Chamisa Just Like Mnangagwa Is Not Fit To Lead Zimbabwe

Chamisa’s political existence fits into a doctrine of controlled opposition.

Nelson Chamisa operates within the same political architecture that has failed Zimbabwe for more than four decades. His political path, financial backers, leadership behavior, and strategic decisions all align with a system that survives through elite control, foreign dependence, and suppression of grassroots alternatives. His rise has not disrupted that system at all. Infact, it has helped sustain it.

He took control of the opposition through internal manoeuvring after Morgan Tsvangirai’s death. He bypassed constitutional procedures, pushed aside elected leaders, and ran the party without proper structures. There was no internal election, no congress, no founding mandate. What followed was a factional split, centralized decision-making, and disbanded organising frameworks. Whether he claims to have taken sabbatical or not. There is a movement around him. That movement exists without a defined constitution, without clear succession planning, and without transparent internal governance. These are the same practices associated with ZANU PF. His political behaviour has mirrored the authoritarian traits he claims to oppose.

Chamisa’s engagements are not grounded in national independence or sovereignty. His campaigns have received support from foreign-linked NGOs and donor platforms connected to global institutions. These networks are not neutral. They operate under the interests of the same countries and financial structures that dominate Zimbabwe’s economy through debt, aid, and corporate extraction. He meets with foreign ambassadors, participates in Western-organised summits, and receives consistent promotion in foreign media. These relationships do not exist in a vacuum. They reflect alignment. Leaders who threaten these systems do not receive this kind of treatment. The power of the West and their wealthy is underpinned by a racist white supremacy ideology. Dropping this ideology is instant poverty in the West. No black man who loves his people, who prophecies to serve the will of his people is ever invited by a white power structure to the dinner table or paraded on international forums. There is only one place they are sent to, 6 feet under. The list is long, Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankarah, Samora Machel, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X et cetera. Ibrahim Traore has survived 18 plus assassination attempts.

There has been no strategic plan from Chamisa for dismantling the colonial foundations that define Zimbabwe’s economy. He does not challenge IMF or World Bank conditionalities. He does not name the multinational corporations that control mining rights. He does not speak against land laws or commercial banks still tied to Rhodesian-era infrastructure. He avoids confrontation with the real mechanisms of external control. His platform rests on general appeals to reform without identifying the forces responsible for the current crisis. When these structures remain unchallenged, elections and leadership changes are cosmetic.

His religious rhetoric is another operational weakness. He regularly invokes divine promises about political outcomes. He frames leadership as a spiritual calling rather than a political contract. This blurs accountability and places political claims outside the reach of logic and scrutiny. Zimbabwe does not need leaders who trade analysis for prophecy. That approach erodes public reasoning and reduces political engagement to blind faith. His public statements often lack policy detail and rely on vague future hope. Governance cannot run on declarations. It must be built on structures, programs, and institutional clarity. None of this is visible in Chamisa’s record.

He has not developed an organisational base capable of long-term resistance or reform. His movements are built around his personality, not institutions. Leadership is centralised around him. No second-tier leadership has emerged. There is no structured ideological development, no political education for members, and no consistent tactical doctrine. When faced with regime repression, the response has been weak or absent. After the disputed 2018 and 2023 elections, he did not lead any sustained resistance, legal strategy, or civil mobilisation. The energy from the voters dissipated without direction. That failure has demobilised parts of the population and strengthened the ruling party's hold.

The comparison to other African leaders is unavoidable. In Burkina Faso and Mali, leaders like Ibrahim Traoré and Assimi Goïta have removed foreign military forces, rejected Western monetary control, and declared sovereignty over national resources. These are measurable actions with direct consequences. They have broken diplomatic ties where necessary, suspended colonial agreements, and restructured economic partnerships. Their actions have drawn hostility from Western governments, sanctions, and media demonisation. Chamisa has faced none of this. He has not taken any position that would threaten global economic interests in Zimbabwe. His politics remain acceptable to the same forces that benefit from the country’s current subordination.

Some might argue this is apples to oranges, but Julius Malema in South Africa challenges imperialism directly. He names it, traces its history, and calls for reparations and land redistribution. His rhetoric is confrontational and grounded in ideological clarity. He operates under constant pressure from both the South African state and foreign-linked capital. He matches fire with fire, that is the only language imperialism understands. Chamisa, by contrast, remains within acceptable limits. He does not name imperialism. He avoids policy confrontation. His language is designed to appeal to donors, not to mobilise resistance.

