the process of discovery is what drives economic progress. Entrepreneurs discover new opportunities, new methods of production, and new ways of satisfying consumer demand. But this discovery process requires freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the ability to criticize and challenge established power. When the state uses legal instruments to suppress dissent, it extinguishes the creative destruction that Schumpeter identified as the engine of capitalism.
The “self-censorship” that Amnesty International warns about has economic consequences that extend far beyond journalism. When citizens fear reprisal for criticizing the government, they withdraw from all forms of public engagement—including the economic risk-taking that drives growth. This chilling effect reduces the flow of information, distorts price signals, and undermines the dynamic efficiency of the market process.
3.3 The Corruption of Information and Investment
The repression documented by Amnesty International is inextricably linked to corruption. As one analysis notes, the “weaponization” of laws “against political opponents or other critics of the government” creates a “perception of political persecution and regional and ethnic bias which can endanger social stability.” This corruption of the legal system has direct economic costs.
When laws are applied “in a selective manner against political opponents or other critics of the government,” the rule of law is replaced by the rule of men. The price system can only function effectively when participants can rely on contracts being enforced predictably and consistently. When the legal system becomes an instrument of political power, property rights become contingent on political loyalty, and the cost of economic activity rises dramatically.
The economic consequences are visible in Zambia’s deteriorating investment climate. The BTI 2026 Country Report notes that “economic conditions deteriorated markedly in 2024” with “inflation remained above 15% for much of the year, while economic growth slowed significantly.” While many factors contribute to these outcomes, the erosion of the rule of law plays a central role. Investors require predictability, and a government that uses cyber laws to arrest journalists, bans opposition rallies, and seeks excessive control over civil society organizations sends a clear signal that it is willing to sacrifice legal stability for political advantage.
3.4 The Moral Hazard of Institutional Capture
From an Austrian perspective, the capture of the judiciary and law enforcement by political interests represents a severe breakdown of institutional integrity. The arrest of “nearly all the potential challengers” to President Hichilema in the August elections suggests a systematic use of the state apparatus to neutralize political competition.
This creates a profound moral hazard: when the institutions responsible for enforcing laws become the instruments of the political elite, there is no independent mechanism to hold the government accountable. The economic consequences are severe. As the Amnesty International briefing documents, “these laws have not only been used as the key tools for restricting dissent but also unleashing the punitive power of the state.”
The Austrian economist Murray Rothbard argued that the state’s monopoly on coercive force must be constrained by institutional mechanisms that prevent its abuse. When those mechanisms are captured, the state becomes a predation machine that extracts wealth from the productive sectors of the economy. The ability to selectively prosecute opponents, to ban public gatherings, to silence critical media—these are not merely political powers; they are economic powers that allow the government to reward its supporters and punish its opponents at will.
3.5 The Cost of Uncertainty and the Retreat from Investment
Perhaps the most direct economic consequence of the repression documented by Amnesty International is the uncertainty it creates. Austrian economics emphasizes that uncertainty—particularly uncertainty about the actions of the state—is the enemy of economic calculation. When businesses cannot predict which laws will be enforced against them or their partners, they reduce investment, defer expansion, and hoard cash rather than deploying capital productively.
The “climate of fear” that Amnesty International documents is not confined to journalists and human rights defenders. It permeates the entire society, creating an environment in which economic actors prefer safe, low-return investments to risky, high-potential ventures. This capital allocation distorts the economy, channels resources toward politically connected sectors, and reduces the overall productivity of the economy.
The cancellation of RightsCon in Zambia symbolizes this dynamic. A global conference that would have brought investment, expertise, and attention to Zambia was effectively prevented by the shrinking civic space. This is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern in which economic opportunity is sacrificed to political control.
IV. President Hichilema’s Tarnished Legacy
The Amnesty International briefing presents a particularly painful irony for President Hakainde Hichilema. A man who spent years in political opposition, who was jailed and harassed by the authoritarian regime of Edgar Lungu, who promised a new era of democratic reform and human rights respect, has overseen the very pattern of repression he once endured.
