On March 26, I was informed by a friend about a press conference conducted by Blessed Geza, a Zimbabwean war veteran and ex-ZANU PF central committee member.
I also gather that he has recently attracted considerable notice due to his candid critique of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government.
Reportedly, his courageous position has resulted in his removal from the governing party and the initiation of sedition proceedings against him.
Despite this, he persists in pushing for systematic reform in Zimbabwe, utilizing platforms like YouTube and various social media outlets to strengthen his advocacy.
Because of urgent personal matters, I wasn't closely tracking the progress in our country's politics.
On this specific day, I logged into one of the social media platforms to watch Geza. His channel, which has become one of the quickest expanding in Zimbabwe, apparently attracted more than 20,000 devices during the live stream — underscoring the increasing public curiosity about his message.
Instead of focusing on the substance of Geza’s speech, I was captivated by the subsequent public discussion. This conversation gave rise to two prominent viewpoints. One perspective views Geza as a symbol of hope for countless individuals eagerly seeking political transformation.
The latter remains doubtful, proposing that he might be entangled in the internal power struggles within Zanu PF factions. He also warns against backing him, as it could resemble how people were used during the internal coup in November 2017.
This debate invites deeper reflection on Zimbabwe’s political journey since 1980, especially concerning the evolution of the political space and its key actors. Between 1980 and the 1990s, Zanu PF held uncontested dominance, despite dissenting voices from figures such as Edgar Tekere, Ndabaningi Sithole and Margaret Dongo, among others.
Most people were caught up in the excitement of gaining independence following a long-drawn-out fight. During this period, criticizing the governing party was frequently seen as disloyal or unhelpful. ZANU PF savored its dominant position and symbolic power—but eventually failed to make good use of that chance.
It was in the mid-1990s that meaningful opposition began to take shape, driven largely by student and labour movements advocating for accountability, good governance and political reform. This wave culminated in the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which went on to dominate the opposition space up until 2017.
From 2000 to 2017, Zanu PF frequently found itself under attack, unsure about its political longevity as larger portions of the populace supported the opposition movement. Accounts of election-related brutality and ballot tampering were frequent occurrences, with the opposition experiencing several close wins or suspected instances of electoral fraud during this period.
Confidence in elections and the opposition parties began to wane after the 2013 elections — an election many argue should not have proceeded without the implementation of Sadc-recommended political reforms. This period saw the disintegration of the opposition into various smaller parties, many of which succumbed to internal divisions, political pressure or the loss of prominent leaders. Indeed, the country lost several influential opposition voices along the way.
The years between 2013 and 2018 were marked by political opportunism, resulting in a fragmented and crowded political landscape. The 2018 presidential election featured a record 23 candidates — the highest number in Zimbabwe’s history. In the aftermath, opportunism appeared to pay off, culminating in the formation of the Political Actors Dialogue (Polad), a platform initiated by Mnangagwa.
Intended to foster national unity and tolerance, Polad brought together 2018 presidential candidates in a dialogue forum. However, it also signalled the decline of serious opposition politics and created a significant vacuum in the political space — one that Geza’s voice now echoes within. Today, much of the opposition appears to be in retreat, with some of its former leaders shifting focus to religion or stepping back entirely. This has left citizens unsure whether the current crop of opposition leaders offers a viable path forward.
Meanwhile, hardship and hopelessness persist. In such conditions, the public — driven by desperation — is inclined to gravitate towards any figure or movement, regardless of its origins, that appears to challenge the status quo and offers the promise of change.
Geza is simply capitalising on a political space left vacant by a weakened opposition. Despite the ambiguity surrounding his ultimate agenda, his message is resonating with an increasingly frustrated population — each individual interpreting his rise through the lens of their political aspirations.
There is also a growing school of thought suggesting that the only significant political change in Zimbabwe has occurred within the ruling party itself. In the absence of a robust opposition, this narrative may appear to be the most credible. However, change within Zanu PF has not translated to meaningful policy shift. On the contrary, it has arguably exacerbated the country’s socio-economic decline.
EmoticonEmoticon