By Advent Shoko
Harare – Zimbabwean politics has never lacked educated voices. What Hopewell Chin’ono has questioned is whether education alone is enough to make sound political decisions.
The veteran investigative journalist set off a political storm this week after declaring that some people who believe a leader-centric, loosely organised movement can remove ZANU-PF from power in 2028 are “dull-learned,” regardless of their academic qualifications. His remarks were not a casual swipe. They were a direct challenge to how Zimbabweans, especially professionals and opinion leaders, are interpreting the country’s political realities.
Chin’ono did not soften his language. In his widely circulated post, he said:
“There are dull-learned people with PhDs like Mthuli Ncube who support the destruction of their own country… others with degrees like Douglas Mwonzora who are used by ZANU-PF to oppress people… some think a political party can be formed without a constitution or leadership structure.”
His argument was blunt: education does not automatically equal political wisdom. If you would ask the late Alex Magaisa, he would probably disagree on Mwonzora example. He previously suggested that another former opposition bigwig, Obert Gutu, was “pro-state” probably because the ruling party was using kompromat on him, they have some dirty they threaten to expose if he doesn’t do as they ask him to.
For many observers, Chin’ono’s comments landed squarely in the middle of the debate surrounding Nelson Chamisa’s political direction since his return from a two-year break. Chamisa, once the face of the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), stepped away from the party in January 2024, alleging infiltration and internal sabotage. What he now promotes is not a conventional party, but a broad citizens’ movement, flexible, consensus-driven, and deliberately less structured.
That idea inspires hope in some quarters. In others, it raises alarm bells.
Zimbabwe’s political history explains why structure is such a sensitive issue. Since 1980, ZANU-PF has not simply won elections; it has built an ecosystem of power, from rural mobilisation networks to firm control of state institutions. Removing such a system, many analysts argue, requires more than popularity. It requires organisation that can withstand pressure, infiltration and legal battles.
The 2023 general election showed both the potential and the limits of opposition momentum. Chamisa’s CCC drew massive urban support and secured roughly 44 percent of the presidential vote. That was significant. But it was not enough to break ZANU-PF’s hold on power. Allegations of irregularities and concerns about electoral fairness followed, yet the institutional balance remained unchanged.
Then came the recalls.
Dozens of CCC legislators were pushed out of Parliament through legal and procedural maneuvers linked to internal party disputes. The result was more than a numbers loss. It exposed how vulnerable a loosely structured party can be when confronted by a well-organised ruling machine. Supporters who once packed rallies in Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare suddenly found themselves asking a harder question: Who is steering the ship?
Chin’ono’s criticism speaks directly to that uncertainty. His view is that passion, crowds and social media energy cannot substitute for constitutional structures, leadership organs and internal accountability systems. Without those, he suggests, even the most charismatic movement risks collapsing under pressure.
At the same time, ZANU-PF shows little sign of relaxing its grip. Discussions around constitutional adjustments and succession politics are already shaping the road to 2028. The ruling party remains deeply embedded in state systems, local leadership structures and rural political networks, areas where opposition formations traditionally struggle to compete. Just last week, the ruling party commemorated the Cells day preaching “Musangano unotangira kumaSero” (the party starts at the Cell level, a reminder of how the ZANU PF ecosystem operates.
This is why Chin’ono’s words have stung. He is not merely criticising individuals. He is challenging a national habit of mistaking enthusiasm for strategy. Zimbabwe’s political future may not hinge on who shouts the loudest or trends the longest. It may depend on who builds patiently, organises deeply and plans beyond personalities.
As the next electoral cycle slowly comes into view, one uncomfortable question now hangs in the air: Is belief in change enough, or must Zimbabweans rethink how change is actually built?
Leave a Reply