Now that the “the new” is here, what should Chamisa and change champions do differently? (Part 1)

The most critical conversation Zimbabweans seeking change are—or should be—having right now concerns the newly launched “Agenda 2026” citizens’ movement, recently unveiled by Advocate Nelson Chamisa.

This initiative is ‘pregnant’ with heavyweight questions: Who will be part of it? How will it be internally structured? What specific ideas, aspirations, and values will define it?

Will it reintegrate “sell-outs” or seek unity with other opposition leaders? Crucially, how will it avoid the pitfalls, misjudgements, and ZANU-PF infiltration of the past?

I attempt to address these questions in this article. I acknowledge that a significant constituency of genuine opposition supporters has lost faith in party politics for various reasons.

The movement must never adopt a ‘we don’t care’ attitude toward these cadres; instead, everything must be done to regain their trust. With faith in opposition politics at its lowest point since the MDC’s formation in 1999, the task ahead for this new movement is immense.

Any discussion regarding Zimbabwe’s opposition politics must confront two fundamental truths. First, whether we have faith in current or future opposition movements or not, the conversation about their state and quality is unavoidable if we desire change.

Zimbabwe’s future hinges on the opposition’s capacity to unseat ZANU-PF and its competence to transform the nation because nothing good will emerge from the ruling party.

We may criticise the opposition, but the ultimate goal must remain the construction of a formidable force capable of taking power.

The second truth is that Zimbabwe remains a de facto two-party system where Chamisa is the face of the opposition. Critics argue that Chamisa is arrogant, avoids criticism, demands cult-like loyalty, and exhibits messianic tendencies.

Furthermore, he is often accused of being aversive to democratic institutions, lacking the willpower to leverage his popularity, and fearing those with superior ideas or the risks of leading from the front.

I do not intend to delve into the merits of these views. My key argument is that, despite Advocate Chamisa’s perceived weaknesses, the harsh reality is that no meaningful opposition exists without him.

Some may suggest forming another broad-based opposition party led by a different candidate, yet it is highly unlikely that anyone else could emerge as Zimbabwe’s most popular opposition leader—unless Chamisa steps away from politics and endorses them.

Consequently, no opposition movement can exclude Chamisa and succeed. We should, therefore, find ways to shape and influence him into the leader we desire.

Conversely, Advocate Chamisa must not take his popularity for granted simply because he is difficult to replace. In politics, circumstances shift, and popularity alone may not secure the presidency.

There is much more he can achieve with his influence, but he requires a team to help him leverage it optimally, lest it eventually fades into political oblivion.

I believe that if the new opposition implements the ideas raised in this article, it can regain the faith of those who no longer believe in its capacity to remove ZANU-PF and build a new Zimbabwe.

My focus here is on the core values, principles, and practices upon which this movement must be built to succeed. I will now detail my recommendations for the new opposition as it launches under the leadership of Advocate Nelson Chamisa.

Should the new opposition seek a united front with other leaders?

At the first launch of Job Sikhala’s book, Footprints in the Chains, it was refreshing to see estranged opposition leaders interacting; it served as a poignant reminder of the need for unity.

Recently, Douglas Mwonzora called for opposition unity, and other figures, such as Morgan Komichi, have made similar calls. There is no doubt that removing ZANU-PF requires a coalition of opposition stalwarts and forces; unity is non-negotiable.

However, opinions are divided—justifiably so—on this emotive issue. Many approach the matter with anger due to past betrayals, but grounded opposition leaders and supporters must apply solid reasoning.

When discussing the reconciliation of estranged opposition leaders, we must distinguish between two groups. The first consists of those leaders who genuinely differed with their colleagues, especially with Advocate Nelson Chamisa, over values and principles—such as succession, collective leadership, and internal organisation of the party—yet never became appendages or enablers of ZANU-PF.

The opposition must pursue unity with such individuals. Job Sikhala is a prime example: he may differ with colleagues, but he is not built to be a ZANU-PF surrogate. He has remained steadfast in the search for democratic change.

