Why Chamisa Had No Choice But to Return

Story By Yvette Choga

Zimbabwe’s opposition politics is going through a familiar story. A well-known leader steps back for a while. The movement loses steam. Then people start asking what comes next. Right now, that leader is Nelson Chamisa. His on-and-off role in Zimbabwean politics has become one of the most talked-about topics in the country.

Chamisa announced the formation of the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) on January 24, 2022. At the time, people responded fast. Crowds came out, and there was real excitement. For a moment, it looked like the opposition had new energy.

But critics say that energy was never turned into real action. Despite the support, there was no big, organized push — like large peaceful protests — strong enough to pressure those in power.

Some of Chamisa’s supporters, including people who call themselves “Madzibaba Shanduko,” are open about why they back him. It’s not really about policies or a political plan. It’s about the man himself. This matches something political commentator Hopewell Chin’ono has said before: many Zimbabweans follow personalities, not ideas. In other words, being loyal to Chamisa isn’t the same as being loyal to a clear plan for the country. It’s loyalty to a person people have put years of hope into.

One big criticism is about delay. Plans that were once tied to 2028 have quietly been pushed back to 2030. Critics say this looks less like patience and more like a tactic — one used to keep opposition leaders busy and calm instead of pushing for real change.

This year has drawn extra criticism. A lot was promised at the start of the year, but by the end of the year, very little had actually happened. For a movement that depends on public trust, that gap between promises and results comes at a cost.

Chamisa himself sees it differently. When asked about the criticism, he has spoken about patience and process rather than speed. He compares political change to how long it takes an elephant to be born — much longer than a smaller animal. His point is that slow progress doesn’t mean no progress.

Things have also become harder because of a new law known as “CAB3.” According to the discussion, this law has changed what future elections could even look like. Since the opposition’s relevance has always been tied to elections, a law that limits or removes that path forces a rethink of strategy. This is the backdrop against which Chamisa’s return, and its timing, is being questioned.

Another theme that keeps coming up is conflict between opposition leaders themselves. Some argue that Zimbabwe’s opposition is its own biggest enemy — with different leaders focused more on proving they are the “real” leader than on uniting against the ruling party. This in-fighting, they say, pulls energy away from the real fight and turns it into arguments over who deserves to lead.

Others disagree. They say competition between opposition leaders isn’t the real problem. Each leader is simply doing their own work, and the true fight remains against the ruling party, not against each other.

One of the strongest points made is a call for opposition unity that goes beyond any single leader or party. The idea is simple: bring together fifteen or twenty different groups, no matter their current names or leaders, and get them to agree on a shared set of principles — even if full agreement isn’t possible, aiming for most of it should be enough. Then unite under one new name.

The reasoning is direct: there’s little point in being the “president” of a party with no real power. It’s better, in this view, to hold a smaller but real position — like a minister, councilor, or mayor — than to be the head of an opposition party that never gains influence. Anyone running their own small political project alone, whether at home or abroad, is seen as fighting a battle they can’t win by themselves.

Overall, this discussion reflects a deeper frustration with Zimbabwean politics. Some believe the usual paths — elections, party politics, slow legal reform — have stopped working under current conditions. Instead of another party or another leader, they’re calling for something bigger: a mass, people-led movement strong enough to create the pressure that individual campaigns have failed to deliver.

Whether Chamisa’s return is a real turning point or just another chapter in a long pattern of hope and delay is something people see very differently. What is clear is that questions about loyalty, leadership, timing, and unity remain at the heart of Zimbabwe’s opposition politics — just as much as any single leader’s next move.