Should Vice President Chiwenga Resign? Public Sentiment, Power Calculations And The New Constitutional Reality
A provocative social media exchange has reignited debate around Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s political future, with one commenter bluntly suggesting he should “resign then start newzanuPF 2.”
That suggestion — casual as it may sound — reflects deeper tremors within Zimbabwe’s ruling party and the broader constitutional conversation now dominating political discourse.
In response to the resignation suggestion, another user warned that resignation could be politically fatal, stating: “He is right where he is — if he resigns he gets killed immediately.” The comment, while dramatic, captures the intensity and fear surrounding internal power battles in Zimbabwean politics.
So the question is no longer just rhetorical: Should Chiwenga resign?
1. The Political Context: A System Being Rewritten
The wider constitutional debate under President Emmerson Mnangagwa — including proposals to:
* Extend presidential terms,
* Shift presidential elections to Parliament,
* Expand presidential appointments to the Senate,
* Redefine the role of defence forces,
* Remove public interviews for judicial appointments,
has altered the political chessboard.
If executive power is centralised further, the space for internal succession battles narrows significantly.
For a sitting Vice President, resignation in such a climate would not be a neutral act. It would be an open declaration of rebellion.
A. Resignation As Political Liberation
* He could attempt to form a breakaway faction.
* He could try to reposition himself as a reformist within or outside ZANU PF.
* He could attempt to rally military-aligned structures.
But Zimbabwean political history shows that breakaways from dominant liberation movements rarely survive without state infrastructure.
B. Resignation As Political Suicide
* Loss of state security.
* Loss of influence within party structures.
* Exposure to legal or political retaliation.
* Isolation from command structures that once sustained him.
The online comment suggesting he would not survive resignation reflects this reality — whether exaggerated or not.
C. Staying As Strategic Containment
Remaining in office allows:
* Continued proximity to power.
* Access to intelligence and party machinery.
* Preservation of leverage for future succession moments.
In high-stakes systems, proximity to power is often more valuable than open confrontation.
3. The Psychological Dimension
The debate is not merely about law or party structures — it is about survival politics.
Zimbabwe’s post-liberation political culture has rarely rewarded voluntary exits from high office. The Mugabe removal in 2017 itself demonstrated that leadership transitions are not negotiated through resignation letters but through power consolidation.
In such a system, resignation can be interpreted as weakness rather than principle.
Without those pillars, “ZANU PF 2” would likely struggle to survive beyond symbolism.
The ruling party remains deeply institutionalised — and fragmentation risks benefiting the incumbent rather than the challenger.
The attached comments reflect something important:
* Some believe he should leave and chart a new path.
* Others believe leaving would be fatal.
* Many are fatigued by elite power struggles.
Zimbabweans today are more concerned about economic survival than factional re-alignments.
A resignation drama would electrify elites — but would it mobilise ordinary citizens? That is far less certain.
Strategically, resignation would only make sense if:
* He commands guaranteed internal structures.
* He has secure institutional backing.
* He is prepared for open political warfare.
Absent those guarantees, resignation could weaken rather than strengthen him.
In tightly centralised systems, power is not surrendered — it is negotiated, accumulated, or seized.
For now, the Vice President appears more secure inside the tent than outside it.
Whether that changes will depend not on Facebook comments — but on the invisible power balances within the ruling establishment.
