In life, there is a time when one fights with every fiber of their being, but there also comes a time to acknowledge that “it is what it is” and move on. I am a long-time supporter, voter, author, commentator, and analyst who has backed the opposition since the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in 1999.
I sincerely believed that the MDC was the vehicle to bring change to Zimbabwe. For that reason, I dedicated my time, intellect, and skills to writing book chapters, opinion editorials, and journal articles intended to strengthen opposition party politics in Zimbabwe.
However, after 25 years in “the trenches”, I have come to the brutal realization that the opposition lacks the ideological, imaginative, and realistic strength to wrest power from ZANU-PF and build a new Zimbabwe. It will remain weak, fragmented, and ideologically empty for decades to come.
I now see that what I believed was a “change project” or a “struggle” was, and is, a hoax indeed. I have, therefore, decided to quit opposition politics. Henceforth, I will not write in support of the opposition. After years of contributing, I have realized that it is a waste of my time, energy, and intellect to promote a cause that has no place for ideas.
I am writing this article to set the record straight because I believe that I have an obligation to the opposition and to those who have published (especially the comrades at Nehanda Radio) and read my work over the years.
In this article, I detail the ten (10) tragedies that will keep the opposition out of power for decades to come, and why ZANU-PF is set to remain. The era of an ideas-led, broad-based, and united opposition capable of challenging ZANU-PF is over. The opposition has met its perpetual Waterloo.
This is the reality that we, as a nation, are facing, and we cannot avoid or sugarcoat it. It is time to be realistic and pragmatic. Otherwise, we remain lost in the winds of delusion disguised as the winds of change. The state of the opposition is a testament that there will be no change of government in Zimbabwe for decades to come—yes, decades.
Tragedy 1: The shift from a structured, organic, and ideologically-driven opposition to one centered on Nelson Chamisa.
When the opposition MDC was founded in 1999, it was a popular, structured, and organic movement. It was broad-based, ideologically-driven, and pregnant with the promise of change. The historical context of its formation was the militant struggle between the state and civil society that began in the late 1980s.
This tension intensified when the government introduced the Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP) in the 1990s. This struggle culminated in the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) convening a National Working People’s Convention (NWPC) from 26–28 February 1999.
The Convention resolved that the only way to address Zimbabwe’s “crisis of governance” was to form a political party to challenge ZANU-PF. Consequently, the MDC was launched in September 1999 and held its inaugural congress in January 2000, where Morgan Tsvangirai was elected president.
The MDC emerged from the ZCTU, then led by Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda in association with other civil society organisations, including the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), the Association of Women’s Clubs (AWC), the Zimbabwe National Students Union (ZINASU), and the Zimbabwe Chapter of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO).
The movement also drew huge support from white commercial farmers, academics, civic rights activists, and some religious organisations. From its inception, it consciously maintained strong relations with these groups. For example, during a strategic meeting held in Harare on 6 January 2000, it resolved “to re-engage the civic organisations that provided the bedrock for the formation of the MDC” (Raftopoulos, 2003).
Furthermore, following the party’s poor performance in the 2005 elections, Tsvangirai and Deputy Secretary General Gift Chimanikire, met with leaders from the NCA, the ZCTU, and the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition to discuss the way forward (Raftopoulos, 2013). Clearly, the opposition was not built around Morgan Tsangirai.
It was well-structured and broad-based. However, it has shifted tragically. Today, it is entirely centered on the charisma and personality of Nelson Chamisa. While Chamisa preaches “citizenocracy”, he has effectively stripped opposition supporters and civil society of their political currency and agency, centering it entirely within himself.
In short, Chamisa has become the embodiment of the opposition, such that if he moves, the opposition moves; if he resigns, the opposition resigns; and if he falls, the opposition falls. This is why, when he announced his political comeback after a two-year sabbatical, he said, “I had left the dance floor for a long time, but no one has taken it up!”
I was shocked to see people clapping for this pronouncement because Chamisa essentially said that there is no opposition without him and it makes him happy. This is something an opposition leader of substance should never be proud of.
