One of the enduring problems in Zimbabwe’s post-independence politics just as it was during the liberation struggle has been fragmentation within the black nationalist and opposition movements. What began decades ago as factionalism in exile continues today in the democratic arena, with rival opposition parties still more defined by personal loyalties and tribal suspicions than by a united national vision.
By Solo Musaigwa
Where once armed guerrilla factions such as ZANU and ZAPU split along Shona-Ndebele tribal lines, today we see similar fault lines reappearing within Zimbabwe’s opposition. The Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), which rose to replace the disintegrated MDC, is itself now riddled with leadership disputes, strategic incoherence, and a trust deficit with the public, especially after its recent decimation in by-elections allegedly engineered by state-captured courts and opposition infiltrators.
During the 1960s and 70s, black nationalist movements in then-Rhodesia fractured repeatedly. The Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), led by Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole, emerged out of frustrations with the moderate strategies of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), headed by Joshua Nkomo. But even ZANU could not hold after internal power struggles; it splintered again, eventually seeing the rise of Robert Mugabe, whose authoritarian leadership defined post-independence Zimbabwe.
Back then, personalities clashed over ideological direction, tribal loyalty, and strategic control. Today, Zimbabwe’s opposition continues to suffer from the same virus: power struggles, egos, and the lack of a binding national vision.
Just as the African National Congress (not to be confused with South Africa’s ANC) tried in vain to unite rival factions under Bishop Abel Muzorewa, present-day initiatives to unify the opposition around a common platform have repeatedly failed. Former MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai’s death left a vacuum, and attempts to coalesce under Nelson Chamisa have recently crumbled under infighting, controversial recalls, and whispered accusations of state infiltration.
The tribal undertones of opposition politics in Zimbabwe remain unspoken yet ever-present. In the 1970s, ZANU was perceived as predominantly Shona and ZAPU as predominantly Ndebele. That rivalry led to the Gukurahundi massacres in the 1980s, scarring any future attempts at unity.
Today, opposition leaders are careful with their language, but ethnic geography still shapes voting patterns and party support bases. Meanwhile, ZANU-PF continues to benefit from the disunity of its opponents, often exploiting these fractures through selective repression, legal manipulation, and infiltration.
In the past, Sithole’s retreat from Zimbabwean politics after being outmanoeuvred by Mugabe and alienated by his own comrades mirrors what many see today with splinter groups forming from the CCC, such as formations led by Sengezo Tshabangu, or the now-quiet figures from the many MDC variants.
The modern opposition is often more occupied with internal purges and public spats than with outlining a credible alternative to ZANU-PF rule. Promises of reforms, transparency, and people-powered politics often collapse under the weight of poor organisation, unclear ideology, and personal ambition.
The lesson from history is clear: fragmented movements cannot defeat entrenched systems of power. In the 1970s, even as Rhodesian forces weakened, nationalist movements nearly sabotaged their own cause through disunity. Today, ZANU-PF’s endurance is less about popularity and more about the failure of its opponents to present a compelling, united front.
Observers accuse the state and its political apparatus of exploiting these divisions expertly, often portraying opposition leaders as self-serving, inconsistent, and foreign-backed. The lack of continuity, funding scandals, and ambiguous leadership succession plans only serve to confirm these suspicions among the electorate.
As Zimbabwe inches toward another electoral cycle, the opposition faces a defining choice: continue the cycle of splits, mutual suspicion, and missed opportunities or learn from the past and build a durable coalition of national renewal.
Until then, the ghosts of Muzorewa, Sithole, Nkomo, and others loom large. Not just as historical figures, but as cautionary tales about the cost of division in the face of tyranny.