4.1 The Broken Promise of Reform
When Hichilema came to power in 2021, the hopes for change were genuine. His administration did make some commendable reforms: the repeal of criminal defamation of the president, the abolition of the death penalty, and the enactment of the Access to Information Act. The BTI 2026 Country Report notes that “under Hichilema, pressure on civil society has eased significantly” compared to the Lungu era.
Yet Amnesty International’s briefing documents that “these gains have been undermined by the alleged misuse of laws and the criminal justice system to suppress peaceful dissent and consolidate political power.” The pattern of repression includes:
· Selective prosecution: “When prosecution is politicized, it risks creating a perception of political persecution and regional and ethnic bias which can endanger social stability.” The arrests of opposition leaders, including “Mporokoso MP and Tonse Alliance presidential candidate Brian Mundubile, Socialist Party president Dr Fred M’membe, Zambia Must Prosper president Kelvin Fube Bwalya, Christian Democratic Party president Professor Dan Pule, Nkana MP Binwell Mpundu, National Democratic Party president Saboil Imboela,” suggest a systematic pattern of targeting political competition.
· Suppression of peaceful assembly: “Hichilema has banned opposition political parties from holding public rallies to engage with the people” while “UPND has been criss-crossing the country addressing public rallies without any hindrance.” This inequality before the law contradicts the democratic principles Hichilema once championed.
· Weaponization of cyber laws: The use of the Cyber Crimes Act against journalists like MacPherson Mukuka replicates the very tactics used against Hichilema when he was in opposition.
4.2 The Ethical Dimension: From Oppressor to Oppressed
The ethical implications of Hichilema’s trajectory are profound. A man who suffered political persecution has become the architect of a system that persecutes others. This is not merely a political failure; it is a moral tragedy that tarnishes the legacy of Zambia’s democratic hopes.
As one Zambian media outlet observed:
“The increasing abuse of human rights in our country is tarnishing its international image. Reports being released by reputable global human rights watchdogs, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have cited a deteriorating human rights situation.”
The Hichilema administration’s response to criticism has been defensive rather than corrective. Chief government spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa has “rubbed the [Human Rights Watch] report as untrue,” dismissing serious allegations rather than addressing them substantively. This defensiveness suggests a government more concerned with image management than with the substance of reform.
4.3 The Electoral Context: Repression as Political Strategy
The timing of the repression documented by Amnesty International is particularly significant. The briefing was released just three days before Zambia’s August 13 general elections. The pattern of arrests of opposition leaders, the restriction of public meetings, and the climate of fear appears calculated to tilt the electoral playing field in favor of the incumbent.
This use of state power to suppress political competition is the hallmark of authoritarian governance. It betrays the promise Hichilema made in 2021—to “revers[e] a growing pattern of authoritarian practices that threaten human rights.” Instead, Amnesty International concludes that authorities have “created an environment conducive to abuses ahead of the general elections.”
V. The Intergenerational Consequences
The original observation that inspired this article raised a haunting question: what will the children of the oppressed inherit? The Austrian economic framework suggests that the consequences of political repression extend far beyond the current generation.
5.1 The Transmission of Institutional Dysfunction
When institutions—the judiciary, the police, the legal system—become instruments of political power, the dysfunction is transmitted across generations. A child born into a society where laws are selectively enforced, where journalists are arrested, and where political dissent is criminalized inherits a legacy of institutional failure.
The “climate of fear” becomes embedded in the culture. Self-censorship becomes habitual. Trust in institutions erodes. The intergenerational transmission of these patterns is subtle but powerful: children learn from their parents which subjects are safe to discuss, which criticisms are permitted, and which forms of engagement carry risk.
