The Popularity Paradox: Chamisa & The Delusion of Popular Will as a Pathway for Change in Zimbabwe

The Popularity Paradox: Chamisa: But in the ever-fluid politics of Zimbabwe, where it is said that populism wins political power here one moment then goes on to be populist again at another time nothing seem to have changed. There is some truth in this argument, particularly for a country like Zimbabwe where the ruling party Zanu PF has been unassailable for decades.

The ascendancy of Nelson Chamisa as a power broker in Zimbabwean politics, to many zimbos does not only epitomize the change in political dynamics but reflects hope that popularity can indeed crush an almost unbreakable regime.

This belief is embodied by Chamisa and the people are with him: He appeals, he has charisma ndizesesice esidalwa yin’ uZanu PF?

Chamisa was a quick presence in Zimbabwean politics, and this youthfulness is commonly referred to as the best thing about him. To a weary population long dominated by Zanu PF, Chamisa is seen as the change candidate.

This not just because he is the best foot forward, but it is also owing to his human touch which allows him time and heart space with ordinary zimbabweans.

His boundless energy, his charisma, as well as quickfire manner which reflects the anger of millions—he is popular. Chamisa’s appeal with the youth (where more than two-thirds of Zimbabweans are under 25) cannot be understated even though his task is daunting.

Which he seeks to be positioning himself as the leader who can mobilize a constituency that is majority youth with such youth being likely desperate for change most of all.

But Chamisa’s appeal is not just charisma and youth. It comes from a place of deep dis-ease with the way things are currently. Zimbabweans have suffered for quite so many years under the Zanu PF regime with economic misery, political repression and social decay.

Indeed, the popularity of Chamisa is likewise a testament to what the electorate desires — Leadership that listens, feels their plight & one which really resonates with them. The Zim Bulletin News notes that the parallel is with Zanu PF: the contrast between a “new Zimbabwe”, promised by Chamisa and…the patronage and corruption of old. His popularity is a protest, one voice in unison calling “enough of this”.

However, can popularity in Zimbabwe translate into political power is a complex question. An opposition figure that can flourish in such a difficult terrain requires more than just popularity.

An opposition leader, in addition to being a motivator and mobilizer-in-chief must possess both the strategic smarts sufficient to navigate Zimbabwean politics’ murky waters.

This involves resurrecting a party that is strong and united, making real and practical alliances with forces in agreement ideologically or tactically on particular things, as well as uproot the state apparatuses of violence which Zanu PF uses without any reckoning.

It takes resilience in the face of harassment, bureaucratic tactics and electoral malpractice. Importantly, the ability to remain on track and engaged with electorate even after setbacks is key. Chamisa’s capacity to do this has been tested time and again and it is the unmistakable badge of his resilience.

In Zimbabwe’s previous elections the influence an opposition leader wields has been sui generis, evoking both deep admiration and occasional dismay. And in that heavily gerrymandered political landscape, popularity has not been enough. The 2008, and especially the 2018, elections are prime demonstrations of this paradox.

Morgan Tsvangirai, his predecessor in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was still arguably Zimbabwe´s most popular politician when he died of colon cancer in 2018 at age 58.

However, Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out of the subsequent runoff amid violence and “intimidation,” despite winning in a first round vote. That led to a power-sharing agreement in which Zanu PF retained significant sway.

In 2018 elections Chamisa was a crowd puller, and his popularity showed in the number of people he drew during campaigning. He had a unique gift of inspiring the entire electorate, especially the young people.

Alas, he was not able to win this wave of popularity because election result (everyone feels) were rigged! Despite massive endorsement, Chamisa was beaten to the post with official results announcing Emmerson Mnangagwa as president.

Protests followed, and were met by a vicious crackdown from the regime, further underscoring that in Zimbabwe popularity is not all it takes to win an election.

Which is how we get to the nub of it: being popular, even within a single wing of ZANU PF, for example amongst its lower ranks and in the base structures— does not a changemaker make.

It is a political terrain where the governing carve the rules and execute them, often riding roughshod over democratic institutions. It takes a lot…. the right mix of popularity, stratagem in play and structure that can survive problems to make it for Chamisa or any opposition leader to win.

This includes the power to not only mobilize before elections but after, and exert pressure on ruling parties, as well as promote real democratic reforms.

In light of the power of mass mobilization, however naïve or contradictory it seems to rely on popularity as an answer in itself for Zimbabwe. But it also underscores the dangers of relying too much on political popularity in a context when electoral processes are irrevocably flawed.

History tells us that successful opposition are those which pair the energy of popular movements with a pragmatic understanding of smaller party politics.

Chamisa’s appeal is a major force in the politics of Zimbabwe, and an indication that voters are hungry for a new order. However, short of being able to attract a crowd or win the heart of people are hardly sufficient qualifications for aspiring buskers.

It requires strategic political acumen, endurance and planning that can cut through the myriad of obstacles in Zimbabwean politics.

Whether Chamisa can translate his popularity into realpolitik is an open question but the belief in power of populism will, it seems, only be around for a little while longer moulding the opposition politics landscape.