Instead, they should be proud that there are many people who can take their place and take the work forward should they decide to step away. Chamisa’s supporters also celebrated this, seeing it as evidence that he is the only popular opposition leader. A sound opposition would find this troubling because it is evidence that almost the entire opposition has been deposited in one person.
Civil society organisations played a pivotal role in promoting opposition politics at the grassroots, community, national, regional, and international levels. They also organised and participated in protests. For example, the Save Zimbabwe Campaign, a coalition of civil society organisations, churches, and opposition parties spearheaded by the Christian Alliance, was established to advocate for democracy, human rights, and constitutional order.
On March 11, 2007, the coalition held a “prayer rally” at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfield, Harare. Police violently dispersed the gathering, arresting and beating key opposition leaders, including Morgan Tsvangirai, and killing activist Gift Tandare. Following the violent 2008 presidential run-off election, Zimbabwe formed a Government of National Unity (GNU).
During this period, civil society lobbied for the full implementation of political reforms outlined in the Global Political Agreement (GPA) while raising international awareness on the situation in the country. However, civil society’s relationship with the MDC eventually became strained, fuelled by perceptions that the party had drifted from its founding democratic principles.
Hoekman (2013) argues that the MDC entered the GPA negotiations as a very different organization from the one it had been in 2000. He argues that it sidelined civic organizations during the negotiations, even misinforming them about progress and setbacks, fearing they “would turn popular sentiment against the agreement if they knew of its actual contents.”
Furthermore, the MDC reportedly caused divisions within certain civic groups, particularly the NCA and the student movement. Alexander and McGregor (2013) similarly argue that “the process and outcome of the negotiations undoubtedly weakened the MDC-T in important ways, not least in terms of its ongoing rupture with the NCA and the student movement”. They also submit that by the 2013 elections, the party had been abandoned by key historical allies, including some Western governments.
The NCA, the ZCTU, and ZINASU expressed strong reservations about the integrity of the constitution-making process, arguing that it was not people-driven. While the MDC was satisfied with the new constitution, the NCA was disappointed. It campaigned for a “No” vote during the 2013 referendum because it believed that the process was dominated by political parties that “smuggled” their own interests into the document.
Enraged by what it viewed as the MDC’s “selling out,” the NCA decided during its September 28, 2014, congress to transform into a political party. Following this transition, it vehemently refused to work with the MDC, adopting a distinct ideology. Party President Lovemore Madhuku stated that the NCA had “nothing to do with the West and we respect the liberation struggle. Our party is nationalist and pan-Africanist.” This completed the breakdown between the two institutions.
It is on record that the MDC was advised by SADC, particularly by Lindiwe Zulu and President Jacob Zuma, not to participate in the 2013 elections. However, Nelson Chamisa convinced Morgan Tsvangirai that God would give them victory, only for the party to be embarrassingly defeated by ZANU-PF.
According to Zamchiya, ahead of the 2013 elections, there was a rupture between the MDC-T’s “technical team”—comprised of experts from the party’s secretariat and academia—and certain political leaders, notably Tsvangirai and the party’s powerful national organizing secretary, Nelson Chamisa.
While the technical team cautioned that the MDC-T risked defeat, the leadership “was blinded by ambition, suspicion of intellectuals, the animated atmosphere at political rallies, and a creeping sense of a divine ordination to govern”. Notably, Chamisa’s “God is in it” politics, characterized by false promises of divinely-inspired change, did not start today.
When Tsvangirai died in February 2018, just months before an election, the MDC plunged into a leadership contest that saw Nelson Chamisa emerge as his successor using unconstitutional means. Chamisa rose to power not because he had the best ideas or leadership experience, but because he claimed to have been “anointed” by Tsvangirai. This was a point of no return for the opposition.
Although Chamisa performed well in the 2018 election, he steadily shifted the party away from structures and ideas toward a cult of personality. Ideologically, the MDC was a “social democratic party” focused on promoting human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Its policies included implementing land reform on a non-partisan basis; creating employment through public works and investment-led trade policies; and enhancing universal access to housing, education, and health services.
