Veteran publisher Trevor Ncube has declared ZANU-PF beyond reform, reigniting a long-standing debate shaped by Jonathan Moyo’s earlier position that the party could only be changed from within.
Harare – Zimbabwe’s long-running debate over whether ZANU-PF can be reformed or must be replaced has resurfaced, this time with sharper lines and higher stakes.
By Advent Shoko
Veteran media executive Trevor Ncube has taken a firm and uncompromising stance, arguing that the ruling party is structurally beyond reform and must be “uprooted root and branch.”
Writing in a strongly worded intervention, Ncube describes ZANU-PF not just as a political party, but as a deeply embedded system that has evolved into a self-sustaining network of power, patronage, and control over decades.
“The disease is ZANU-PF itself,” he argues, framing Zimbabwe’s governance challenges, ranging from economic decline to institutional erosion, as symptoms of a system designed to serve elites rather than citizens.
His position stands in direct contrast to the long-held views of Jonathan Moyo, who, before joining ZANU-PF and long before his 2017 exile following the fall of Robert Mugabe, argued that meaningful change within the ruling party was possible, but only from internal reformers.
That historical context matters.
Moyo’s argument was shaped in a different political era, one where ZANU-PF was still seen by some as capable of internal renewal. Ncube’s position, however, reflects a growing school of thought that the party has since hardened into a system resistant to reform.
At the core of this divide is a fundamental question: is Zimbabwe’s crisis about leadership, or the system itself?
Ncube dismisses the idea that individuals alone can drive change within ZANU-PF, insisting that its “architecture” is inherently extractive.
“You do not reform a system designed to extract from the people. You replace it,” he states.
The debate comes at a time of renewed scrutiny over constitutional amendments and governance, with critics warning of increasing centralisation of power.
Supporters of reform, however, maintain that ZANU-PF remains Zimbabwe’s dominant political institution, and that any realistic pathway to stability must involve change from within rather than total dismantling.
But Ncube’s intervention shifts the tone, from cautious reform to outright rupture.
As Zimbabwe edges closer to another electoral cycle, this is no longer just an intellectual argument. It is a defining national question.
Whether change comes from within ZANU-PF, or outside it, may ultimately determine not just the country’s political direction, but the future of its democratic institutions.
Leave a Reply