Zanu-PF succession battle: Who holds the joker?

In my earlier article, "ZANU PF's Succession Battle: Three Scenarios to Watch," I argued that the struggle unfolding within ZANU PF was about more than who succeeds President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

It concerned the rules governing succession, the balance of power within the party, the growing influence of wealthy political actors and the future of the establishment that emerged from the events of November 2017.

The resolutions adopted at the party's 23rd National People's Conference in Chinhoyi have sharpened that argument.

The party endorsed Mnangagwa to remain as state President until 2030, resolved to retain him as party leader until 2029 and moved its 2027 elective congress to 2029.

In 2029, he will seek re-election as party leader and possibly have someone else as presidential election candidate for 2030 elections.

These decisions have given institutional expression to the political project associated with the constitutional changes.

But the conference also exposed the fault lines beneath the appearance of unity. Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga's speech, with its emphasis on accountability, internal democracy, collective leadership and the need for change to emerge from the party's structures, deserves particular attention.

Although he did not explicitly reject the resolutions, his insistence that the party belongs to its members rather than individual leaders raised questions about how decisions are made and whose interests they serve.

The central question is therefore no longer simply who succeeds Mnangagwa.

Is the President preparing to hand over power, or are the succession arrangements being shaped to ensure that he remains in office for as long as possible?

The Tagwirei question

Kudakwashe Tagwirei's rapid ascent through business, government and ZANU PF's senior structures has placed him at the centre of the succession debate. His entry into the Politburo and growing political prominence have strengthened perceptions that he is being positioned for a more consequential role in the ruling establishment.

Yet it would be premature to conclude that Mnangagwa intends Tagwirei to succeed him.

Political alignment is not the same as a succession agreement.

A powerful businessman can be an important political ally without being the designated heir.

An incumbent may also find it useful to cultivate several centres of influence, provided none becomes powerful enough to challenge his own authority.

Tagwirei's growing prominence could therefore mean several things.

He may be positioning himself for eventual succession; he may be helping consolidate Mnangagwa's political and economic networks; or he may be serving as a counterweight to established party and security elites.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

The more important question is whether his growing influence translates into demonstrable support within the institutions that will determine the eventual outcome.

Access to the President, wealth and senior appointments can open doors, but they do not automatically confer the authority required to lead ZANU PF.

There is also a wider development that deserves closer scrutiny: the growing role of money in political competition.

Money has always mattered in Zimbabwean politics. What may be changing is the extent to which financial resources translate directly into political influence, access to party structures and the ability to shape internal decisions.

Allegations circulated around the Chinhoyi conference that money had been given to provincial structures to boo Chiwenga. These allegations remain unverified, and there is no established evidence that such payments took place.

They should not be presented as fact.

Nevertheless, the allegation itself points to an important analytical question.