ZanuPF, a revolutionary political party built through sacrifice and sustained by discipline, cannot afford to turn internal disagreements into public combat. That was the sober warning issued by Cde Lovemore Matuke, the party’s Secretary for Security in the Politburo, as he addressed rising concern over how differences are being handled within the movement.
Cde Matuke urged members to “desist from having a go at each other in public” and to “learn to resolve their differences amicably,” cautioning that unchecked public quarrels carry a far more serious consequence. When internal disputes are performed in the open, he warned, they risk disembowelling the party from within – stripping it of cohesion, authority, and moral centre.
“We are deeply concerned by the disturbing developments we are witnessing within our party,” Matuke said, noting with alarm that “senior leaders and ordinary members alike are openly attacking one another at public rallies and on social media platforms.” Such conduct, he made clear, is not harmless expression. It is organisational self-harm.
“This behaviour is alien to the values, traditions and discipline that have sustained our great revolutionary party for decades,” he said. ZanuPF’s endurance has never been accidental. It has been the product of unity, respect for structure, and a collective understanding that internal discipline is the price of political longevity.
Cde Matuke reminded members of the party’s ideological foundations: “ZanuPF was founded on unity, respect and collective responsibility,” principles that have enabled it “to overcome adversity and continue serving the people of Zimbabwe.” To abandon these principles in favour of public point-scoring is to forget why the party has survived when many others have not.
Although he spoke primarily in his party role, Matuke also serves as the country’s State Security Minister, a fact that sharpens the gravity of his warning. A revolutionary party that governs cannot separate its internal order from national stability. Public indiscipline within its ranks does not merely weaken the party – it threatens the broader political equilibrium.
His message, therefore, was neither abstract nor optional. Unity is not a slogan to be invoked when convenient. It is a strategic imperative. And those who treat public infighting lightly should understand the risk: a party can survive pressure from outside, but it may not survive being disembowelled from within.
Post a comment