(Credit : BBC News)

The nature of Chamisa’s political existence fits into a doctrine of controlled opposition. He offers a safety valve for public anger while posing no structural threat to those in power. His role absorbs dissent and channels it into elections that do not lead to power transfer. This benefits both the domestic elite and their foreign sponsors. It allows the appearance of democracy without the reality of disruption. When public anger rises too high under Mnangagwa, Chamisa becomes useful. He presents a softer image. He buys time.

Zimbabwe’s core problem is not the personality in charge. It is the architecture of post-colonial governance. Mugabe’s government maintained the colonial legal framework, financial structure, and economic dependency. His deal at Lancaster House preserved the control of white capital and foreign financial institutions. The country was politically decolonised but remained economically captive. No leader since has changed this. Chamisa has shown no intention or capacity to do so.

Every election in Zimbabwe has been framed as a potential turning point. None have produced structural change. Voters are mobilised, hope is raised, and disappointment follows. This pattern cannot be fixed with new candidates or better communication. The electoral process itself operates inside a system built to prevent sovereignty. The political class, including both ZANU PF and the opposition, are trained, funded, and rewarded by the same external forces. Their campaigns are shaped by Western political consultancy firms, donor-funded NGOs, and global think tanks. They are not formed by the communities they claim to represent.

Chamisa fits into this pattern. He is a product of the very networks that maintain the country’s current condition. His leadership style is top-down, his political strategy is inconsistent, and his engagement with foreign power is dependent, not resistant. He has failed to build internal institutions, failed to defend electoral mandates, and failed to take a firm stand against the forces responsible for Zimbabwe’s economic collapse. These are not surface issues. They are core indicators of alignment.

There is no saviour coming from this political field. Not Chamisa, not Mnangagwa, not any recycled figure from the same institutions. Zimbabwe’s liberation will not come through polite reform. It will come when the population rejects the system in full, its legal codes, its financial structure, its political culture, and its foreign entanglements. That process will not be led by anyone currently promoted by donor platforms, Western governments, or corporate media. It will be led from the ground, outside the frameworks that exist today.

Until then, the names and slogans will change, but the system will remain. Wealth will continue to flow out. Institutions will continue to collapse. The future will remain locked. Chamisa has no plan to unlock it. He is another chapter in the same script.

Global GeoPolitics

The solution to Zimbabwe's perennial crises is a Revolution:

Zimbabwe is fully captured, the political class, the oligarchs and civic society all are under the direction of the British Establishment and its globalist tentacles:

( See the organogram below for the level power of World Economic Forum)

A new leadership framework rooted in afrocentrism and pan africanism is necessary to disentangle the nation from the globalist grip, more 600 years of dominion over the black Africans has to end. A new generation of leadership must emerge with knowledge that goes far beyond the limits of colonial education and institutional brainwashing. The leaders of tomorrow cannot be shaped by the same systems that were built to suppress African consciousness and sustain foreign domination. They must understand how mindset control has been weaponised against the black world for centuries. Bob Marley said it clearly,"emancipate yourselves from mental slavery", a line is strategic and beyond poetic. Mental emancipation is the foundation of true liberation.

These leaders must have a working understanding of how global power is structured, how finance, media, technology, international law, diplomacy, and trade are used to enforce compliance and dependency. They must know systems science, not as an academic field, but as a practical tool to decode and disrupt the interconnected machinery of global control. They must study how networks operate, how institutions maintain hegemony, and how influence is manufactured and sustained over entire populations.

This kind of leadership must be rooted in afrocentrism and pan-Africanism, not in theory but in action. It must come with deep, unapologetic knowledge of true African history, not the curated narratives found in colonial textbooks, but the suppressed truths of African civilisations, political systems, spiritual philosophies, and resistance movements that predate and defy Western domination.

To dismantle over 600 years of foreign dominion, the next leaders must be more than politicians. They must be intellectuals, organisers, engineers of consciousness, and defenders of African sovereignty at every level. This will not come from reforming existing institutions. It requires building entirely new ones, grounded in African thought, driven by African values, and focused on African futures. Anything less is maintenance of the current system.

All the below diagrams should be known in and out by anyone serious about emancipating their people:

Twitter Thread on Nelson Chamisa: https://x.com/ggtvstreams/status/1930335202829840592?s=19

All my analyses or reports are free to read, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv