Mnangagwa-Chiwenga power struggle puts military in focus

As Zimbabwe marks Defence Forces Day following yesterday's Heroes' Day commemorations, the evolving balance of power between President Emmerson Mnangagwa and Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga remains one of the most important factors in understanding the country's political succession dynamics.

At the heart of Zimbabwe's political system is an uneasy relationship between party authority, constitutional power and the enduring influence of the military.

Mnangagwa currently controls the formal instruments of state power and has significant influence over ZANU PF's political structures, while Chiwenga retains deep-rooted relationships and historical standing within the security establishment.

That balance has become increasingly important as the ruling party grapples with the question of succession.

Although recent constitutional changes have formally reinforced the principle that the security services should remain politically neutral and operate within their constitutional mandate, the military continues to occupy an important position in Zimbabwe's political calculations.

For many analysts, the central question is therefore not simply who controls ZANU PF, but who commands sufficient influence over the institutions capable of determining the outcome of an internal power struggle.

The current rivalry is particularly significant because Mnangagwa and Chiwenga were once central partners in the operation that brought down former President Robert Mugabe in November 2017.

Mugabe had ruled Zimbabwe for 37 years and controlled ZANU PF for four decades. His political dominance was built on a combination of liberation-war credentials, patronage, political control and coercive state institutions.

Yet by 2017, his position had become increasingly vulnerable.

Mnangagwa brought extensive liberation-war credentials, political experience and influence within ZANU PF, while Chiwenga was the country's military commander and possessed significant standing within the armed forces.

Their interests converged when Mugabe dismissed Mnangagwa as vice-president, a move widely interpreted as clearing the way for Grace Mugabe and the Generation 40 faction to play a larger role in determining the succession.

The military subsequently intervened, placing tanks on the streets of Harare and forcing Mugabe into negotiations that ultimately resulted in his resignation.

The episode demonstrated the importance of the security establishment in Zimbabwean succession politics and cemented the Mnangagwa-Chiwenga alliance that would dominate the post-Mugabe era.

The relationship can be examined through the framework developed by political scientist Milan W. Svolik in his work on authoritarian politics.

Svolik argues that authoritarian rulers face two fundamental challenges.

The first is controlling the population, while the second is managing the elites upon whom the regime depends.

The second challenge is particularly important because authoritarian leaders must share power with individuals who possess the resources and institutional positions necessary to keep the regime functioning — but those same elites can eventually become threats to the leader.

The military is a classic example.

A ruler may depend on the armed forces to preserve political order and protect the regime from mass challenges. Yet empowering the military also creates a powerful institution capable of challenging the ruler himself.

This creates what can be described as an authoritarian power-sharing dilemma.

Zimbabwe's 2017 transition offered a striking illustration of that dilemma.

Mugabe had accumulated enormous political authority, but his ability to manage competing elites had weakened. The military, once a key pillar of his rule, eventually became instrumental in ending his presidency.

Svolik's analysis also helps explain the importance of ruling parties such as ZANU PF.

Authoritarian ruling parties can function as organised hierarchies through which political leaders distribute patronage, positions and resources to cadres in exchange for loyalty and political service.

This creates a system in which senior and junior elites become stakeholders in the survival of the ruling order.

ZANU PF has survived for decades partly because it has been able to integrate political, economic and security interests into a relatively durable ruling coalition.

But such systems contain an inherent contradiction.

The more a leader relies on powerful elites to maintain political control, the more powerful those elites become.

And when rival elites begin competing over succession, the institutions that previously guaranteed stability can become instruments of internal contestation.

This is where the Mnangagwa-Chiwenga relationship becomes critical.

Mnangagwa's strength lies primarily in his control of the constitutional machinery of government and his influence over ZANU PF's political structures.

Chiwenga, meanwhile, carries the institutional legacy of the military establishment and the historical credibility that comes from his role in the liberation struggle and subsequent command of the armed forces.

That does not automatically mean that the military supports Chiwenga in a potential succession contest, nor does it establish that the security services would intervene on his behalf.

Rather, it demonstrates why the military's institutional position remains central to calculations surrounding Zimbabwe's political future.

The events of 2017 showed that security institutions can become decisive when a ruling coalition fractures.

The current succession contest therefore cannot be understood purely as a battle between competing political factions.

It is also a contest over influence, alliances and the ability of competing elites to maintain the coalition necessary to exercise power.

The deeper issue facing ZANU PF is whether the party can manage succession without reproducing the instability that accompanied Mugabe's final years.

Mnangagwa has repeatedly faced pressure over the question of whether he should remain in office beyond the constitutional limit, while Chiwenga has emerged as a central figure among those advocating for a leadership transition within the ruling party.

The outcome will depend not only on party structures but also on the configuration of political, economic and security elites surrounding the two men.

Zimbabwe's experience since independence demonstrates that formal constitutional arrangements do not always tell the entire story of how political power is exercised.

The military may be constitutionally required to remain politically neutral, but its institutional strength and historical role mean that its relationship with political power remains closely watched.

As Zimbabwe celebrates its Defence Forces, the country's succession debate therefore raises a broader question: has Zimbabwe moved far enough from the political model that produced the 2017 military-assisted transition, or does the security establishment still hold the potential to become the ultimate arbiter when ruling elites fall out?

That question will remain central to the country's political trajectory as the Mnangagwa-Chiwenga rivalry and the wider ZANU PF succession contest intensify.