Stop dismissing and arresting everyone who criticises the president

45 years on, Zimbabwe is perhaps the only country where even the Vice President cannot publicly declare an ambition to be the next President without facing severe consequences. Under Robert Mugabe's rule, anyone who dared to challenge his leadership was either charged with treason or forced into exile including the current President, Emmerson Mnangagwa. This long-standing intolerance for political competition and dissent has shaped the nation's political culture, where any criticism of the sitting President is met with immediate hostility and dismissal. But why do we, as a country, continue to reject any form of critique directed at our leaders?

One of the primary reasons criticism of the President is dismissed is the deep political divisions within Zimbabwe. Many citizens strongly identify with political parties, seeing any attack on their leader as an attack on their personal beliefs and values. In such a polarised environment, people refuse to engage with opposing views, believing that any form of criticism is an attempt to weaken the ruling party and destabilise the government.

The government often portrays criticism as a direct threat to national stability. Zimbabwe's political discourse has long been dominated by the belief that dissent can lead to foreign interference, protests, and even regime change. This fear has been reinforced by historical events where political uprisings resulted in violence and economic instability. As a result, both the ruling elite and its supporters instinctively reject any criticism, believing that acknowledging it would empower opposition forces and create unrest.

The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. In Zimbabwe, state-controlled media outlets set the tone for political discourse, ensuring that criticism of the President is swiftly countered with government-approved narratives. When individuals or organisations raise concerns about governance, they are often dismissed as agents of foreign influence or enemies of national progress. This media environment discourages independent thinking and conditions citizens to reject any critique of leadership without assessing its validity.

In many African societies, respect for authority is deeply ingrained. Criticising a leader especially publicly is often viewed as disrespectful, rebellious, or even treasonous. This cultural perspective allows those in power to frame dissent as a moral failing rather than a necessary component of a healthy democracy. Many Zimbabweans, influenced by this mindset, perceive critics as troublemakers rather than individuals raising legitimate concerns about governance and leadership.

Criticism in Zimbabwe is often judged based on who delivers it rather than the content itself. If an opposition leader, journalist, or religious figure speaks out against the government, their remarks are immediately dismissed as politically motivated, rather than being evaluated on merit. Instead of engaging with the arguments, critics are often discredited, attacked, or accused of serving foreign interests. This selective outrage prevents constructive dialogue and reinforces the idea that only government-approved perspectives are valid.

Dismissing criticism of the President without genuine engagement weakens democracy, stifles debate, and prevents the government from addressing legitimate concerns. A strong political system should encourage constructive criticism as a means of promoting accountability, transparency, and better governance. While political loyalty and national unity are important, they should not come at the expense of open dialogue and progress. Instead of rejecting all critics as enemies, Zimbabwe must foster a culture that values diverse perspectives and encourages critical thinking for the nation's growth.