Cde Blessed “Bombshell” Geza has successfully orchestrated a national shutdown. In a nation where the army and police have previously used lethal force against unarmed protesters, it was a prudent act of self-preservation for Zimbabweans to heed the call to express their disillusionment with President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s leadership by staying home, thereby avoiding direct confrontation with security forces.
By Chofamba Sithole
One significant outcome of Geza’s intervention is the potential derailment of the 2030 agenda. By challenging Mnangagwa’s tenure and threatening to curtail his second term prematurely, Geza has shifted the focus from term extension to a struggle for political survival, leaving little room for aspirations beyond the constitutional limits.
Figures like Tino Machakaire, who have been campaigning for the 2030 extension, now face a precarious and dangerous endeavour. Their actions risk further agitating both the general populace and internal opponents within the ruling party and state apparatus.
The advisable course of action for Mnangagwa, following this shutdown, is to unequivocally reject the 2030 extension by asserting his leadership within ZANU-PF and disbanding all associated campaign groups and slogans. Such assurances could pave the way for rebuilding internal cohesion and establishing a clear process for leadership transition.
It is in Mnangagwa’s interest—and would serve as a lasting legacy—to ensure a stable leadership transition, marking a first in post-independence Zimbabwe. This approach would also help safeguard his family’s economic interests, akin to the treatment of the Mugabe family, who retained their assets after the former president’s ousting. Barring any blatant acts of grand corruption, there is little reason to believe that a ZANU-PF successor would not extend similar courtesies to Mnangagwa’s family.
Regarding the opposition, the national appetite for resolute leadership is evident. Nelson Chamisa’s brand of pacifist politics, which tends to demobilise, may no longer suffice. Zimbabweans have demonstrated their ability to avoid direct confrontation with a repressive regime while still delivering a powerful message through a national shutdown.
Chamisa could exhibit greater determination by organising national shutdowns to pressure the government, thereby avoiding the physical confrontations he has understandably sought to prevent, given the high likelihood of bloodshed.
As Chamisa prepares to re-emerge on the national stage, it is clear that the populace requires more than scriptural references; they need action-oriented leadership. Chamisa remains a pivotal figure whose decisive guidance can mobilise the masses to assert their collective will. For now, he is still that leader.
