Geza’s Gambit: Shutdown or Surrender? Zimbabwe’s Crossroads

By Dr Masimba Mavaza

Blessed “Bombshell” Geza’s call to shut down the nation has raised a firestorm, placing Zimbabwe at a treacherous crossroads. This war-weary war veteran and national hero of the struggle for liberation is now leading a campaign that seeks to remove President Emmerson Mnangagwa out of office. His tactic, a country-wide shutdown of operations, is the kind of step taken by previous opposition leaders, most famously Morgan Tsvangirai. But can an extreme step in fact bring change to a nation torn apart by political and economic crisis?

Geza’s experience, and shutdowns generally, is based on the raw potential of mass voicelessness. Where streets are blank and shops shut, a sharp voice of mass discontent can be heard. And as Geza correctly says, such a demonstration is hard to suppress by governments, in comparison to the common marches, which can be penetrated and compromised. In the hush of a shutdown, there is all that voice, he argues.

The latest March 31st shutdown, which was reportedly forced to backtrack his 2030 term extension campaign by Mnangagwa loyalists, lends credibility to this statement. It showed the power of such an act in forcing an obstinate government to reverse its stance.

Geza’s ascension to being a key resistance figure also reflects the state of play on the ground in Zimbabwe today. With a fractured opposition and disunited trade unions, he has plugged a hole. His appeal to citizens from both sides of the political divide, party allegiance aside, is an ideological choice, an acknowledgment that problems facing the country, from widespread corruption to dilapidated public infrastructure, are all of everyone’s.

Nevertheless, the success of a shutdown is dependent on several key factors. Mass citizen support is most important. Without this, the protest will be discounted as ineffective. Proper coordination must also be employed to keep things moving and ensure that fatigue is not an option. In addition, a discernible and tangible goal must exist to prevent endless disruption.

The consequences of shutdowns are, too, quite real. Economic disruption, as a threat tool, may exacerbate the suffering. Defeat at a shutdown would be a morale builder for Mnangagwa, solidifying his grip on office. Success with a shutdown may drive him to the negotiating table, and through that, set in motion a transition government or reshaping of the political environment.

Geza’s position has been criticized by those who see it as an intraparty ZANU-PF struggle for power, and others who yearn for a conventional opposition front to coordinate protest. But within the politics of Zimbabwe today, internal pressure within the party of power might be the only feasible method for change.

The economic argument against a shutdown, that it would harm the already damaged people, is true but disregards the reality that the economy’s position now is already shut down for millions. Over 50% unemployment, failing healthcare, and hyperinflation render the current situation unsustainable today.

Geza’s gambit will have far-reaching implications for success or failure. Successful closure might compel Mnangagwa to concede the extent of popular discontent, leaving a path to political reform. Failure might solidify his hold, further entrenching corruption and worsening the country’s misery.

Ultimately, it is in the hands of the Zimbabweans. Will they take a page from Geza’s book and reclaim their own political power, or will they be mere bystanders to the collapse of their own country? Whatever happens, Geza’s defiant act has brought accountability, illustrating the tenuousness of Mnangagwa’s power and the desperation of a famished nation that craves transformation.