5.2 The Economic Legacy of Repression
The Austrian economic framework illuminates how political repression creates a poverty trap. When the rule of law is weak, investment is suppressed. When civil society is constrained, the discovery process is hindered. When information is controlled, economic calculation becomes unreliable.
Zambia’s economic challenges—”inflation remained above 15% for much of the year, while economic growth slowed significantly”—are not unrelated to the political repression documented by Amnesty International. The “growing pattern of misuse of laws and the criminal justice system to suppress peaceful dissent and entrench political power” creates an environment in which economic dynamism cannot flourish.
The children of today’s Zambia will inherit not only the economic consequences of this repression—the poverty, the poor infrastructure, the limited opportunities—but also the institutional dysfunction that perpetuates these conditions. Breaking this cycle requires confronting the authoritarian drift and restoring the rule of law.
5.3 The Legitimacy Deficit
The tragedy of Hichilema’s trajectory is compounded by the loss of legitimacy that follows from betraying democratic promises. When a leader elected on a reform mandate implements policies indistinguishable from the authoritarianism he once opposed, public trust is destroyed. As the BTI 2026 report notes, “satisfaction with democracy” peaked when “70% of citizens said they were ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ satisfied in Afrobarometer Round 9, with this share falling to 54% by Round 10 in 2024.”
This legitimacy deficit has economic consequences. The Austrian school recognizes that social cooperation requires trust—trust in contracts, trust in institutions, trust in the predictability of the legal system. When this trust is eroded, the transaction costs of economic activity rise, and the gains from trade are diminished.
VI. Conclusion: Restoring Freedom, Rebuilding Prosperity
The Amnesty International briefing is a stark warning about Zambia’s democratic trajectory. The “alarming regression into authoritarian practices that undermine human rights and participation in government” is not merely a political crisis—it is a significant economic concern that threatens the nation’s long-term prosperity.
From the Austrian perspective, the path forward is clear. The restoration of the rule of law is not just a human rights necessity but an economic imperative. The “comprehensive legal reform” that Amnesty International calls for would reduce uncertainty, restore trust, and create the conditions for sustainable growth.
Specifically, the Zambian government must:
- Repeal repressive legislation: The Public Order Act, the provisions of the Cyber Crimes Act that suppress expression, and the proposed NGO Bill must be withdrawn or reformed to bring them into compliance with international human rights standards.
- End selective prosecution: The use of the legal system to silence critics and neutralize political competition must cease. As Amnesty International urges, “candidates contesting the elections should commit to reversing what the organization considers a growing pattern of authoritarian practices.”
- Ensure inclusive law-making: The “fast-tracked processes” through which laws affecting civic space are passed “significantly affects public participation in the law-making process.” Full public consultation must be restored.
The Austrian economic tradition teaches us that freedom and prosperity are inseparable. The “climate of fear” that Amnesty International documents is a climate of economic stagnation. The “shrinking civic space” is a shrinking space for innovation, discovery, and growth.
President Hichilema won the 2021 election on a promise to reverse authoritarian practices. The Amnesty International briefing documents that he has failed to fulfill that promise. The tragedy is that this failure harms not only those targeted by repression but all Zambians who suffer the economic consequences of a state that has abandoned the rule of law.
The question posed by the original observation remains urgent: what will the children of today’s Zambia inherit? If the current trajectory continues, they will inherit a legacy of institutional dysfunction, economic stagnation, and unresolved grievances. If the democratic promise is restored, they will inherit a nation that has learned the painful lesson that freedom is the foundation of prosperity.
Amnesty International has provided the evidence. The Zambian government must now provide the reform. And the children of those who have been silenced, jailed, and persecuted deserve a future in which they can build their lives in freedom, dignity, and peace.
Tonderai Godknows Mapfumo is the Research and Advocacy Officer for COMALISO (Coalition for Market and Liberal Solutions) in Zimbabwe and an Associate of the Free Market Foundation.
Discover more from Etimes
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.