No more false dawns for Zimbabwe
The failed national shutdown in Zimbabwe was not only a tactical defeat, it was a brutal reminder of the limits of top-down, leader-centric politics.
For all the courage and commitment shown by figures such as Blessed 'Bombshell' Geza, the reality is undeniable: without deep-rooted, decentralised, mass-based movements, no real change is possible.
The people stayed away, not from work, but from the shutdown itself. The reasons are structural, not merely psychological. They point to the urgent need for a new politics, one that abandons charismatic saviours and elite bargaining in favour of collective, bottom-up power.
The collapse of Geza's shutdown call reveals a sobering truth about Zimbabwean politics: citizens are not apathetic by nature. They are trapped in a political economy of survival, where the costs of protest are immediate and brutal while the rewards are uncertain and distant.
Even worse, decades of state violence, economic devastation and opposition fragmentation have atomised Zimbabwe's working class, severing the organic bonds of solidarity that once made collective action possible. In this context, appeals from above, no matter how sincere, are destined to fall flat.
Geza's attempt to mobilise a national shutdown followed a pattern that has long doomed Zimbabwean resistance: a charismatic figure calls for mass action, but without the underlying architecture of popular self-organisation needed to sustain it. Movements rooted in the authority of a singular leader are inherently fragile. They rise and fall with the individual, not with the strength of collective structures.
In anarchist analysis, effective resistance does not begin with declarations from above. It is painstakingly built from below, through local assemblies, workplace committees, mutual aid networks and popular education.
Without the structures, the call for a shutdown became an abstract appeal, a hope rather than a plan. No neighbourhood councils were coordinating food supplies for strikers. No underground unions were preparing workers for retaliation. No community defence groups stood ready to protect participants from the regime's inevitable violence. Geza's call was brave, but bravery alone does not substitute for organisation.
In a society where 95% unemployment forces people into precarious work, and where missing a day of income can mean hunger, simply telling citizens to 'stay home' without providing material support was a non-starter. Shutdowns succeed not because people are asked to suffer for an idea, but because they are supported through collective infrastructure that cushions the blows of repression and privation.
The state, for its part, has perfected the arts of counterinsurgency. Surveillance, infiltration, selective arrests and brutal crackdowns have shredded trust within communities. Fear is not an irrational response, it is a learnt survival strategy. Breaking through it does not require heroic calls from the rooftops, but the slow, patient work of rebuilding horizontal bonds of trust and solidarity at the grassroots.
Zimbabwe once boasted a formidable labour movement, spearheaded by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions), which gave birth to the original Movement for Democratic Change in the late 1990s. But systematic repression, co-optation and economic collapse have gutted organised labour.
In today's Zimbabwe, the working class exists largely in the informal economy, scattered across precarious livelihoods, with little or no collective bargaining power.
Without organised workplaces, a general strike — the backbone of any serious shutdown — is impossible. Informal workers cannot simply 'down tools' when their survival depends on daily hustling
Without organised workplaces, a general strike — the backbone of any serious shutdown — is impossible. Informal workers cannot simply 'down tools' when their survival depends on daily hustling. Striking means starvation, and in the absence of mutual aid structures to mitigate the risks, survival will always trump protest.
There is a persistent romanticism about 'spontaneous uprisings', the idea that a sudden spark will ignite mass resistance. But anarchist history teaches otherwise. Even the most seemingly 'spontaneous' revolts, from the Spanish Revolution of 1936 to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, were preceded by years, sometimes decades, of underground organising, cultural work and institution-building. Spontaneity is not the absence of preparation, it is its eruption.
In Zimbabwe, there were no neighbourhood assemblies debating tactics, no rank-and-file workers' councils plotting coordination, no clandestine affinity groups planning resistance. The shutdown was, at its heart, a media event more than a social movement, a call disseminated through WhatsApp groups and social media but lacking the flesh and blood institutions that alone can sustain real confrontation with state power.
Geza's emergence as a 'leader' from within the ruling party's dissident faction speaks volumes. In the absence of a credible opposition rooted in working class organising, the only alternative to President Emmerson Mnangagwa's dictatorship appeared to be another elite figure from the same liberation-era military caste. A change of faces, not of structures.
For many citizens, the choice between Mnangagwa and Geza must have seemed depressingly familiar: two wings of the same predatory class battling for control over a ruined state. Without a politics that offers a different kind of power — horizontal, participatory, rooted in real material transformation — there is no compelling reason for ordinary people to risk their lives.
The immediate consequence of the shutdown's failure is grim. Mnangagwa has been handed a propaganda victory. His regime will portray the lack of mass participation as evidence of popular support, emboldening further repression and deepening the rot of corruption and decay.
