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. More …

The expulsion of Blessed Geza and Gifford Gomwe is not a forgotten footnote in the Party’s long march; it is a warning flare fired into the night sky. It signals, unmistakably, that indiscipline – especially when amplified through the reckless megaphone of social media – carries consequences in ZANUPF. Their removal was not an attempt to silence thought or debate. It was an act of institutional self-defence, meant to preserve order, hierarchy, and the coherence of the Party’s central brand.

That brand is His Excellency, President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa.

Every durable political party functions like a solar system: it survives because all bodies orbit a single, stable centre. In ZANUPF, that centre is President Mnangagwa. He is not merely the Head of State; he is the Party’s face, anchor, and reference point. Strategy, messaging, and mobilisation must revolve around him. Self-appointed unaligned spokespeople, freelance ideologues, and online gladiators are not exhibiting initiative; they are drifting into insubordination. More …

History tends to remember leaders less for the battles they wage than for how they choose to end them. In Zimbabwe’s case, the final chapter between President Robert Gabriel Mugabe and President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa reveals more about leadership than the turbulence that preceded it.

For decades, the country’s political life was shaped by a partnership forged in the liberation struggle and sustained through the long years of state-building. When that relationship ruptured in November 2017, the break appeared absolute. The hostility was raw, amplified by palace intrigues and the corrosive role of third parties – particularly the G40 faction – who thrived by isolating an ageing leader from his most stabilising alliances. At the time, it looked like a familiar tragedy of succession: mentor and protégé permanently sundered. More …