Of course, the modalities of this unity remain a subject for discussion. Some of these disgruntled cadres could have developed deep bitterness toward Advocate Chamisa, but it is still possible to forgive each other and work together in one way or the other.

The second group consists of opposition leaders who, having grown disgruntled with internal issues, crossed the proverbial Rubicon to become appendages or enablers of ZANU-PF. Take, for example, Senator Douglas Mwonzora.

He has made recognizable contributions to the search for democracy in Zimbabwe—including the drafting of the current constitution—and nothing can take that away from him. However, following differences with his colleagues and in pursuit of his own ambitions, he made extensive use of ZANU-PF-captured state institutions to fight the main opposition.

He seized party buildings, assets, and the funds awarded to the MDC under the Political Parties (Finance) Act. While he now calls for opposition unity, he must be reminded that his actions remain unpardonable.

It is not wrong to disagree on strategy, but it is inexcusable to become an extension of ZANU-PF and dismantle the opposition while still claiming to lead it.

I therefore support Advocate Chamisa’s position that only a dog feeds on its vomit as far as potential unity with Senator Mwonzora is concerned.

It is therefore important to make a distinction between these two types of opposition leaders when we talk about the unity of opposition forces. It is wrong to put them together and paint them with the same brush: sell-outs.

There must be benchmarks for any unity within the opposition. The first benchmark is that unity must be built on shared ideas, values, principles, and vision, not simply on a shared desire to remove ZANU-PF.

The second benchmark is that those opposition leaders who crossed the proverbial Rubicon and became appendages or enablers of ZANU-PF must never be trusted again.

This does not mean they cannot acknowledge their errors and reform, but there is no guarantee that they will not betray the struggle again in the future. It is not worth the risk.

It is important to be mindful that we are often maligned and destroyed by the very people we trusted and brought close, more so than those we mistrusted and kept away.

If you are a genuine opposition leader who is unhappy with some issues within the opposition, it is better to take some time away from politics, pursue self-growth, and come back after some serious reflection than to become an appendage or enabler of ZANU-PF.

The third benchmark of opposition unity is that it is not politically profitable to recycle ‘dead wood’ for the sake of unity. Unity must be based on what each leader, group, or movement brings to the table.

There are ‘opposition leaders’ who bring nothing—neither ideas nor electoral support. It is futile to pursue unity with such individuals. It is time for the opposition to bring in new people who are competent and committed to the struggle. There is no shortage of such talent within Zimbabwe, especially in the diaspora.

The new opposition must reclaim the right to protest.

When the new opposition finally emerges, it must robustly reclaim and exercise the right to protest as enshrined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

ZANU-PF is aware that as long as the opposition cannot hold mass protests, it will never be able to fight corruption, demand accountability, or end human rights abuses and the capture of state institutions.

Without this lever, the opposition cannot meaningfully demand electoral reforms, force ZANU-PF to the negotiating table, or, ultimately, remove it from power.

This is why ZANU-PF intimidates the opposition and criminalises peaceful protest, despite it being a constitutional right. I was in Kenya during the 2024 Gen-Z anti-finance bill protests.

While visiting the Zimbabwean embassy on personal business, a staff member questioned me extensively about the demonstrations. Her primary point was that the Zimbabwean government was worried about the possibility of similar unrest at home.

She even sought my views on how the government could avoid “Kenyan-style” protests in Zimbabwe. I am sharing this to highlight just how much ZANU-PF fears public demonstrations. Whenever the regime hears the word “protest”, shivers run down its spine.

The opposition should never allow ZANU-PF to take away its right to protest peacefully. If the regime knows that it cannot strip the people of their right to protest, there are things it will not do, and there are concessions it will be forced to make as it tries to appease the masses.

This is why President William Ruto of Kenya withdrew the controversial Finance Bill of 2024 after deadly protests. In Zimbabwe, any talk of protests is countered by the claim that “ZANU-PF inouraya.”

This is exactly what the regime wants the opposition to believe so that it cannot hold mass protests, as if doing so were criminal.