It also sought to rehabilitate state infrastructure, reduce government expenditure, restore Zimbabwe’s international relations, restructure the government by privatising parastatals, eliminating corruption, drafting a new constitution, and promoting gender equality. Because of its roots in the labour movement, it was initially pro-poor, challenging the free-market narratives and economic liberalisation that had led to dire circumstances under ESAP.
However, private capital with deep economic interests in Zimbabwe, both at home and abroad, including white commercial farmers seeking to retain and regain the stolen land under the MDC-led government, soon became a major force within the party. Their influence grew so significant that they ultimately pushed the party away from its leftist roots and toward a neoliberal agenda.
It became more inclined toward capital and imperialism than the people. This explains why it was heavily funded by the West and why it supported the retention of sanctions on Zimbabwe. This was tragic, but at least it stood for something ideologically. This contrasts sharply with what the main opposition has become under Nelson Chamisa’s leadership.
Although the culture of ascending to leadership through character assassination began during Morgan Tsvangirai’s era, it became pervasive under Chamisa. This forced virtually all of the founding leaders of the MDC to be disgruntled and walk away.
When the MDC Alliance transitioned to the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) following a court-related dispute, Chamisa claimed that the move was not a rebranding, but the arrival of a “new kid on the block.” The truth is that it was a tactical rebranding of the party to avoid further legal conflict with Douglas Mwonzora, who had seized the MDC name and symbols in what Alex Magaisa termed a “judicially constructed” party.
Chamisa’s claim that the CCC was a new entity was a calculated move to transform it into his personal fiefdom, allowing him to exert absolute control. It is important to note that Chamisa’s popularity as an opposition leader does not stem from distinct knowledge or skill, but rather from his succession of Morgan Tsvangirai. Because he took over the mantle, he was automatically regarded as the legitimate opposition leader.
Had anyone else—or, hypothetically, even a donkey—succeeded Tsvangirai, they would have enjoyed the same popularity. Tragically, Chamisa and his echo chamber believe that he is solely responsible for his current political agency.
In reality, this agency is a collective inheritance from the MDC, which has built its influence since 1999 and traces its roots back to the civic movements of the 1990s. It is unacceptable that this hard-earned collective capital now resides in a single individual who claims it as self-made. This is not only disingenuous and ungrateful but outright dishonest.
After reducing a collective movement to a personal fiefdom, Chamisa adopted “strategic ambiguity”, running the party without a constitution or formal leadership—defying the counsel of veteran analysts like the late Dr. Alex Magaisa. While he argued this protected the movement from ZANU-PF infiltration, it actually exposed the party to internal fissures by replacing institutional safeguards with a cult of personality.
The party became an echo chamber characterised by a festival of sycophancy, with Chamisa positioned as a political messiah to whom everyone must pay obeisance and without whom the opposition has no agency. Other leaders within the CCC depended entirely on his benevolence. The ideological foundation of the MDC was dismantled and replaced by performative, motivational, transactional, and theocratic politics.
The slogan “Chamisa Chete Chete” became the trademark of the main opposition. Decision-making, once consultative and collective, was consolidated in one man. This shifted the party away from structured, ideologically driven politics toward a culture of charisma and blind loyalty.
The bar for critical thinking was removed. Criticizing Chamisa became a blasphemous and treasonous offense, met with toxic rebuttals like “Chamisa is not the enemy”, “you are ZANU-PF”, “join ZANU-PF”, “there are other opposition leaders, why can’t you follow them”, “You hate Chamisa”, “Leave Chamisa alone”, or “form your own party”.
This is why it takes an extra-ordinary think skin to criticise Chamisa. As expected, the CCC was infiltrated and parliamentarians were recalled. Chamisa lost control of the party and left in a huff, eventually spending two years outside active politics.
In February 2026, opposition stalwart and Bulawayo Mayor David Coltart warned that Zimbabwe’s opposition movement will remain in the doldrums if citizens continue to idolize leaders. There is no greater truth than this. The politics of idolizing personalities was introduced by Chamisa.
