ANALYSIS: Why Chamisa Can Not Win A Third Election Against Mnangagwa

HARARE – Zimbabwe’s political landscape has often been overshadowed by the enduring dominance of the ruling ZANU-PF party. The opposition’s struggle for power has been a defining feature, spearheaded by two charismatic figures: the late Morgan Tsvangirai and his successor, Nelson Chamisa. Their electoral journeys, while distinct, offer a compelling narrative of resilience, challenge, and the persistent hurdles faced by those seeking to unseat a deeply entrenched liberation movement.

Why Nelson Chamisa Faces an Uphill Battle in Zimbabwean Elections

Nelson Chamisa’s electoral performance, much like his predecessor Morgan Tsvangirai’s, consistently demonstrates a strong opposition presence, yet falls short of the decisive victory needed to unseat the ruling ZANU-PF. Looking at the numbers, Chamisa secured 44.3% in 2018 and 44.03% in 2023 against Emmerson Mnangagwa’s 50.8% and 52.6% respectively. This consistent gap, hovering around 6-8 percentage points, isn’t simply a matter of voter preference; it points to deeper, systemic challenges that create an inherently uneven playing field.

The primary reasons Chamisa, and by extension the opposition, struggles to cross the finish line are deeply rooted in Zimbabwe’s electoral environment:

• Systemic Irregularities and Lack of Level Playing Field: International and regional observer missions have repeatedly highlighted concerns over Zimbabwean elections. These include issues like voter suppression (e.g., ballot paper delays in opposition strongholds as seen in 2023), alleged manipulation of the voters’ roll, and a severe lack of transparency from the electoral commission. Such irregularities chip away at the opposition’s potential vote share and erode public trust in the process.
  
• State Resource Mobilization: The ruling ZANU-PF consistently benefits from the extensive use of state resources for campaigning, media dominance, and leveraging traditional leadership structures, particularly in rural areas. This provides them with a significant logistical and outreach advantage that the opposition simply cannot match.
• Political Intimidation and Fear: While overt violence may vary, an underlying climate of fear and intimidation has historically characterized Zimbabwean elections, especially outside urban centers. This can suppress voter turnout in opposition strongholds or coerce voters in rural areas, directly impacting the final tally. Morgan Tsvangirai’s withdrawal from the 2008 runoff due to widespread violence is a stark reminder of this enduring challenge.
• Disputed Results and Unsuccessful Legal Recourse: Even when the opposition presents evidence of electoral malpractices, their legal challenges in the courts have consistently been unsuccessful. This lack of effective legal recourse further entrenches the perception that the electoral system is designed to favor the incumbent.

In essence, while Chamisa has proven his ability to rally substantial popular support and articulate an alternative vision, the structural impediments within Zimbabwe’s political and electoral system remain formidable. Until fundamental reforms address these deeply entrenched issues, the path to a clear electoral victory for the opposition will likely remain exceptionally challenging.

Tsvangirai vs. Chamisa: A Comparative Look at the Opposition’s Manifestos

The Similarities: A Shared Foundation

Despite the change in leadership and party name, a consistent set of core principles runs through both leaders’ manifestos.

• Economic Revival as a Central Pillar: Both Tsvangirai and Chamisa consistently prioritized economic recovery. Tsvangirai’s manifestos, born out of periods of hyperinflation and economic collapse, focused on immediate stabilization and job creation. Chamisa’s manifestos built on this, proposing more modern, long-term economic goals like a “100 billion dollar economy” and “smart agriculture.” The underlying commitment to moving away from economic decline, however, remained the same.
• Good Governance and Democratic Reform: A central tenet for both leaders was the need for a new democratic dispensation. Their manifestos consistently called for constitutional reforms, an end to corruption, and greater transparency and accountability in government. This reflects the opposition’s long-standing fight against the political status quo.
• Addressing the Land Question: Both leaders acknowledged the need for a fair and equitable land policy. Tsvangirai’s manifestos proposed transparent land audits and compensation, while Chamisa’s platforms reiterated a commitment to sustainable land reform that benefits all citizens. The goal was to move beyond the controversial fast-track land reform program.

The Differences: A Shift in Focus

While the foundational principles remained similar, Chamisa’s manifestos introduced a notable shift in strategy and vision, reflecting the changing times.

• From Stabilization to Modernization: Tsvangirai’s manifestos were largely a response to immediate crises. The 2008 manifesto, for example, was framed around economic rescue and a plan for the first 100 days in office. In contrast, Chamisa’s 2018 “SMART” manifesto was a forward-looking document, emphasizing technological advancement and long-term economic transformation. The shift from “recovery” to “modernization” is a key distinction.
• Strategic Rhetoric and New Framing: Chamisa’s manifestos employed more ambitious and aspirational language. The “New Great Zimbabwe Blueprint for Everyone” and the “SMART” agenda were brand-building exercises intended to project a fresh vision. Chamisa’s inclusion of proposals for “church involvement in governance” in his 2023 manifesto also introduced a new dimension not prominently featured in Tsvangirai’s more secularly-focused platforms.
• The Power of Time: Tsvangirai’s manifestos were often released in close proximity to the elections, with the 2013 manifesto launched just 24 days before the polls. This speaks to the often reactive and high-pressure political environment of the time. Chamisa’s 2018 manifesto had a slightly longer lead time of 53 days, which allowed for a more detailed and expansive platform.

