Opinion / Columnist
The Looming Political Storm: Can Zimbabwe afford another military-backed leader?
16 hrs ago | Views
As Zimbabwe hurtles toward the planned 31 March protests, a political storm is brewing. The calls for Vice President Constantino Chiwenga to take over from President Emmerson Mnangagwa are growing louder, with some, like Blessed Geza, arguing that Mnangagwa has failed to lead the country out of economic turmoil. But would a Chiwenga presidency be any different, or are Zimbabweans merely swapping one crisis for another?
The Military's Grip on Power
To understand the implications of a Chiwenga takeover, we must first acknowledge the deep-rooted military influence in Zimbabwean politics. Chiwenga, a former army general, played a crucial role in the 2017 coup that removed Robert Mugabe. His political ideology remains closely tied to the military establishment. This is not a leader who rose through democratic means but one whose power is cemented in military strategy and command.
A telling moment was Chiwenga's declaration that Zimbabwe will never be ruled by anyone who did not participate in the liberation struggle. This statement alone is enough to raise red flags about the kind of governance he would bring. It signals an unwillingness to embrace inclusive democracy and a likely continuation of the political exclusion that has long plagued Zimbabwe.
A Change in Leadership, But Not in Direction
Mnangagwa's tenure has been marked by economic decay, corruption, and repression. The argument that Chiwenga could do better rests on shaky ground. Would he suddenly develop the economic expertise that has eluded Mnangagwa? Would he root out corruption when he himself is deeply embedded in the ruling elite?
Historically, military-backed regimes have rarely translated into economic prosperity. If anything, a Chiwenga presidency could deepen authoritarian rule, as his leadership style is likely to be more rigid, enforcing order through military discipline rather than political reform. Zimbabweans should be cautious about mistaking a change of faces for a change in governance.
The Risk of a Political Crisis
The planned 31 March protests add another layer of uncertainty. With growing discontent, the nation is walking a tightrope between necessary civic action and the potential for violent state suppression. Zimbabwe's history is littered with moments where protests have been met with brutal crackdowns. If Chiwenga steps in during or after these protests, his first instinct may be to impose military-style control to “restore order.”
The risk here is clear: a leader who views power as an entitlement rather than a responsibility is unlikely to open up democratic space. Instead, Zimbabwe could witness a more entrenched militarized state where dissent is crushed even more aggressively.
What Zimbabweans Must Consider
Before rallying behind Chiwenga as an alternative to Mnangagwa, Zimbabweans must ask themselves:
1. Does replacing one liberation war veteran with another solve our governance crisis?
2. Will a military-backed leader be more democratic or more authoritarian?
3. Is Zimbabwe's real problem leadership personalities, or the system that enables elite rule at the expense of ordinary citizens?
Chiwenga's rise to power would not be the fresh start Zimbabwe needs. If anything, it would be a reinforcement of the old guard's grip on the nation. Zimbabwe's political salvation does not lie in military men swapping seats but in a genuine shift toward democratic governance that allows new, capable leaders to emerge.
As the 31 March protests approach, citizens must weigh their actions carefully. Protests may amplify public frustration, but without a clear vision of what follows, they risk opening the door to a leader who could be even more repressive. The real question Zimbabweans must answer is not whether Chiwenga should replace Mnangagwa, but whether they are ready to break free from military rule altogether.
If the people truly desire change, the solution does not lie in another general but in the pursuit of real democracy.
Nomalizwe Mbulu is a political analyst specializing in Southern African politics.
The Military's Grip on Power
To understand the implications of a Chiwenga takeover, we must first acknowledge the deep-rooted military influence in Zimbabwean politics. Chiwenga, a former army general, played a crucial role in the 2017 coup that removed Robert Mugabe. His political ideology remains closely tied to the military establishment. This is not a leader who rose through democratic means but one whose power is cemented in military strategy and command.
A telling moment was Chiwenga's declaration that Zimbabwe will never be ruled by anyone who did not participate in the liberation struggle. This statement alone is enough to raise red flags about the kind of governance he would bring. It signals an unwillingness to embrace inclusive democracy and a likely continuation of the political exclusion that has long plagued Zimbabwe.
A Change in Leadership, But Not in Direction
Mnangagwa's tenure has been marked by economic decay, corruption, and repression. The argument that Chiwenga could do better rests on shaky ground. Would he suddenly develop the economic expertise that has eluded Mnangagwa? Would he root out corruption when he himself is deeply embedded in the ruling elite?
Historically, military-backed regimes have rarely translated into economic prosperity. If anything, a Chiwenga presidency could deepen authoritarian rule, as his leadership style is likely to be more rigid, enforcing order through military discipline rather than political reform. Zimbabweans should be cautious about mistaking a change of faces for a change in governance.
The Risk of a Political Crisis
The planned 31 March protests add another layer of uncertainty. With growing discontent, the nation is walking a tightrope between necessary civic action and the potential for violent state suppression. Zimbabwe's history is littered with moments where protests have been met with brutal crackdowns. If Chiwenga steps in during or after these protests, his first instinct may be to impose military-style control to “restore order.”
The risk here is clear: a leader who views power as an entitlement rather than a responsibility is unlikely to open up democratic space. Instead, Zimbabwe could witness a more entrenched militarized state where dissent is crushed even more aggressively.
What Zimbabweans Must Consider
Before rallying behind Chiwenga as an alternative to Mnangagwa, Zimbabweans must ask themselves:
1. Does replacing one liberation war veteran with another solve our governance crisis?
2. Will a military-backed leader be more democratic or more authoritarian?
3. Is Zimbabwe's real problem leadership personalities, or the system that enables elite rule at the expense of ordinary citizens?
Chiwenga's rise to power would not be the fresh start Zimbabwe needs. If anything, it would be a reinforcement of the old guard's grip on the nation. Zimbabwe's political salvation does not lie in military men swapping seats but in a genuine shift toward democratic governance that allows new, capable leaders to emerge.
As the 31 March protests approach, citizens must weigh their actions carefully. Protests may amplify public frustration, but without a clear vision of what follows, they risk opening the door to a leader who could be even more repressive. The real question Zimbabweans must answer is not whether Chiwenga should replace Mnangagwa, but whether they are ready to break free from military rule altogether.
If the people truly desire change, the solution does not lie in another general but in the pursuit of real democracy.
Nomalizwe Mbulu is a political analyst specializing in Southern African politics.
Source - Nomalizwe Mbulu
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