Some people may say that we should not compare Zimbabwe and Kenya because the contexts are different. They may argue that the Kenyan government does not kill protesters as the Zimbabwean regime does. This is not true. Kenya has one of the ruthless police forces in Africa.

Whenever deadly protests take place in Kenya, people are killed, injured, abducted, and tortured. According to Human Rights Watch, between March and July 2023, at least 31 people were killed by the police during the Maandamano protests which were led by the late Raila Odinga.

According to Amnesty International, 60 people were killed, hundreds were injured, more than 600 protesters were arbitrarily arrested and detained, and dozens forcibly disappeared during the 2024 anti-finance bill protests led by the Gen-Z.

During the protests that took place in 2025, at least 31 people were killed, more than 400 were wounded, and more than 70 were charged with terrorism. Despite these staggering statistics, Kenyans continue to exercise the right to protest.

I agree that contexts differ, but we must never forget that a democratic context does not fall from heaven, it is hewn out of an autocratic context. The protests that are happening now in Kenya could not happen, for example, during the 24-year-rule of Daniel Arap Moi which lasted from 1978 to 2002.

Moi was a ruthless dictator. On 7 October 1979, when university students demonstrated against the government’s decision to bar Oginga Odinga and Achieng Oneko from standing for parliamentary seats in the forthcoming election, Moi banned the Nairobi University Students’ Organisation, and the University Academic Staff Union and Kenya Civil Servants Union were deregistered.

In 1982, after Odinga announced plans to form a new political party, Moi immediately enacted a constitutional amendment which legally rendered Kenya a one-party state.

It took 12 years for Kenyans to publicly demand the end of the one-party state. Kenyans had to fight against a legislated one-party state.

The infamous Nyayo torture chambers became the hallmark of Moi’s autocratic rule. For Kenyans to be able to protest as they do today, it took years of fighting against an exceedingly authoritarian regime.

In other words, they changed their circumstances, just as it is the responsibility of Zimbabweans to change theirs instead of lamenting the limitations of their own.

I am not saying that people must be killed, but there is always a price to pay for freedom from an entrenched dictatorship.

For ZANU-PF to make any concessions, Zimbabweans must make relentless demands, especially through demonstrations and protests. We cannot forgo the right to protest simply because ZANU-PF kills protestors.

Zimbabweans are afraid to protest because they fear for their lives. However, they may not realize that the number of people dying due to the ZANU-PF regime’s misgovernance, and corruption far exceeds those killed during the repression of peaceful protests.

Whether they protest or not, Zimbabweans are dying in huge numbers anyway. They are dying because of a collapsing healthcare system, while attempting to cross crocodile-infested rivers to seek opportunities abroad, in xenophobic attacks in foreign lands, and on the country’s neglected roads. Is it not better to protest and die once for the sake of change than to die every day because of failing infrastructure and a broken economy?

In this era of digital platforms and Artificial Intelligence, it is vital to recognize that protests have expanded beyond the physical realm into the digital sphere.

A widespread online outcry, for instance, can constrain authoritarian actions and compel regimes to adopt specific reforms. Consequently, opposition leaders must be adept at leveraging social media platforms effectively.

They must also consistently protect and support demonstrators throughout every stage of a movement, while advocating for a robust legal framework to compensate victims of public protests.

However, the opposition must always understand that what motivates people to participate in protests is the belief that the struggle is worth dying for.

Unfortunately, most of the opposition leadership, especially those currently in parliament, have demonstrated that the struggle is not worth dying for because of their focus on enriching themselves instead of fighting for the good of all.

The new opposition must claim no false victories, and make promises that are realistic, authentic, and backed by action.

In any movement for change, leaders often make promises to the masses to sustain hope and drive participation. However, making false or unrealistic promises that lack actionable support is a grave error.

The opposition must avoid offering empty optimism, as doing so ultimately benefits ZANU-PF. A clear example was the unrealistic claim that SADC would overturn the 2023 election results; such assertions suggest the opposition’s primary role is to pacify citizens rather than lead them.

