As Zimbabwe faces complex political, economic, and social challenges, some voices are calling for a drastic change in the country’s leadership style, arguing that perhaps it’s time to look beyond lawyers and over-educated politicians. This view suggests that, after decades of civil-led governance, Zimbabwe could benefit from the firm hand and disciplined approach associated with a military background. Among the contenders, Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, a decorated military general, stands out as a potential leader who could reshape Zimbabwe with a style based on command, discipline, and efficiency.
By Brighton Musonza
The Case for Military-Style Leadership in Civil Government
The case for Chiwenga’s leadership rests on his experience in military command and control, where decisive action, strategic planning, and a commitment to structured order are fundamental. Proponents argue that Zimbabwe’s persistent challenges—a faltering economy, public sector inefficiency, corruption, and political infighting—could be addressed by a leadership approach rooted in the military principles of accountability, discipline, and structure.
Military training instils skills in resource management, crisis response, and a no-nonsense approach to organisational discipline. For a country facing economic uncertainty, rampant inflation, and complex social issues, such skills might prove invaluable in steering Zimbabwe towards greater stability. The military, after all, operates with a clear chain of command, where objectives are established, and orders are expected to be followed efficiently—a contrast to the bureaucratic stagnation often found in civilian government.
The suggestion is that Chiwenga, with his years of military experience, could instil a similar culture within government institutions, transforming them into efficient, results-driven entities. His background in command may also grant him the authority to tackle corruption, which has plagued Zimbabwe’s civil administration for decades, without the complications of partisan loyalty or personal interest.
Examining Military Influence in Global Leadership
Globally, military-trained leaders have often brought transformative leadership styles to governance. In the United States, for example, a significant proportion of Presidents and Congress members have military backgrounds, which some argue contributes to strong national defence policies and strategic decision-making. In Africa, leaders such as Rwanda’s Paul Kagame, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, and Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed have demonstrated the impact of military experience in guiding national development and internal security.
In Rwanda, Kagame’s leadership has introduced a top-down model that prioritises efficiency and development, fostering rapid economic growth and stability in a region historically fraught with conflict. Similarly, Egypt’s El-Sisi has employed a military-style approach to national infrastructure and security, bringing relative stability to a post-revolutionary Egypt. These examples indicate that a disciplined, command-oriented approach, when tempered with a focus on civilian welfare, can be effective in addressing pressing national issues.
The Concerns: Balancing Discipline with Civil Liberties
The suggestion to turn to military leadership in Zimbabwe is not without its concerns. While proponents argue that soldiers follow orders and carry out their duties with discipline, Zimbabwe’s own history includes troubling episodes involving military involvement in civil matters, from elections to public demonstrations. There is a need to acknowledge that while military discipline could potentially reduce corruption and increase efficiency, it must be balanced with the protection of civil liberties, democratic freedoms, and the accountability that civilians expect from their leaders.
Critics worry that increased military influence could lead to a government that stifles dissent or dismisses democratic processes in the name of efficiency. Military command and control operate on principles of order and obedience, which, if unmodified, could conflict with the open discourse and individual rights essential in a democratic society. Zimbabweans deserve a government that respects their rights as citizens, not one that prioritises order at the cost of freedom. For military leadership to succeed in civil governance, leaders must remain sensitive to the diverse needs and rights of a civilian population.
Military Principles in Modern Management
Interestingly, much of modern management science—up to 80%, by some estimates—has its roots in military principles. The strategic planning, hierarchical organisation, and resource management skills employed in corporate governance are all adapted from military practices. Leaders in both sectors face the challenge of coordinating complex systems, managing human resources, and maintaining operational efficiency. In this sense, a leader like Chiwenga could theoretically bring these tested methods to the public sector, fostering an environment of accountability, measurable results, and strategic planning that Zimbabwe urgently needs.
However, there are crucial differences between managing a military organisation and leading a country. While the military emphasises unity and obedience, civil governance must accommodate a diversity of views, stakeholders, and interests. Military-trained leaders who have succeeded in governance, such as Kagame, have had to adjust their leadership style to be more inclusive and responsive to public opinion. It would be essential for Chiwenga, or any other military-trained leader, to adopt a similar approach, respecting Zimbabwe’s democratic structures and the voices of its citizens.
The Way Forward: Can Chiwenga Offer What Zimbabwe Needs?
As Zimbabwe continues to navigate political and economic challenges, the notion of military influence in leadership warrants serious consideration, especially given the success stories from leaders with similar backgrounds in Africa. Chiwenga’s military experience could be leveraged to introduce a more results-driven, disciplined approach to governance, potentially addressing inefficiencies that have long hampered Zimbabwe’s progress.
However, any shift towards military leadership must be accompanied by strong safeguards to protect democracy, civil liberties, and political diversity. Zimbabweans deserve a government that does not just function efficiently but also respects and serves the needs of its people, upholds the rule of law, and promotes open dialogue. It is possible that Chiwenga, or another military-trained leader, could bring these qualities to governance, but such a transition would require a commitment to democratic values and civilian oversight.
The prospect of military-influenced leadership in Zimbabwe is therefore both intriguing and complex. While military discipline might indeed offer a path to greater efficiency, the success of this approach depends on the leader’s ability to balance command with compassion, control with consultation, and order with openness. Whether or not Chiwenga deserves a shot at leading Zimbabwe is a question only time and the Zimbabwean people can answer, but it is clear that any leader who emerges must be prepared to integrate the best of both military discipline and civilian inclusiveness to build a Zimbabwe that is both strong and free.
