Zimbabwe stands at a historic crossroads once again. Dr Ibbo Mandaza and SAPPES have reignited debate around a National Transitional Authority (NTA) — a proposed structure that would guide the country from crisis to democratic order.
It’s a compelling idea in theory. But in practice, we must ask: is this the right tool for this moment?
At the same time as these proposals circulate among political salons and civil society circles, something far more immediate and disruptive has emerged on the ground—the Geza Revolution.
This revolution has already rattled the ZANU PF establishment, a regime long fortified by fear, inertia, and the gun. What makes Geza different?
It has reportedly fractured the internal unity of the ruling elite and, critically, secured support from key elements within the military—the very institution that has historically shielded ZANU PF from collapse.
That is no small matter in a country where the army has long stood as the final guarantor of political power.
In such a context, the notion of a transitional authority may be noble but ultimately distracting. History across Africa and beyond is littered with well-intentioned transitional bodies that became political dead ends.
Tunisia’s post-Arab Spring transitional councils descended into deadlock. Even South Africa’s negotiated transition, while ultimately successful, was a long and gruelling process that required years of compromise—and the retention of much of the apartheid-era state apparatus.
Zimbabwe cannot afford a long, winding road again.
The danger is clear: a transitional authority, if pursued now, risks sapping the revolutionary energy of the moment.
Worse, it gives ZANU PF the breathing space it so desperately craves—to regroup, to rebrand, and to reassert itself in any new framework as a ‘stakeholder’, rather than the discredited regime it is.
This is not to dismiss transitional authorities outright. They have their place. But timing and context matter.
Right now, Zimbabwe has something rare—a break in the chain of command, a rupture in the old order, and a popular movement that enjoys not just moral legitimacy but strategic leverage.
Why would we ignore this moment?
Instead of fragmenting opposition efforts between a revolution and a technocratic project, we should consolidate behind Geza, amplify its demands, and use the window it has opened.
If we wait too long, we will find the doors closed, the army neutralised, and the system recalibrated. That is the pattern ZANU PF knows best: survive, adapt, and return.
Let us not hand them that opportunity again.
Zimbabwe needs change not just in rhetoric or in frameworks, but in power itself. And that power, today, is in motion. Geza has shaken the fortress. Now is the time to move in—not to retreat into committees and communiqués.
History will not forgive us if we miss this moment.