The truth is that the critical opportunity to act on SADC’s damning report has been lost and that nothing can realistically reverse the 2023 election results. That window is now closed. A fundamental principle of any struggle must be to tell no lies and claim no false victories.

The new opposition must create a new culture of tolerance for criticism.

Zimbabwe is an angry, wounded nation due to the vile ZANU-PF rule it has endured since 1980. Even if the government changes today, the successor will only succeed by fostering a new political culture of tolerance and inclusivity.

ZANU-PF is a profoundly intolerant party; it lacks original ideas and is intimidated by those who possess them. This is why it meets ideas with violence. It is a cult that survives on threats, torture, the repression of democratic freedoms, the capture of state institutions, and the elimination of opponents.

ZANU-PF cannot undo this culture, so the responsibility to create a new culture belongs to the opposition. It must not therefore mirror the very intolerance it seeks to replace. Currently, there is a concerning rise in hostility toward those critical of opposition leadership—a trend evidenced by the toxic nature of social media discourse.

Genuine supporters do not become “sell-outs” simply for questioning leadership. A culture of tolerance is built on big ideas and non-negotiable principles. It is the duty of opposition leaders to ensure their supporters uphold these values.

At Advocate Nelson Chamisa’s level of leadership, it is vital to maintain a receptive attitude toward criticism from well-meaning supporters. While not every critique is accurate, much of it carries substance.

It would be highly beneficial for Advocate Chamisa to recognize that he gains more from those who offer honest, constructive feedback than from those who offer sycophantic praise. Many critics act out of a genuine desire to see him and the opposition thrive; they do not deserve to be condemned or insulted.

I have observed a concerning trend where individuals with valuable ideological insights are alienated or ridiculed simply for questioning certain decisions. Silencing these voices only weakens the opposition.

I have also noticed individuals who refrain from questioning Advocate Chamisa just to position themselves for roles in the new movement. This approach is misguided; such opportunism poses a danger to the movement’s integrity and success.

A good leader should never surround themselves with sycophants, but with people of big ideas and critical thinking. Many opposition leaders in Africa have deposed ruling parties on the back of grandiose promises of change; however, once in power, they not only failed to deliver that change but became as vile as the regimes they replaced.

This is largely because, while in opposition, their supporters shielded them from criticism to keep the focus solely on removing the incumbent.

Recently, President Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia called for the removal of term limits for mayors and council chairpersons. This is tragic for a leader who rose to power promising democracy and development.

Africa will only change when opposition supporters possess the consciousness, strength, and ideation to criticize their own leaders and hold them to account.

If leaders cannot be criticized while in the opposition, imagine their conduct once they command the instruments of coercion.

Building a new Zimbabwe starts not with infrastructure or the economy, but with a new system of collective values: accountability, meritocracy, a revulsion to corruption, and a tolerance for dissent.

The new opposition must be broad-based and built on ideas, not on individuals.

A serious opposition party must be institutionalised—an achievement only possible if it is built on a strong foundation of collective ideas, values, principles, and practices. Such institutionalisation requires broad consultations and consensus across various Zimbabwean constituencies: students, women, farmers, civil society, the media, academia, the business community, traditional and religious leaders, the diaspora, and ordinary citizens.

However, given the risk of infiltration by ZANU-PF, these consultations must be meticulously crafted to mitigate such threats. I am encouraged by Advocate Chamisa’s recent statement: “I want you to know that I am not idle. I am consulting. I am building. I am assembling a new strategy and a citizens’ team that will carry and pivot this nation unto greatness and stardom”. Nevertheless, this transformation cannot be the work of a single individual or a small group; it must be a collective effort executed through robust, democratic structures.

An opposition party built on individuals rather than democratic structures of governance can never truly fight for change. In South Africa, the MK Party performed well in the last election, yet it remains more of a family fiefdom than an organized political entity.

If this persists, it will stall. The transformation of Zimbabwe will only occur when citizens are prepared to defend collective values, principles, and aspirations over political parties or individual leaders.

Leaders come and go, but Zimbabwe remains. While some may ask, “ideology inodyiwa here?” (can ideology be eaten?), serious political actors cannot transform society without building movements founded on great ideas rather than untouchable individuals.

