Why community engagement and dialogue are key for Zimbabwe's development

Communities are the backbone of any country.

I was recently privileged to moderate the Multi-Stakeholders Dialogue on Bridging Community Solutions and National Policy - organized by the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT) and held in Harare - a profoundly enlightening experience that reshaped my understanding of participatory governance.

As I listened to participants from Kadoma, Mutare, Rusape and beyond - youth, councillors, community leaders, civil society activists, and Members of Parliament - it became overwhelmingly clear that the future of Zimbabwe's development lies not in top-down governance, but in amplifying the voices of ordinary citizens.

This gathering was not just an event.

It was a compelling reminder that the people who live with the country's challenges are also best placed to craft the most effective, realistic, and sustainable solutions.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08

In a country where public participation in national decision-making remains shallow and often performative, this dialogue model underscored the urgent need to rethink how we govern and how policies are formulated.

For too long, Zimbabwe has operated on the assumption that government alone possesses the expertise to identify national challenges and prescribe solutions.

What we have witnessed, however, is a troubling pattern of misdiagnosed problems, imposed interventions, and ultimately failed reforms.

The root of these failures is the absence of community input and ownership.

From the dialogue, several examples stood out.

In Kadoma, participants confronted the worsening state of water and sanitation services.

The discussion revealed not only a clear understanding of the infrastructural failures but also well-considered proposals - from solar-powered boreholes to participatory budget oversight.

These were not abstract ideas from consultants in boardrooms, but practical solutions informed by lived experience.

In Mutare, youth groups exposed the painful realities of drug and substance abuse, calling it a national crisis exacerbated by unemployment and economic despair.

Their calls for representation in the incoming National Drug Agency, and their use of social media and community radio to spread awareness, were both innovative and actionable.

Rusape's residents, too, made a compelling case for licensing community radio stations, arguing that local media is a cornerstone of both democratic participation and development.

These solutions, generated from the grassroots, should not remain confined to community halls or workshop reports.

They must be absorbed into the bloodstream of national policymaking.

Community dialogue, when taken seriously, serves as both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool.

It identifies challenges with nuance, and proposes solutions rooted in contextual understanding.

Yet for this to work, the national policy process must change.

It must become permeable to local knowledge and community insight.

Mechanisms must be established to ensure that ideas and resolutions born out of ward-level discussions can reach Parliament and ministerial boardrooms.

These could include structured channels such as community representation in portfolio committee hearings, a formalized national feedback mechanism from grassroots dialogue platforms, or even localized citizen assemblies whose outputs are reviewed quarterly by government departments.

What became evident at the dialogue is that when communities are meaningfully involved in defining both problems and solutions, they develop a strong sense of ownership.

This in turn generates a higher likelihood of success.

Solutions emerging from within a community are seen as legitimate and relevant, thus encouraging buy-in and participation.

A community that believes “this is our plan” is more motivated to ensure that the plan is implemented, protected, and adjusted when necessary.

Participation transforms citizens from passive recipients of policy into active agents of change.

Unfortunately, this is in stark contrast with the prevailing state of affairs in Zimbabwe, where central government continues to monopolize the process of identifying and addressing national challenges.

Decisions are frequently made in isolation, often in response to political considerations rather than empirical realities.

In this model, consultations are minimal or symbolic, and policies are implemented in a one-size-fits-all manner.

Predictably, many of these policies fail.

Consider the countless economic blueprints that have come and gone with little impact, or the repeated attempts at curbing informal trade without understanding the structural reasons driving people into that sector.

The result is a cycle of mistrust, resistance, and failure.

Worse still, when communities are excluded from dialogue, their voices are silenced, their knowledge dismissed, and their frustrations deepen.

Government programs that might have worked with proper local engagement are instead met with skepticism or apathy.

In some cases, such imposed interventions have even caused harm, entrenching inequalities or triggering unrest.

Public policy that ignores the people it claims to serve is not only inefficient; it is undemocratic.

This is not to say that government has no role.

Rather, its role must evolve.

Government should see itself as a facilitator, not merely a director.

Its responsibility is to listen, to create space for dialogue, and to ensure that community-generated ideas are not only heard but acted upon.

It should coordinate resources, provide technical support, and help scale up what works at local levels.

But most importantly, it must relinquish the belief that all wisdom resides in ministries and state agencies.

There is a profound dignity in being heard.

The people of Zimbabwe have ideas, solutions, and aspirations.

They understand their contexts better than anyone else.

They are not merely complaining; they are thinking, planning, and hoping.

All they need is a state that values their voices.

The model introduced by IFIT and its partners is not just an innovation; it is a necessity.

It offers a blueprint for a more responsive, inclusive, and democratic Zimbabwe.

One where water solutions come from those who queue daily at dry taps, where youth drug policies are shaped by those recovering from addiction, and where media laws are informed by communities yearning for representation and freedom.

As a country, we must move beyond seeing dialogue as an event or a checkbox.

It must become a governance ethic.

Every ward, district, and province should have structured spaces for regular, inclusive dialogue.

These conversations must be linked directly to policy planning, resourcing, and evaluation.

Feedback loops must be institutionalized, and transparency ensured in how citizen ideas are received and integrated.

In the end, governance is only as strong as its ability to respond to the people it serves.

And that response begins by listening.

Zimbabwe cannot afford to continue crafting national policy in a vacuum.

The time has come to center community dialogue - not on the margins of policymaking, but at its very heart.

When communities speak, nations progress.

● Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/