Tragically, there is no chance that the opposition will move from personality cults to the politics of ideas, structure, and accountability. Consequently, Nelson Chamisa will remain the main opposition leader due to his popularity and charisma, despite his many weaknesses—such as arrogance, a refusal to listen, a tendency to take supporters for granted, an aversion to democratic processes, resistance to criticism, and a hesitation to lead from the front.
Chamisa knows that despite these deep flaws, he will retain massive support because of a political culture that prioritizes personality over ideology and competence. The reality is that it is impossible for anyone else—even those with exceptional ideas and capabilities—to emerge as a popular opposition leader as long as Chamisa remains active.
Given that he is only 48 years old, he will, absent unforeseen events, remain the primary opposition figure for decades. The mainstream opposition has placed all its hope in him, creating two distinct dangers: first, they remain tethered to a leader who is incapable of delivering; second, if Chamisa is arrested, silenced, or compromised, the entire movement will collapse with him. For these reasons, ZANU-PF will remain in power for many decades.
Tragedy 2: The curse of a permanently fragmented opposition.
Chamisa has surrounded himself with loyalists who believe that his popularity alone is capable of propelling him to power without the need to unite with other opposition leaders. These supporters reject unity, labelling other opposition leaders as “sellouts” who should be excluded from any Chamisa-led movement. It is amazing that Chamisa has fallen for this delusion.
The fundamental reality they fail to grasp is that regardless of how popular Chamisa is or becomes, a fragmented opposition stands no chance against a mighty and unified ZANU-PF. For example, despite his popularity, Chamisa remains structurally underequipped to demand electoral reforms without joining hands with others. To his credit, Tsvangirai successfully unified the opposition under the MDC Alliance banner before his death. Today, however, the opposition is in a tailspin and is structurally incapable of uniting.
The wreckage of the CCC stands as a permanent monument and testament to this failure. Chamisa’s cult-like followers blame everyone, including Job Sikhala, Tendai Biti, Welshman Ncube, and Chalton Hwende, except Chamisa himself for the party’s collapse. Yet, it was Chamisa who decided, without consulting other leaders, to operate the party without a constitution or formal leadership structures, leaving it vulnerable to implosion and infiltration.
While other leaders pushed for a constitution, collective leadership, and clear structures of accountability, Chamisa concentrated all power in his person and office, running the CCC as a personal fiefdom. Because every other leader was left without an official position, they lacked the authority and incentive to function or defend the organization. When the party eventually collapsed, these same leaders were blamed by Chamisa’s supporters for failing to intervene or for engineering the fallout.
However, in what capacity could they have acted without official roles? Since Chamisa chose to operate without structures, the sole responsibility to defend the party rested with him. In any case, at that point, there was nothing of substance to defend. His arrogant and autocratic leadership style remains unaddressed because there is no appetite for sincere reflection. To this day, no transparent conversation about the collapse of the CCC has occurred. The narrative is instead dominated by a desire to absolve Chamisa of his “festival of mistakes” and cast blame on other leaders.
When Nelson Chamisa left the CCC in January 2024, his supporters argued that all CCC parliamentarians should resign in solidarity. However, the majority chose to remain in office, contending that ceding democratic gains to the ruling party was not strategic. In response, they faced public insults, highlighting an opposition culture that prioritizes absolute loyalty to Chamisa over democratic deliberation.
Consequently, it is likely these parliamentarians will never work with Chamisa again, effectively dismantling prospects for opposition unity. This rift has pushed them to form new civic platforms or join existing ones. In the future, some will eventually form their own political parties. However, many of them have chosen to align with ZANU-PF. This is why some have publicly supported CAB 3. In the future, many will join ZANU-PF for three main reasons.
First, they are unhappy about being viciously insulted and blamed for the CCC’s collapse, especially since they view Chamisa as the true culprit. It is clear their side of the story will never be heard by Chamisa’s supporters, regardless of its credibility. Second, they know the door for future collaboration with Chamisa is permanently closed.