Morgan Tsvangirai’s Manifestos

Morgan Richard Tsvangirai (1952-2018)

Former Prime Minister of Zimbabwe (2009-2013)

• Founding Leader of Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
• Former Secretary-General of Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU)
• Key figure in “No” vote campaign for 2000 constitutional referendum
• Presidential Candidate: 2002, 2008, 2013

Morgan Tsvangirai, as the founding leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), spearheaded the opposition’s vision for a democratic Zimbabwe. His manifestos focused on crucial issues during his leadership.

Nelson Chamisa’s Manifestos

Nelson Chamisa (Born 1978)

Leader of Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC)

• Former President of MDC Alliance
• Former Minister of Information and Communication Technology (2009-2013)
• Lawyer, Pastor, and Youth Leader
• Presidential Candidate: 2018, 2023

Nelson Chamisa, as the successor to Tsvangirai, continued the opposition’s fight, evolving the party’s platforms to address contemporary challenges and a new generation of voters.

Electoral Performance: A Persistent Struggle

Both Tsvangirai and Chamisa consistently managed to garner substantial electoral support, often exceeding 30-40% of the vote against an incumbent party that has ruled since independence. Their performances highlight a deep-seated desire for change among a significant portion of the Zimbabwean populace.

*Note: Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew from the 2008 runoff election. Exact raw vote counts for the 2002 election are not consistently reported across sources, so percentages are provided.

However, their electoral outcomes also underscore the immense structural and systemic challenges faced by the opposition in Zimbabwe. Despite strong popular backing, neither leader was able to translate this into a definitive electoral victory recognized as free and fair by all parties. The consistent pattern of disputed results, allegations of irregularities, and the use of state machinery to influence outcomes remain a pervasive feature of Zimbabwean elections, making a true like-for-like comparison of their democratic strength difficult.

In essence, while Tsvangirai laid the groundwork for a formidable opposition, enduring severe personal and political costs, Chamisa has attempted to revitalize and modernize that challenge. Both have shown that the desire for democratic change in Zimbabwe is potent, but the path to achieving it through the ballot box remains fraught with obstacles.

To win against Emmerson Mnangagwa, Nelson Chamisa needs to address several deeply entrenched systemic issues and strategic challenges that have historically hindered Zimbabwe’s opposition. Based on the electoral performance data and analysis of the political landscape, his path to victory would likely involve a multi-faceted approach.

Overcoming Systemic Electoral Disadvantages

The electoral data consistently shows Chamisa, like Tsvangirai before him, securing significant popular support (around 44% in both 2018 and 2023). However, this hasn’t translated into a presidential win. This points to the need to actively counter the structural impediments that favor the ruling ZANU-PF:

• Pushing for Genuine Electoral Reforms: This is paramount. Chamisa needs to intensify pressure for comprehensive reforms to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to ensure its independence and transparency. This includes advocating for a truly auditable voters’ roll, fair delimitation of constituencies, and equitable access to state media. Without a level playing field, even strong popular support can be negated.
• Countering Voter Suppression and Intimidation: The opposition must develop more robust strategies to protect voters, especially in rural areas where intimidation and the leveraging of traditional leaders are more prevalent. This could involve enhanced voter education, rapid response mechanisms for incidents of coercion, and working with civil society to document and expose irregularities in real-time.
• Ensuring Diaspora Vote: A significant number of Zimbabweans live abroad, many of whom are believed to be opposition sympathizers. Advocating for and securing the right for all eligible citizens, including the diaspora, to vote would significantly expand the opposition’s potential voter base.

Strengthening the Opposition’s Internal Structure and Outreach

Beyond external electoral challenges, Chamisa also faces internal and strategic hurdles:

• Building a Clear, Unified, and Resilient Party Structure: The recent challenges within the opposition, including Chamisa’s departure from the MDC Alliance to form the CCC, highlight issues of party cohesion and internal democracy. A clear, well-defined party structure, with established leadership roles beyond just the president, could make the party less vulnerable to infiltration and internal squabbles. This also builds trust among potential voters and international partners.
• Articulating and Communicating a Coherent Policy Alternative: While Chamisa’s manifestos have broad themes, some analyses suggest a need for more detailed and consistently communicated policy positions that resonate deeply with diverse segments of the population, particularly beyond urban centers. Moving beyond general promises to specific, actionable plans for economic recovery and social improvement is crucial.
• Expanding Rural Outreach: ZANU-PF’s strength traditionally lies in rural areas, often leveraging patronage and historical ties. Chamisa needs to invest heavily in sustained, grassroots organizing in these areas, building trust and demonstrating how opposition policies can directly benefit rural communities, rather than relying primarily on urban rallies.
• Strategic Messaging: While Chamisa’s charisma and use of religious messaging appeal to many, a more diversified communication strategy that addresses the concerns of all demographics, including older and more conservative voters, could broaden his appeal.

Leveraging International and Regional Engagement

International and regional observers have often noted the flaws in Zimbabwean elections. Chamisa can continue to:

• Sustain International Advocacy: Keeping Zimbabwe’s electoral integrity on the international agenda can exert pressure for reforms and ensure scrutiny during elections.
• Build Regional Alliances: Strengthening relationships with regional bodies and leaders can encourage a more robust stance on democratic principles within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU).

Ultimately, winning against Emmerson Mnangagwa requires not just a strong candidate and popular support, but a fundamental shift in the electoral landscape and a highly organized, resilient opposition capable of navigating and challenging the deeply entrenched political system.