The new opposition must not focus on blaming ZANU-PF, it must rise above excuses.

It is true that ZANU-PF is a vile, corrupt, incompetent, and intolerant regime that uses every wicked tool available to infiltrate, weaken, hijack, torture, intimidate, and rig the opposition.

Without these tools, ZANU-PF might have been ousted years ago. However, the opposition should not focus on blaming the regime for its failure to ascend to power for three key reasons.

First, ZANU-PF will never hold free and fair elections or treat the opposition well simply because they are being blamed. In fact, the regime may react more harshly than it has ever done before.

When at war with a rogue opponent who habitually violates the laws of war, it is futile to focus on their rule-breaking tendencies. Instead, you must focus on defeating them. One does not solve a problem by describing its magnitude, but by finding solutions.

Second, focusing solely on blaming ZANU-PF fosters a disempowering narrative that the regime is invincible; when it is fragile, masking its weakness with a facade of strength.

History is replete with regimes that appeared untouchable for decades, only to collapse with surprising ease. Third, the focus on blaming the regime suggests that the opposition lacks robust strategies of taking power.

To succeed, the opposition must develop a new mindset of building the capacity to take power with or without electoral reforms. It must move beyond rebranding under new names whenever infiltrated.

Instead, it must establish resilient structures that safeguard against state-sponsored subversion.

Only those leaders who are in politics for the people and not for themselves must be part of the new opposition.

The Citizens Coalition for Change was infiltrated and hijacked by ZANU-PF, ostensibly because it lacked the internal structures to protect itself. While this was a tragic development, it was also a blessing in disguise because it exposed the true motives of many opposition leaders.

It is now clear that they are in politics for personal gain, viewing Parliament, the Senate, and local councils merely as avenues for self-enrichment. We see ‘opposition’ Parliamentarians, such as Chalton Hwende, demanding US$150,000 loans for Members of Parliament (MPs) as part of their welfare packages.

Traditionally, the opposition relied on funding from donor and business communities. As these sources run dry, the government has become the primary source of personal enrichment, making it easy for unprincipled politicians to be compromised by ZANU-PF.

It is expected in any struggle for some comrades to fall away due to fatigue, frustration, shifting priorities, or personal ambition.

Moving forward, the opposition must ensure that leaders are recruited based on the following criteria: competence (in terms of ideas and the capacity to implement them), unwavering loyalty to the democratic struggle, and a commitment to collective rather than individualistic goals.

The new opposition must move from a narrow and exclusive “We” to a broad and inclusive “We”.

If there is one thing that has destroyed Zimbabwe more than anything else, it is the narrow, corrupt, selfish, entitled, and exclusive “We” that has been the hallmark of ZANU-PF politics since independence.

It is common to hear ZANU-PF leaders claim, “We fought for this nation”, “We are everything you can imagine”, or “We will rule until donkeys grow horns”. This “We” has nothing to do with the people; it has reduced Zimbabwe to a private project belonging to a ZANU-PF elite.

Consequently, many Zimbabweans capable of making tremendous contributions to national development have been excluded from the nation-building process simply because they are not affiliated with ZANU-PF.

We cannot build a nation on the premise that participation requires membership in a specific political party. Tragically, we have also witnessed this exclusive “We” within the opposition movement.

Many opposition leaders believe they are entitled to leadership positions simply because they were present when the MDC was formed in 1999. Nation-building is not a narrow, partisan project; it is an agenda that must transcend party lines.

The opposition should therefore move away from the restrictive “We” that has been the bane of ZANU-PF politics toward a “We” that places all Zimbabweans at the center—making them the engine of progress regardless of their political affiliation or whether they were there when the party was formed.

Dr Moses Tofa is a Research Leader, political analyst, and self-critical Pan-Africanist. He holds a PhD in Politics from the University of Johannesburg and a PhD in Conflict Studies from the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal. He is an Investigator at the University of Andes, Colombia. He writes in his capacity. He can be reached at [email protected], Twitter handle: @DrDrMTofa.