While they may form or join other political parties or civic platforms, their chances of success are virtually non-existent because Zimbabwean politics remains heavily centered on Chamisa’s persona. Consequently, they have no hope of returning to Parliament, the Senate, or local councils. This leaves them with few realistic political alternatives outside of the ruling party. Third, some have become vindictive toward Chamisa and are keen to work with ZANU-PF specifically to spite him and keep him out of power.
The opposition’s polarized response to Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB 3) highlights how deeply and helplessly fragmented it has become. First, rather than forming a single initiative to oppose the bill, Tendai Biti founded the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF), while Jameson Timba established the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP).
Second, many of Chamisa’s loyalists vowed to boycott these initiatives, arguing that the duo actively worked against Chamisa within the CCC. Some even claimed that these platforms are political parties in disguise, intended to poach Chamisa’s supporters and weaken his political capital.
In fact, Biti and Timba faced acerbic criticism from Chamisa’s supporters like Brighton Mutebuka, who argued that they lack the moral authority to lead this fight. They contend that Biti and Timba are responsible for the collapse of the CCC—the very process that granted ZANU-PF the two-thirds majority needed to pursue CAB 3. Furthermore, they argued that neither man possesses the popular following required to meaningfully oppose the bill.
During a Twitter Space I attended, some opposition supporters called for unity to oppose CAB 3. However, Chamisa’s followers flatly refused to join forces with those they labelled “sell-outs,” suggesting they would rather see CAB 3 succeed than collaborate to stop it.
One participant even asked, “What if we unite with the sell-outs, stop CAB 3, and then Mwonzora wins the 2028 elections?” To him, it is better to let the 2030 agenda pass than to risk someone other than Nelson Chamisa becoming president in 2028. This illustrates the extreme level of fragmentation within the opposition.
Third, when Chamisa returned from his sabbatical, he claimed that “there is no constitution”. This wasn’t because Zimbabwe lacks one, but because he wanted to discredit the initiatives led by Tendai Biti and Jameson Timba. Political analyst Dr. Pedzisai Ruhanya exposed this motive on X (formerly Twitter), writing: “Why pour jecha on what others are doing? It is not right, comrade.” The sentiment of that tweet is to challenge the dismissal of others’ efforts; after all, it is unlikely he truly believes there is no Constitution in Zimbabwe. What, then, is the alternative to his ‘no constitution’ stance?”
One would think the sabbatical should have given Chamisa the space to reflect and refine his approach to politics. But alas, upon his return, he plunged into his usual mistakes, bringing confusion instead of clarity. His supporters worked overtime putting out the fires he started and defending the indefensible.
They became vicious toward anyone who dared to question or criticize him, regardless of whether the criticism was sound or well-intended. When they hurl these toxic insults, Advocate Chamisa does not rebuke them or provide guidance, creating the impression that he condones their behaviour. True leadership involves rebuking actions that are inconsistent with a party’s values—assuming it has values in the first place.
As a result, many well-meaning intellectuals and hardworking opposition figures have been sidelined, leaving Chamisa surrounded by those who believe they are defending him while unwittingly destroying him. Tragically, Chamisa himself believes they are building him up; it is a legendary concoction.
The current opposition no longer possesses an intellectual “engine room.” Furthermore, Chamisa’s dismissive rhetoric—such as calling fellow opposition leaders “vomit”—makes reconciliation impossible. The bridges have been permanently burned. Advocate Chamisa lacks a culture of acknowledging and learning from his mistakes; consequently, he is bound to repeat them.
Even within the MDC, instead of fighting for unity, figures like Mwonzora, Komichi, and Mudzuri are scavenging over the remains of a defunct party. It is surprising that, to this day, the opposition has failed to grasp the basic truth that they must work together despite differing strategies, provided they share the same core goals. Clearly, fragmentation is a sickness from which the opposition will never recover, suggesting they will struggle to unite or rise to power for decades to come.
Tragedy 3: An opposition without a plan, focused on giving false hope and agonizing instead of organizing.
It is evident that the opposition lacks a clear plan, not only for gaining power but also for building the nation should they ever govern. When contending with a formidable and organized opponent like ZANU-PF, you need solid, pragmatic plans executed with brutal efficiency.
