When Zambian President Michael Sata died in London last week after being sick for some time, Western media (and some on Twitter) spent little time reflecting on his rule (basically a neoliberal disaster coupled with economic nationalism, out-and-out xenophobia towards Chinese, and him having a massive temper). Instead, people who never write about Africa or who couldn’t locate Zambia on a map were more interested in Guy Scott, Sata’s vice president and the stand-in leader till the next presidential elections early next year. Buzzfeed, not known for writing about acting presidents, cut and pasted his various sayings as if he were Barack Obama. What, of course, interested the media, especially British media, who are, after all, the former colonisers there, was that Guy Scott was white.

CNN declared, “Zambia’s Guy Scott makes history as white president in sub-Saharan Africa.”  In any case, as Neelika Jayawardane reminded Al Jazeera America readers, Scott is not the first white leader of a democratic African country. For example, Paul Berenger, a white Mauritian of French descent, served as the island’s first non-Hindu prime minister from 2003 to 2005.

For apologists of Apartheid or UDI in Rhodesia, your various racist white dictators don’t count.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Telegraph decided Scott was elected; something that surprised Zambians.  @MissBwalya asked on Twitter: “I’m Africa’s First White Democratic Leader.” – Guy Scott, according to the UK Telegraph. Uhm, did I miss the election? #Zambia

Even the BBC jumped on the bandwagon, with the story as the top headline simultaneously on BBC News Africa, BBC News, and BBC Worldwide.

South African political scientist and newspaper columnist Steven Friedman wondered on Facebook: “”I keep on reading and hearing from local and European media that acting Zambian President Guy Scott is ‘Africa’s first white President in 20 years’. Can someone help me–how many black Presidents or heads of government has Europe had in the last 20 years? In the last 500 years?”

In any case, Scott may not qualify to become President. Zambia’s constitution (changed on the behest of its first post-1990 president Frederick Chiluba) mandates that only people whose parents were born in Zambia can run for president. (Though below Aaron Leaf suggests that’s not so cut and dried.)

Guy Scott is politically interesting of course, with a mix of populist (we’re sure a lot of people chuckled at how he characterized South Africans) and some backward views (see what he thinks of gay rights, for example). And, he wasn’t even in the job a few days, when he incited a riot over firing an official of the ruling party (he was trying to get rid of a political rival.)

But we need analysis. We still trying to get together a few Zambia experts to write something on Sata’s rule (something like we did with debating the future of trade union-led political movenments in South Africa). Meanwhile we suggest reading Laura Miti’s essay on 50 years of Zambian independence (celebrated last month) and these essays by Neelika Jayawardane (on Al Jazeera America) and Aaron Leaf (on Quartz) on the “Guy Scott is white and that’s important” meme. Here’s excerpts from Neelika and Aaron’s pieces.

Leaf points out that Scott’s whiteness has mattered more to outsiders than to Zambians. He recalls watching Scott speaking fluently in Nyanja and Bemba before dancing the Patriotic Front’s signature moves—earning louder cheers than even Sata, at a political rally in 2008. Though Cambridge-educated, Scott mirrors Sata, “his long-time political mentor”: pro-investment, pro-mining royalties, and populist. Active in politics since the 1990s, he champions African nationalism, has a close relationship with and praises Robert Mugabe, and is critical of Chinese businesses in Zambia. While many claim he’s ineligible for the presidency due to his Scottish-born parents, Leaf quotes legal expert Elias Munshya, who argues otherwise. According to Munshya, because there was no concept of citizenship in Zambia under British colonialism, “residents of Zambia at independence became Zambian.” This puts Scott’s candidacy claims, says Munshya, on equal footing with anyone else whose parents were born before 1964. But Scott’s chances of getting elected are much harder to predict. Leaf quotes Munshya: “It could go either way. The Patriotic Front is divided at the moment. If the party rallies behind him and the Supreme Court rules on his candidacy, he stands a chance to win.”

Neelika reminds her readers that Scott was often seen as a sideshow during the 2011 elections—ridiculed as bumbling and lacking authority. Yet “Uncle Scotty” is deeply Zambian, even if prone to gaffes and conservative views; “…the list of his faux pas is as long as Zambians’ legendary patience with its elderly patriarchs.” According to Neelika, his time as acting president after Sata’s death has been uneventful, aside from firing and reinstating Zambia’s Minister of Defence and the ruling Patriotic Front party’s secretary-general, Edgar Lungu. That resulted in mild street protests. Scott’s undiplomatic statements and fear of change—such as his discomfort with LGBTQ+ rights—underscore his limitations.  His economic policy is conservative: “There’s going to be none of that free education and free health care, as was the dream during Kenneth Kaunda’s heady years.” This leads Neelika to conclude: “All this minor trauma-drama should tell us: the second white man to head a democratic African nation is not going to change a thing. Relax, people.”