A dangerous fantasy for Zimbabwe called NTA

The call for a National Transitional Authority (NTA) in Zimbabwe is neither new nor radical, but it is profoundly misguided and alarmingly dangerous. Every few years, a chorus of defeated opposition politicians and sympathetic academics resurrects this idea as the panacea for the country's political and economic woes. This nostalgia-laden proposal, championed most recently by Dr. Ibbotson Day Joseph Mandaza, is a seductive illusion - an elitist construct masquerading as a solution for ordinary Zimbabweans.

Proponents argue that Zimbabwe faces a "crisis in governance" and "profound alienation of its citizens," and that transformative reforms are needed to pre-empt elite succession arrangements. Yet these claims are largely rhetorical gymnastics, reminiscent of Biti-esque verbal grandstanding at endless dialogue series. In reality, the so-called crisis is only partially structural; much of it is manufactured by political actors themselves who refuse to accept electoral defeat. If past elections had been respected, much of Zimbabwe's current instability would not exist.

The NTA narrative is intellectually dishonest. It proposes to dissolve political parties, sweep aside elected leaders, and centralise authority in an unelected, self-appointed elite. Here lies the contradiction: advocates claim a need for democratic transformation while simultaneously undermining the very mechanisms of democracy that confer legitimacy - elections and popular mandates. The fantasy of the NTA assumes that political legitimacy can be unilaterally bestowed by a few academics and strategists, ignoring the fundamental truth that power derives from the consent of the governed.

History offers cautionary lessons. Transitional authorities are typically a post-conflict arrangement, designed to stabilize nations emerging from war or systemic collapse. Zimbabwe, while facing economic and governance challenges, is not in a post-conflict state. Suggesting otherwise is an exercise in political opportunism, not practical reform. Attempting to impose an NTA now would be a form of constitutional illegitimacy, replacing an elected government with an ad hoc elite consensus - a dangerous precedent for any democracy.

Critically, the NTA is inherently fragmented. It relies on disparate groups, competing interests, and the elusive notion of a "third-party arbiter" to enforce authority. Who decides who joins the NTA? How are decisions legitimized? In practice, this structure risks devolving into another layer of elite capture, where the interests of ordinary citizens are subordinated to political expediency. It echoes colonial-era paternalism, reminiscent of the Rhodesian philosophy that "educated" or "qualified" elites are better suited to govern than the masses.

Furthermore, the NTA idea distracts from the real work Zimbabwe desperately needs: building a robust opposition capable of mounting a credible challenge to entrenched political powers, enforcing accountability, and mobilizing citizens around issues of governance, economic recovery, and anti-corruption. The Citizens Coalition for Change, fractured and weakened, demonstrates the consequences of disunity. Real political change comes from grassroots engagement, not self-appointed elites pontificating from think tanks and talk shows.

The media, too, bears responsibility. Selective reporting and the amplification of NTA rhetoric give the illusion of legitimacy to an otherwise undemocratic proposal. Citizens are being misled into believing that an unelected body could or should govern them. There is no constitutional pathway for an NTA; it is a construct that undermines the very principles of popular sovereignty.

Zimbabweans must recognize the danger. The perpetual cycle of election denial, elite nostalgia for transitional governments, and megaphone politics feeds instability, not reform. The real path to progress lies not in contrived transitional authorities but in strengthening institutions, defending the rule of law, and demanding accountability from both government and opposition.

Elections, despite their imperfections, remain the cornerstone of legitimate governance. Replacing them with an unelected authority, no matter how intellectually polished, is an elitist artifice that risks further undermining democracy. Zimbabweans should resist the temptation of shortcuts and focus instead on enforcing constitutionalism, fighting corruption, and building a politically engaged citizenry. Anything less is a betrayal of the people's mandate.

The NTA is not a solution - it is a political mirage, a dangerous fantasy dressed up as reform. Zimbabwe does not need a transitional authority; it needs a citizenry armed with knowledge, institutions that function, and leaders held accountable. Anything else is a detour down a path of illegitimacy and chaos.