You must lead with clarity, particularly regarding your core ideas and the practical strategies to achieve them. This, however, is not the case with Zimbabwe’s main opposition. Instead, it focuses on complaining about the political environment.
A credible opposition crafts strategies that enable it to thrive despite the daunting circumstances it faces. For example, instead of merely stating that ZANU-PF rigs elections, the focus must be on what you are doing to prevent it. No movement has ever attained power by complaining day in and day out.
Beyond blaming ZANU-PF, the opposition has adopted a pattern of feeding its base false and delusional hopes for change. For example, on 29 June 2013, Chamisa tweeted: “My Father, who is Our Righteous Father, assures me that A New Zimbabwe is upon us within a few months’ time!”
When he made this promise, the nation was approaching the 31 July 2013 election. We are now in 2026, 13 years later, and the opposition is still out of power. The assurance never materialized, and if anyone asks what happened to it, they are met with a wall of insults instead of clarity.
Similarly, on 5 April 2020, Chamisa tweeted: “A real change, which has been expected, is coming in Zimbabwe. Can you feel it? Be blessed this day!” It is now 2026, six years later, and that change has yet to be felt.
On 4 August 2022, he tweeted: “2023 IS A LANDSLIDE WIN. We are ahead of them. A CITIZENS’ VICTORY is a done deal. We are the best deal for Zimbabwe.” He echoed this on 8 January 2023, tweeting: “Finally Zimbabwe has been remembered! It’s a done deal. I see the people of Zimbabwe happy again. This time get ready.”
However, 2023 arrived without the promised results, and those who question the outcome are often met with insults. In the immediate aftermath of the elections, opposition leaders claimed they were engaging SADC to facilitate a fresh, credible election—an action SADC has no mandate to perform. Such promises do not reflect serious or informed leadership.
On 20 July 2024, Chamisa tweeted: “A DONE DEAL FOR ZIMBABWE.” He claimed that “Zimbabwe has been remembered and saved” and that God would “fulfil His promises.” To date, however, no such deal has materialised. On 21 January 2025, he tweeted that there would be “no next election” without addressing the “fraud, chicanery, and cheating” of the August 2023 polls.
Realistically, it is delusional to believe that past elections can be “fixed” to stop future ones. 2023 is effectively closed and the country is moving towards future elections. Remarkably, despite claiming he had closed all rigging loopholes before 2023, Chamisa again alleged the vote was stolen. By 8 March 2025, he was tweeting about a “SUDDEN CHANGE” brought by prayer. No such change has arrived. It is baffling that he presents change as a product of prayer rather than ideas and action—a sign of an opposition without a plan.
On 16 April 2026, Chamisa tweeted, “THE ROAD AHEAD… It will be tough. It will be rough. But we will finish what we started. Good things never come easy.” Just two days later, on 18 April 2026, he contradicted himself, tweeting: “REBUILD IN THREE DAYS… Zimbabwe turns 46 today.
Remember, what took decades to break, God can restore in a moment. The oppression we see today, we shall see no more.” At one point, he claims that change is imminent; at another, he says that change is a marathon, not a sprint. Furthermore, he continues to move from one political party to another, claiming that “the new is here”. Yet, there is nothing inherently “new” about leaving one political party to establish another.
While it is natural for political parties to make claims to inspire the public, Chamisa’s promises are not inspiration but delusion because they are not backed by any action. In fact, the opposition has become more visible online and invisible on the ground. This is why nobody of substance would take Chamisa’s promises seriously. A fundamental principle of any struggle is to tell no lies and claim no easy victories.
There comes a time when people grow weary of empty promises. Furthermore, unlike Morgan Tsvangirai, Nelson Chamisa lacks the capacity and willingness to lead from the front. He tends to abandon his supporters when the going gets tough. For instance, he described the August 1st, 2018, demonstrators as “very stupid,” reportedly to avoid imprisonment. He prioritizes his own safety while endangering his followers, only to deliver glowing graveside eulogies.
Tragedy 4: An opposition that is incredibly indifferent to the concerns of its own base.