• Maisiri is a researcher and educator focused on labour, social movements and emancipatory politics in Southern Africa.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
Zimbabwe's Kirsty Coventry: Olympic Chief's steeliness shaped by hard knocks
CHALLENGES AHEAD Kirsty Coventry, Zimbabwe's first female and African IOC president, is set to navigate challenges with US President Trump and demonstrate her resilience and leadership skills, as highlighted by her successful career and political experience. Picture: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP Image: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP First impressions can be deceptive but Kirsty Coventry showed that behind a sunny disposition she will have the mettle to deal with the trickiest of people and situations when she succeeds Thomas Bach as president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on Monday. Looming large on the horizon of the 41-year-old Zimbabwean -- the first woman and African to occupy the post of the most powerful single figure in sport -- is US President Donald Trump. With Los Angeles hosting the 2028 Olympics, Trump will feature often on Coventry's agenda. Trump has not been shy in giving public dressing downs to world leaders -- notably Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his South African counterpart Cyril Ramaphosa. Judging by Coventry's initial response, after a crushing first-round victory in the presidential election in March, she may have Trump's measure. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Navigating Challenges and Embracing Failure: Lessons from Coventry's Career 'I have been dealing with, let's say, difficult men in high positions since I was 20 years old,' she said, adding 'communication will be key.' Unlike Trump, though, Coventry embraces the word failure, for it helped forge her stellar career. 'Everything's scary. Embrace that. You have to fail,' Coventry told the swimming team at her American alma mater Auburn University last year. 'I've learned the best lessons by failing, and I have failed at many things. Life has a really good way of humbling you.' At the same time that steely resolve comes to the surface when winning is at stake. 'I was banned from playing card games with the family, because they didn't like to deal with me when I lost,' she said. A Glance at Coventry's CV Suggests Failure in Her Life Has Been Relative Coventry, who had the Olympic rings tattooed on a leg after her first Games in 2000, is a two-time Olympic gold medallist and she has contributed seven of Zimbabwe's overall Games medals tally of eight. She has accrued domestic political experience, as she was Zimbabwe's Minister for Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation from 2019 to this year. That attracted some flak as she was serving in a government whose election in 2023 was declared to be 'neither free nor fair' by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). 'I don't think you can stand on the sidelines and scream and shout for change,' she said in her defence. 'I believe you have to be seated at the table to try and create it.' Her record as a minister has been heavily criticised by the Zimbabwean arts community in particular. Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa, whose predecessor Robert Mugabe labelled Coventry 'a golden girl' and awarded her $100,000 after she came back with a gold medal from Beijing in 2008, hit back. 'Whoever was not impressed by her can appoint someone else when they become president,' said the 82-year-old.
Eyewitness News
13-06-2025
- Eyewitness News
National Dialogue is a distraction from failure to achieve meaningful transformation
Malaika Mahlatsi 13 June 2025 | 10:10 national dialogue Cyril Ramaphosa African National Congress (ANC) President Cyril Ramaphosa announces a National Dialogue for 2025. Image: @CyrilRamaphosa On 10 June 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced developments on the National Dialogue that he proposed just over a year ago. These developments include the establishment of a team of 'eminent persons' whose role will be to 'guide and champion' the dialogue. These 'eminent persons' are influential individuals in government (current and former), the private sector, academia and broader civil society (to some extent). According to the president, the dialogue aims to discuss the challenges facing South Africa and to 'forge a path into the future in dialogue with one another'. Ramaphosa likened this National Dialogue to the discussions that occurred during apartheid. He stated: 'Through dialogue, we were able to deal with the challenges that the apartheid system caused in our country and achieved peace and overcame violence. We established a democracy and ended apartheid. Following the negotiations process, we used dialogue to start building a united nation where once there had only been conflict and division. We achieved all this because we came together in dialogue to discuss our difficulties, our concerns, our hopes and our aspirations as a people'. On the surface, a National Dialogue seems like a good idea. South Africa is increasingly becoming polarised, with divisions occurring along racial, class, ideological, ethnic and gender lines. There is no question that ours is a deeply divided society, and that dialogue has a place in healing a divided people. I understood this a few years ago when I attended a march against the ZANU-PF's authoritarian reign in Zimbabwe, held in Pretoria by the Zimbabwean diaspora. What was supposed to be a protest against the brutality of the regime exposed deeply concerning divisions that made it clear that the issues in Zimbabwe are deeper than the reality that the ZANU-PF government enjoys a monopoly of violence and governs with a margin of terror. Scores of protestors held posters calling for cessation, arguing that Matabeleland should break away from the Republic of Zimbabwe, using regressive arguments rooted in ethnic chauvinism. But at the heart of this thinking is the unacknowledged trauma of Gukurahundi, a genocide that ripped through Matabeleland between 1983 and 1987, where tens of thousands of Ndebele people were slaughtered by the Fifth Brigade under the instruction of Robert Mugabe's government. The lack of dialogue about Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe has not only made victims of the genocide invisible but has cemented unimaginable generational trauma. There is a necessity for dialogue in Zimbabwe, just as there is in many parts of the continent where traumas have gone unacknowledged. So, as a principle, I do support national dialogues. I value their significance. But scratch beneath the surface of the proposed National Dialogue in South Africa, and you realise that here, it is nothing more than a distraction from the failure of the democratic government to achieve meaningful