Opinion: Criticizing Chamisa Does Not Make One Zanu Pf

Criticism is an essential tool in any democratic society, allowing for the refinement of ideas, the questioning of policies, and ultimately the progress of a nation. However, in the current Zimbabwean opposition politics, this crucial aspect has been stifled under the leadership of Nelson Chamisa during his Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) party tenure.

Chamisa’s supporters have resorted to labeling any form of criticism against him as a product of the ruling ZANU PF party, effectively silencing dissenting voices and undermining the principles of democracy.

This concerning trend came to light when Chamisa abruptly resigned from the CCC in January, leaving his devoted followers in disarray. Instead of taking accountability for the downfall of his political venture, he opted to shift the blame onto the political landscape of Zimbabwe, a landscape that had remained unchanged since he assumed leadership of the opposition party from the late Morgan Tsvangirai.

Chamisa then cloaked himself in a shroud of “strategic ambiguity,” a laissez-faire approach that not only reeks of dictatorship but also betrays the trust of the very individuals who voted for him in 2023 as a strategic move against ZANU PF. While some may argue that Chamisa’s strategic ambiguity is a calculated maneuver to navigate the volatile political terrain and avoid alienating potential allies, it appears that this strategy has been stretched too thin. His lack of clear policy direction and inconsistent communication have sown seeds of confusion and mistrust among his supporters and the broader public.

 Instead of uniting a diverse coalition through transparency, Chamisa runs the risk of alienating his core supporters, who are left grappling with uncertainty regarding his true convictions. In a political landscape that demands clarity and conviction, Chamisa’s strategic ambiguity rings hollow, portraying him as wavering and opportunistic, thereby jeopardizing his credibility as a leader.

It is imperative to acknowledge that Chamisa, like any other individual, is not exempt from criticism or accountability. Yet, his supporters seem adamant on deifying him, creating an aura of infallibility around his persona, shielding him from critique or fault.

Some may argue that Chamisa’s leadership style is a necessary adaptation to Zimbabwe’s unique political circumstances. However, it is my belief that this approach has fostered a cult-like following among his supporters, inhibiting constructive criticism and open dialogue.

This worrisome mentality has reached absurd heights, with some attributing divine qualities to Chamisa, proclaiming that “God is coming to save Zimbabwe” through him. Seriously? Is this the pinnacle of their defense against criticism?

By peddling fantastical religious narratives to his followers, Chamisa risks cultivating a fanatical base more devoted to him as an individual than to the fundamental principles of democracy. It is no surprise that ZANU PF appears to thrive in such an environment, witnessing the disintegration of their opposition, once perceived as a formidable threat, succumbing to internal discord and cult-like behavior.

In light of academic Ibbo Mandaza’s recent criticism of Chamisa, I find his remarks to be well-grounded. Mandaza, a keen observer of Zimbabwe’s political landscape, has pinpointed Chamisa’s “strategic ambiguity” as a manifestation of weakness and a dearth of leadership.

His critique underscores the necessity for a more transparent and inclusive approach to politics in Zimbabwe – one that embraces criticism, encourages dialogue, and shuns suppression.

Having supported Chamisa in the 2023 elections as a strategic choice, I am disheartened by the current state of affairs. Those of us who sought change were met not with progress but with a continuation of the autocratic tactics that plague Zimbabwe’s political sphere.

It seems apparent that under Chamisa’s stewardship, there looms a specter of even greater oppression, where criticism will be silenced and dissenting voices will be hushed under the guise of loyalty.

To exacerbate matters, Chamisa’s supporters have adopted authoritarian tactics reminiscent of ZANU PF, enforcing a ‘with us or against us’ mentality. This divisive approach harks back to the era of the liberation war, where opposing views were suppressed or shunned. This ‘us versus them’ dynamic is toxic, impeding constructive dialogue essential for national advancement.

It is crucial for the “chete-chete” proponents to recognize the value of differing opinions in fostering growth. When individuals echo each other in an insular chamber of debate, they perpetuate a cycle of confirmation bias, reinforcing misguided beliefs and sheltering themselves from dissenting perspectives.

This echo chamber fosters ideological extremism, breeding arrogance, close-mindedness, and an obstinate refusal to confront reality. By indulging in such self-congratulatory exchanges, they undermine critical thinking, poison constructive dialogue, and perpetuate a collective delusion that is intellectually dishonest and socially corrosive.

It is high time for Chamisa to affirm his commitment to democracy by embracing criticism and fostering debate within his circles. He must demonstrate a willingness to listen, learn, and adapt, eschewing rhetoric and autocratic tendencies in favor of inclusivity and openness.

Should he aspire to recuperate lost ground, lead Zimbabwe’s opposition out of its political impasse, and genuinely govern for the benefit of all citizens, Chamisa must transcend the confines of the “chete-chete” ideological enclave and embrace a more expansive leadership approach.