HARARE – Nelson Chamisa’s much-publicised return to active politics has failed to ignite the level of national interest his supporters had anticipated, with critics dismissing the move as underwhelming, reactionary and centred on one-man control rather than broad opposition renewal.
The former Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) leader resurfaced on Friday after nearly two years on the political sidelines, ending a hiatus that began in January 2024 when he dramatically withdrew from frontline politics. At the time, Chamisa claimed his party had been infiltrated and effectively hijacked through what he described as state-sponsored proxies aligned to Zanu-PF.
While loyal supporters have welcomed his re-emergence as a “fresh start” for a fragmented opposition, the broader public reaction has been noticeably muted. Political observers say the moment lacked the energy, clarity and organisational direction expected from a leader attempting a major comeback.
A Return Seen as Reactive, Not Strategic
Critics argue Chamisa’s re-entry appears less like a bold relaunch and more like a defensive manoeuvre aimed at disrupting emerging opposition formations that have begun organising in his absence.
Particular attention has focused on the recently formed Constitutional Defence Forum (CDF), a coalition bringing together figures such as Tendai Biti, Jacob Ngarivhume and Jameson Timba. The grouping has positioned itself as a platform to resist any attempts to amend the Constitution to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s rule beyond the two-term limit ending in 2028.
Some analysts believe Chamisa’s sudden political revival is designed to overshadow or fracture this regrouping, re-centring opposition politics around his personal brand rather than a collective national strategy.
“This looks like political re-entry driven by relevance anxiety,” said one political commentator. “Instead of strengthening a united front, it risks pulling attention and energy back into a personality-driven project.”
“Agenda 2026” Raises More Questions Than Excitement
Chamisa has launched a new citizens’ initiative branded “Agenda 2026 – A Fresh Start”, deliberately distancing himself from formal party structures. However, the initiative’s loose framing and lack of institutional detail have drawn criticism.
Analysts warn that without a constitution, defined leadership structures or accountability mechanisms, the new platform could replicate the same organisational weaknesses that plagued the CCC, which ultimately splintered amid recalls, internal disputes and leadership wrangles.
His return speech, meanwhile, has been widely described by critics as heavy on slogans but light on substance. Detractors say it lacked a concrete roadmap, timelines or a clear strategy for confronting Zanu-PF’s entrenched power.
Ambiguity on the “2030 Agenda”
Chamisa’s stance on alleged plans to extend Mnangagwa’s rule has also come under scrutiny. His characterisation of the issue as a “false fight” in previous remarks has been interpreted by some activists as dismissive of what they see as a serious constitutional threat.
Although he has since labelled term-extension efforts as “foolishness” and unconstitutional, critics argue his messaging remains inconsistent and strategically vague at a time when opposition forces are calling for focused resistance.
“There is a sense that he wants to be seen opposing everything, without clearly committing to a structured national campaign on anything,” said an opposition activist aligned with the CDF.
Lingering Resentment Over His Exit
Chamisa’s 2024 withdrawal from politics continues to haunt his credibility among some former allies. Detractors accuse him of abandoning elected officials and supporters at a critical moment, leaving a leadership vacuum that enabled internal chaos and Zanu-PF-aligned manoeuvres within the CCC.
While sympathisers describe his departure as a tactical retreat in the face of overwhelming state pressure, critics see it as a strategic blunder that ceded political ground to the ruling party.
His explanation that he stepped aside to allow new leaders to emerge has failed to convince sceptics, who argue that no meaningful succession or alternative structure was ever put in place.
A Familiar Pattern?
More broadly, Chamisa’s return has revived a long-running debate about whether Zimbabwe’s opposition struggles stem more from state repression or from internal weaknesses, personality politics and lack of coherent long-term planning.
Some analysts argue Zanu-PF’s durability owes as much to opposition fragmentation and strategic confusion as it does to the ruling party’s machinery. In that context, Chamisa’s reappearance — without a clear break from past methods — is being viewed less as a reset and more as a continuation of familiar patterns.
For now, his comeback has placed him back at the centre of political conversation — but without the groundswell of momentum that once defined his rise. Whether “Agenda 2026” evolves into a credible national movement or remains a personalised political vehicle may determine whether this return marks a turning point, or simply another cycle in Zimbabwe’s stalled opposition politics.