transformation. Unlike in Zimbabwe, where injustice has not even been acknowledged, in our country, the issue is not about a lack of dialogue but rather, lack of action. Furthermore, the president's likening of the dialogue to negotiations that 'ended' apartheid is manipulative and a distortion of history. The Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA), the negotiating forum established in 1991 after the National Peace Accord, which aimed at transitioning South Africa from apartheid to a democratic government, may have provided a platform for dialogue, but it did not 'end' apartheid. The power of mass action, both domestically and internationally, coupled with the economic and political unsustainability of apartheid, led to its end. By the time the negotiations happened, the apartheid regime was so isolated globally that the economic logic and incentive for apartheid was no longer sustainable. It was the people of South Africa and our allies across the world who made apartheid unworkable and made negotiations a logical conclusion. Insisting that CODESA 'ended' apartheid is a form of erasure of the role that South Africans played in their liberation, and historical revisionism that has come to define the narrative of struggle in the democratic dispensation. The issues that the president wants to see addressed by the National Dialogue are not unknown. The government is fully aware what the issues in our country are. Its own research institutions such as the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), the Gauteng City Region Observatory (GCRO), government departments, think tanks, learning institutions, the media, and all manner of institutions and platforms have repeatedly communicated what the issues in South Africa are and what they have been since the dawn of and the government know exactly what ails us and what solutions are needed to alleviate the struggles that we confront. There is nothing that a consultative process will bring to light that protesting communities, activists, scholars and people on the margins (including women, the LGBTQI+ community, migrants, persons with disabilities, Khoisan people, etc) have not already expressed. Even more, the root of the problem for which symptoms have been protested over, analysed and commented on by South Africans across all walks of life, is known. The government of our country knows that unless the nucleus of racial capitalism, from whence the chromatin network of landlessness, poverty, inequalities, and all forms of structural violence emerges, is addressed, meaningful transformation will not happen. No matter how much ignorance it feigns, the government knows. For this reason, I am in full agreement with Sinawo Tambo, the spokesperson of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who posits that Ramaphosa is attempting to make South Africans take collective responsibility for the failures of the party he leads and seeks to mask this scapegoating with the sentimentality of a National Dialogue. The dialogue gives an illusion of a government that listens when in reality, the South African government, and certainly, the African National Congress (ANC), has proven impervious to listening. Ramaphosa wants to keep South Africa in an endless cycle of dialogue to distract us from the fact that the government is failing to facilitate the radical reform that is needed to redress the injustices of the country's amoral past. He wants us to dialogue because he does not have the guts to make demands on those who remain resistant to change – the unrepentant White minority that has become emboldened by the inertia of his government and has opted out of participating in the process of nation-building without consequence. Instead, the oppressed are expected to beg for justice and to negotiate for humanisation. Instead of dedicating taxpayers' resources to a performative consultative process, the government should be channelling those resources towards programmes/initiatives aimed at addressing gender-based violence, structural reform, economic and spatial justice, and service delivery. These are some key issues that South Africans have already expressed as needing urgent intervention. These are issues the country has already communicated through dialogues in communities, through the media and on platforms. To want to have South Africans repeat them for the purpose of symbolism is callous. President Ramaphosa must reflect deeply on the sentiments expressed in Karl Marx's 11th thesis in the Theses on Feuerbach , who, in his critique of the traditional role of philosophy, which he saw as primarily theoretical, contends that: 'Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it'. In the context of South Africa, the people have dialogued in various ways; the point for the government is to muster the political will to act. Malaika, a bestselling and award-winning author, is a geographer and researcher at the Institute for Pan African Thought and Conversation. She is a PhD in Geography candidate at the University of Bayreuth in Germany.
The South African
13-06-2025
- The South African
Chamisa denies launching ‘God Is In It' crypto as he regains hacked X account
Former Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) leader Nelson Chamisa says he has successfully regained control of his X account after it was hacked earlier this week by what he described as 'cybercriminals.' The hacking incident caused a stir on Tuesday morning when a bizarre post advertising a cryptocurrency called 'God Is In It' or $GIT suddenly appeared on his feed just after 3 AM CAT. The post, which bore all the signs of a scam, was quickly deleted within two hours, sparking confusion, especially after the former opposition leader revealed he was not in control of the account. Writing on his WhatsApp channel at the time, Chamisa warned that his X account had been 'compromised' and that he was working with the platform's support team to recover it. A day later, the opposition figure confirmed that the account is back in his hands. 'Hi family, I have now successfully regained access to my X account that had been compromised. Thanks to the @X support team and our office support staff,' Chamisa wrote in a reassuring post. 'Our office team have taken all the necessary measures to ensure it won't happen again. Any inconvenience caused is sincerely regretted. Thank you for your continued support. God bless you.' Chamisa did not elaborate on how the breach occurred or who was behind it, but his post hinted at heightened digital security going forward. The incident comes at a time when Zimbabwean political figures increasingly rely on social media to engage with supporters and communicate key messages. With over 1.5 million followers on X, Chamisa's platform is not only influential but also a high-value target for cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
