https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/2025/02/05/blessing-gezas-expulsion-will-expose-the-hypocrisy-of-mnangagwas-democracy/ *_PLEASE SHARE_* *Blessing Geza’s expulsion will expose the hypocrisy of Mnangagwa’s “democracy”* _BY Tendai Ruben Mbofana_ *THE circus continues!* In a recent development within Zimbabwe’s political landscape, ZANU-PF Politburo member Ziyambi Ziyambi announced a resolution to expel outspoken war veteran and Central Committee member Blessing Geza from the party. This decision, made by the Mashonaland West Provincial Coordination Committee, stems from Geza’s bold criticism of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s leadership and his calls for the president’s immediate resignation. Geza has also been a vocal opponent of extending Mnangagwa’s term beyond the constitutionally mandated two five-year limits. Despite facing expulsion, Geza has garnered significant support from various factions within ZANU-PF, notably from the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZNLWVA). Led by Chairman Andreas Ethan Mathibela, top officials of the ZNLWVA released a video expressing their solidarity with Geza. In the video, they criticized President Mnangagwa’s inner circle, accusing them of corruption and the misappropriation of national resources, which has led to widespread poverty and deteriorating infrastructure. *_To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08_* Concurrently, there is a concerted effort by President Mnangagwa’s supporters within ZANU-PF to amend the national constitution. The proposed amendment aims to extend Mnangagwa’s tenure beyond 2028, allowing him to remain in office until at least 2030 under the pretext of completing his “Vision 2030” economic program. This initiative has been met with widespread opposition, both within the party and among the general populace. Proponents of the term extension argue that their campaign is merely an exercise of free speech within a democratic framework. They claim that the “ED 2030” movement reflects the genuine appreciation of party members for Mnangagwa’s purported developmental achievements and insist that these calls originate from the grassroots, not from the president himself. However, this narrative is fraught with contradictions. If advocating for Mnangagwa’s extended tenure is an expression of free speech, then, by the same token, calls for his resignation or opposition to the term extension should also be protected under the same democratic principles. The punitive actions against Geza for his dissenting views starkly contrast with the leniency shown towards those advocating for the president’s prolonged rule. This disparity exposes a glaring hypocrisy within the party’s purported commitment to free expression. Ziyambi’s accusation that Geza disrespected the president and his assertion that no one should challenge party resolutions further underscore this inconsistency. In a genuine democracy, party resolutions should be subject to open debate, even post-adoption. The absence of such discourse within ZANU-PF indicates a suppression of dissenting voices and a departure from democratic norms. Notably, prior to the October 2024 ZANU-PF Annual People’s Conference in Bulawayo, which endorsed the resolution for Mnangagwa to remain in power until 2030, there was a conspicuous lack of open debate on the matter. Reports suggest that attendance at the conference was deliberately restricted to manage discussions and ensure that only supporters of the “ED 2030” agenda were present. This orchestrated consensus further calls into question the authenticity of the party’s democratic processes. In Zimbabwe, particularly within ZANU-PF, criticizing the president is often deemed a cardinal sin, leading to severe repercussions, as evidenced by Geza’s expulsion. This intolerance towards internal criticism starkly contrasts with political dynamics in other democracies. For instance, within the United States, it is not uncommon for members of the president’s party to openly criticize their leader without facing expulsion or severe disciplinary actions. This practice is viewed as a healthy manifestation of democracy, where free speech and expression are genuinely respected. Several notable examples illustrate this democratic ethos. Within the Republican Party, serving officials have openly disagreed with President Donald Trump without facing immediate disciplinary action. For instance, during Trump’s first term, Senator Jeff Flake criticized his leadership on the Senate floor in 2017, voicing concerns about the party’s direction without being formally punished. More recently, in Trump's second term, Senator Rand Paul publicly opposed Trump’s proposal for the U.S. to take control of Gaza, emphasizing an “America First” approach. Similarly, Senator Lindsey Graham expressed skepticism about the feasibility of the same proposal, questioning its practicality. Despite these criticisms, none of these officials faced expulsion or party sanctions, demonstrating a level of internal democracy and tolerance for dissent that is absent in ZANU-PF. Within the Democratic Party, internal criticism is also prevalent. For example, following the 2024 presidential election, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized President Joe Biden, suggesting that the party might have fared better if he had exited the race earlier. Throughout President Barack Obama's presidency, he encountered criticism from within his party on various issues. For example, some Democrats were dissatisfied with the Affordable Care Act, believing it did not go far enough in implementing a single-payer system. Additionally, Obama’s use of drone strikes and surveillance policies drew rebuke from civil liberties advocates within the party. These internal critiques did not lead to disciplinary actions against the dissenting members. Such instances of intra-party critique are indicative of a political culture that values open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas. The contrasting scenarios between ZANU-PF and political parties in more mature democracies highlight a fundamental issue: the suppression of dissent within ZANU-PF is indicative of an authoritarian inclination that undermines the party’s claims of fostering a democratic environment. The punitive measures against Geza reveal that the calls for President Mnangagwa’s term extension are not merely spontaneous expressions of free speech but are likely orchestrated efforts to serve the president’s agenda. Despite declaring himself a constitutionalist committed to stepping down after his term ends in 2028, Mnangagwa has made no effort to dissuade the “ED 2030” proponents. If these calls were genuinely against his wishes, it would be reasonable to expect that he would distance himself from them and possibly sanction those making such appeals. Why have they also not been punished for “disrespecting the president”? The absence of such actions suggests tacit approval, if not direct instigation, of the term extension campaign. This situation underscores a deeper issue within ZANU-PF: the lack of genuine democratic practices. The selective application of disciplinary measures, the suppression of dissenting voices, and the orchestration of party resolutions without open debate all point to a controlled political environment where free speech is curtailed to serve the interests of the leadership. In conclusion, the resolution to expel Blessing Geza from ZANU-PF serves as a stark reminder of the party’s authoritarian tendencies. While proponents of the “ED 2030” agenda cloak their campaign in the rhetoric of free speech and democratic expression, their actions, and the party’s response to dissent, reveal a fundamental hypocrisy. True democracy thrives on open debate and the protection of dissenting voices. *_● Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: [email protected], or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/_*