Pushing People To Protest On The Streets During The SADC Summit Will Be Counter-productive

As the 44th Ordinary SADC Heads of State and Government Summit approaches, the country’s so-called “opposition leaders” have once again begun insinuating that they have plans for mass-protests. Apparently, the innocent lives lost during the August 2018 military crackdown in Harare weren’t enough to deter these self-serving political opportunists from risking more innocent blood. But I may be wrong, who needs to worry about a little collateral damage when there are photo ops and international headlines to be secured, right?

The opposition’s call to action during the important summit prioritizes political gain over the safety and well-being of citizens. The 2018 shootings are still fresh, a reminder of the Zanu Pf Regime’s willingness to use lethal force against its own citizens. To now encourage protesters to brave the same streets, in the hopes of capturing attention and garnering international sympathy, is a reckless disregard for human life.

Instead, what the opposition should do is explore other non-violent forms of resistance that do not place the very people they claim to represent in the line of fire. “Stay-away” protests for example, are an effective means of showing discontent without risking lives. This not only safeguards the people but also sends a powerful message of unity and resolve.

Imagine, on day one, the streets will suddenly become empty, a rare sight in cities usually bustling with activity. The government will think it is just a minor setback. Day two, the economy will begin to feel the pinch, a sensitive spot for a government already struggling to keep its head above water. The government will grow anxious, but still, they will continue to underestimate the resolve of the Zimbabwean people.

Day three, the momentum will build, with more and more Zimbabweans staying away, refusing to participate in the farce. The government will scramble, trying to find a response, but their words will fall flat. They will try to blame the opposition, “western puppets” they will say, but the people will know the truth – that this is a protest of the people, by the people.

On day four, the cracks will begin to show, and the government’s facade will crumble, revealing the desperation beneath. They will try to provoke people using Russian disinformation tactics, to lure people into the streets, but people will refuse, their resolve stronger than ever.

Zimbabweans will remember the lessons of the past, the bloodshed and tears, and will chose a different path. And so, the ‘Stay Away’ protest continues, a relentless drumbeat of defiance, echoing across the corners of Zimbabwe. People won’t just be protesting, they will be disrupting and taking away the regime’s power. Not in confrontation, but in conviction. And they will keep doing it, until their voices are heard and their demands are met

 You see, silence is like a wildfire. It starts with a single voice choosing not to speak, a single body choosing not to move. It grows, spreads, it consumes everything in its path. It is unpredictable and leaves nothing but a world where the absence of action is a statement in itself.

The ‘stay away’ protests are not just about boycotting the system, they are about withdrawing from it. They are about taking away the very thing that gives the system power – OUR PARTICIPATION. OUR COMPLIANCE.

The opposition charlatans need to identify the government’s Achilles heel. Repressive governments can rule only as long as they receive replenishment of the needed sources of their power from the cooperation, submission, and obedience of the population and the institutions of their societies.

Stay Aways, unlike street protests which have potential for violence, are uniquely suited to severing those sources of power. Militarily installed governments can stand “physical force” till the end of time; what they fear is “moral force”.

A myth from Classical Greece illustrates the vulnerability of the supposedly invulnerable well. Against the warrior Achilles, no blow would injure and no sword would penetrate his skin. When he was still a baby, Achilles’ mother had dipped him into the waters of the magical river Styx, resulting in the protection of his body from all dangers. There was, however, a problem. Since the baby was held by his heel so that he would not be washed away, the magical water had not covered that small part of his body. When Achilles was a grown man he appeared to all to be invulnerable to the enemies’ weapons. However, in the battle against Troy, instructed by one who knew the weakness, an enemy soldier aimed his arrow at Achilles’ unprotected heel, the one spot where he could be injured. The strike proved fatal. Still today, the phrase “Achilles’ heel” refers to the vulnerable part of a person, a plan, or an institution at which if attacked there is no protection.

The same principle applies to ruthless governments. They, too, can be conquered, but most quickly and with least cost if their weaknesses can be identified and the attack concentrated on them

But I fear, such tactical finesse is beyond the opposition’s capabilities. The opposition appears to be more concerned with the political optics of mass demonstrations than their actual impact. The desire for photo opportunities and global headlines seems to outweigh the practical considerations of keeping the people safe. This obsession with spectacle over substance undermines the very legitimacy of the opposition’s cause, transforming it from a principled stand against injustice into a self-serving quest for publicity.

Knowing the Zimbabwean government, it will seize upon these street protests as a pretext for further crackdowns, using the unrest as justification for a renewed display of force. History has shown that peaceful protests can easily devolve into violence when confronted by security forces, and the opposition should not be complicit in creating such a volatile situation.

The SADC summit is not the appropriate venue for the opposition to air their domestic grievances. Regional leaders are far more likely to view these protests as an internal Zimbabwean issue, not a matter of regional concern. The potential for regional leaders to view the protests as an internal issue is a significant concern. History has shown that regional leaders often prioritize stability and security over intervention in domestic matters. The 2019-2020 protests in Sudan, where the African Union initially hesitated to intervene, serve as a clear reminder of this tendency. Similarly, the 2018 DRC crisis and even Zimbabwe’s own 2008 post-election violence demonstrate SADC’s propensity to prioritize self-interest over regional responsibility. These precedents suggest that regional leaders will most likely adopt a hands-off approach to the protests, undermining potential pressure for meaningful change. Any hopes the opposition has of garnering international sympathy or pressure will likely be in vain.

Frankly, the opposition’s insistence on street protests may even alienate potential supporters who are tired of the endless cycle of violence and unrest. Zimbabweans have suffered enough, and many may be unwilling to risk their safety, no matter how noble the cause may seem.

True leadership, in this instance, would involve making difficult choices that prioritize the welfare of ordinary Zimbabweans over the pursuit of political gain. The opposition should recognize that their actions may be perceived as opportunistic and attention-seeking, undermining the legitimacy of their grievances.

The international community, too, may view the protests as a sign of political instability, deterring much-needed investment and aid. Zimbabwe deserves better than this perpetual cycle of “madhuku strategies”, political posturing and grandstanding. The nation’s citizens deserve leaders who will put their safety and well-being first, rather than those who would risk their lives for the sake of a photo opportunity.

In the end, the opposition’s decision to protest on the streets during the SADC summit will be a heartless and reckless one. It demonstrates a disregard for the lives of Zimbabweans, a prioritization of political ambition over practical solutions, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of responsible leadership. If the opposition truly wishes to effect change and address the nation’s challenges, they must be willing to make the difficult choices that put the people first.

The path forward lies not in the streets, where lives have already been lost, but in the quiet dignity of non-violent resistance, in the collaborative efforts to find common ground, and in the unwavering commitment to the welfare of all Zimbabweans. It is time for the opposition to show true leadership, to put aside their desire for publicity, and to chart a course that honors the memory of those who have fallen and secures a brighter future for the nation.