The opposition consists of both leaders and supporters. The supporters are not stooges; they are individuals with ideas, expectations, and concerns regarding how the party is and should be run. A serious political party pays attention to the views of its supporters, especially when they question its decisions and policies or choose to walk away. No serious party can remain indifferent when some of its supporters lose faith and walk away.
This is exactly where Chamisa and his echo chamber are failing. They are so indifferent that they even insult and block those who are losing faith and walking away, rather than trying to convince them to stay. It is striking that while Chamisa claims that his politics are citizen-centered, a concept he calls “citizenocracy”, his actions are often entitled and detached from the people he represents.
For example, he abruptly abandoned the CCC without seeking to know the views of his supporters. Furthermore, he remained on a “sabbatical” for two years without explaining his timeline or objectives, effectively keeping his base in the dark. Throughout that period, the supporters suspected that he was building a new party, yet he was not.
He responded to those seeking clarity with cryptic phrases like “Trust the process”, “God is in it”, and “Change is coming”. In 2025, while still on this sabbatical, he claimed during a ZiFM interview that he would eventually form a “movement” rather than a political party. This left many supporters confused, yet he offered no clarity. Dr. Pedzisai Ruhanya, a political analyst, remarked, “If this idea of having a movement succeeds, I will ask my brother Nelson Chamisa to deport me to Bujumbura once he assumes leadership”.
Chamisa never commits himself to sincerely address the concerns of his supporters. I will cite a few examples: On April 16, 2026, Chamisa tweeted: “THE ROAD AHEAD… It will be tough. It will be rough. But we will finish what we started. Good things never come easy. The struggle must be carried through… firmly, deliberately and steadily, until its logical conclusion. Change must and will happen in Zimbabwe.”
A Twitter user named Emmanuel asked: “When and where is the road starting?” Chamisa responded: “The road to true freedom and citizens’ dignity is forever under construction! Come, let us reason together!” On April 14, 2026, Chamisa tweeted: “THE TRUTH SPEAKS LAST… Sometimes clarity only comes after you step away. Walking away from CCC wasn’t easy, but it was necessary. I’m grateful to the Lord for His steady, faithful guidance through it all and every step of the way. It was the right decision, no regrets. When God leads, you move with conviction.” A Twitter user named W.M. Maodzwa asked: “What is the way forward, Mr. President?” Chamisa’s response was: “Zvakarongeka. Musavhunduka, rakwata hariite mbodza.”
On April 8, 2026, Chamisa tweeted: “A STOLEN MANDATE… When a politician calls elections toxic and demands more time in office, it usually means they never won one.” A Twitter user asked: “So what should be done?” Chamisa’s response was: “WE, THE CITIZENS must teach all oppressors a good lesson.”
On March 29, 2026, Chamisa tweeted: “Fellow CITIZENS, I’m focused on the main show, finding a national solution to #CAB3, not distractions or sideshows…” A Twitter user named BossG asked: “You used to be very active on the ground; what happened to that?” Chamisa’s response was: “fakapressure”.
Chamisa’s responses suggest a level of entitlement that disregards his followers’ genuine concerns. Beyond these arrogant replies, he has often remained silent during significant political developments that typically require leadership to speak. Instead, he might simply post a photo of himself captioned “good night”.
This exemplifies the level of arrogance and indifference we are talking about. Thousands of disgruntled, frustrated, and disoriented opposition supporters long for a structured, united, and ideologically-grounded movement. However, Advocate Chamisa and his echo chamber ignore their perspectives, leaving them with a harsh ultimatum: join the echo chamber or exit.
Dr. Moses Tofa is a Research Leader, political analyst, strategist, and self-critical Pan-Africanist. He holds PhDs in Politics from the University of Johannesburg and Conflict Studies from the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Additionally, he earned an MA in International Peace and Security from King’s College London, and an MSc in International Relations and a BSc in Political Science from the University of Zimbabwe. He is an Investigator at the University of the Andes, Colombia, and the founder of the Join Us Campaign.
Discover more from Nehanda Radio
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
