SHOULD the current succession debate in Zanu PF be a concern for the church and the rest of the population, even those not affiliated to the ruling or opposition parties?
The issue of succession in Zanu PF has always been a contentious one, often intensifying as the end of an incumbent’s term or retirement nears.
We saw this during Robert Mugabe’s later years, when it became clear that leadership transition was inevitable.
Some argue that this is purely an internal party matter, irrelevant to those outside Zanu PF or even to those unaffiliated with any political party in Zimbabwe.
I strongly disagree with this simplistic view and offer four key reasons why this issue affects the entire nation. Succession in Zanu PF is linked to Zimbabwe’s democratic struggle.
Zanu PF has historically operated under a “guided” internal democracy, where succession debate is shaped by the interests of the incumbent rather than by democratic principles.
This pattern has influenced opposition politics as well, leaders such as Morgan Tsvangirai and later Nelson Chamisa where they made succession decisions that were not necessarily rooted in party constitutions.
The failure to establish strong internal democratic traditions — both in the ruling party and the opposition — reflects a broader national governance challenge.
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Letters: Ensuring Africa’s food security through availability of quality seeds
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
Keep Reading
If the main political actors are unable to establish succession processes determined by their own laws not by other factors, citizens suffer the consequences of poor leadership.
The role of the military in politics remains unresolved.
The last time Zanu PF faced a major succession crisis, it was resolved not through democratic processes but military intervention.
Mugabe’s long-standing assertion that “politics leads the gun” was disproven when the army played a decisive role in forcing his exit.
This underscores a critical national question: What is the role of the military in our political system?
Each succession crisis in Zanu PF revives this unresolved issue, making it a matter of national concern.
The succession issue also highlights cronyism, ethnicity and tribalism.
Zanu PF’s internal succession struggles often expose the dangers of cronyism, ethnic favouritism and tribalism — threats that extend beyond the party to national unity.
Towards the end of his rule, Mugabe was accused of positioning his wife, Grace, to benefit financially and politically while allegedly favouring a Zezuru successor.
In opposition politics, similar questions arose: Did Tsvangirai, before his death, instruct that Chamisa (a Karanga) should take over instead of Thokozani Khupe (a Ndebele), despite constitutional provisions to the contrary?
These succession debates reveal a broader problem — appointments based on patronage, ethnicity, or personal connections rather than merit and constitutionalism.
Then comes the problem of personalised politics. In both ruling and opposition parties, political loyalty is often tied to individuals rather than to principles, institutions or policies.
This personalisation of politics stifles open debate and discourages the development of strong, institutionalised governance.
When political leadership is built around individuals rather than democratic frameworks, mediocrity thrives at the expense of national progress.
You may ask, why does all this matter to the nation?
For the reasons outlined above, Zanu PF’s internal succession challenges are not just party issues; they are national issues.
How succession is handled impacts democratic governance, national unity, civil-military relations and the quality of leadership in Zimbabwe as a whole.
Addressing these challenges requires a national conversation, not just an internal party discussion.
The Bible offers wisdom on leadership transitions.
Consider Joshua’s transition from Moses: “Now it came to pass, a long time after the Lord had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age. And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers and said to them: ‘I am old, advanced in age . . . Therefore, be very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses…'” (Joshua 23:1-6)
From this transition, we learn four key lessons:
- The incumbent voluntarily facilitated the succession process, recognising that his time was up and making sure it was orderly.
- The process involved broad consultation with key national stakeholders not just a few members of the inner circle.
- Succession was anchored on the law (Constitution), ensuring legitimacy.
- Unity was built on a shared national vision and the equitable distribution of resources.
These principles could inform Zimbabwe’s succession process, transforming it from being a crisis-prone struggle to an opportunity for renewal and national progress.
We pray for God's guidance.
- Reverend Kenneth Mtata is the programmes director for the World Council of Churches. He writes here in his personal capacity.
