“We need to invest in institutions for systematic change, rather than relying on personalities who, however talented or passionate, cannot carry the burden alone.”

— Dr. McDonald Lewanika, Accountability Lab Zimbabwe

The Asakhe X-Space, held on April 8, 2025, was timely and offered citizens a chance to reflect on activism in Zimbabwe, its history, salience, wins and losses, and outlook. It probed whether activism in Zimbabwe has become commodified or personalized. Dr. McDonald Lewanika, the Guest Speaker, offered a critique that went beyond the surface to explore the historical, structural, and cultural dimensions shaping activism in Zimbabwe today.

In an adaptation and extension of Professor Masunungure’s three generations of civil society, Lewanika outlined five stages or generations of activism, beginning with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) era, which saw increased political activism and the development of humanitarian and solidarity efforts. 

This period also marked the establishment of the first Non-governmental Organisations (NGO) legislation in 1967, the Charities and Welfare Act, aimed at regulating political and humanitarian activism in both rural and urban areas. Activism has since experienced several waves, from post-independence activism focused on socio-economic development, highlighted by the emergence of labour and student activism, to the rise of revolutionary accountability based on commitments to national development rather than personal aggrandisement, leading to the third generation born out of the democratic wave movements, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

The preceding third wave is the birthplace of most of the human rights and democracy activism that Zimbabwe sees today, driven by civil society, as well as the political activism that has been a thorn in ZANU-PF’s side for over two decades. However, Lewanika noted that with the economic challenges of the 2000s, the rise of the internet and social media led to the emergence of a new generation of activism, which organised using new social bases like vendors and informal traders, alongside the rise of solitary activism centred on individual actions. This generation included individuals like Itai Dzamara and continued with hashtag movements, including Tajamuka and This Flag. 

The final generation encompasses the rise of digital dissent post-2017 coup, including expanded online activism and the prominence of individuals with large followings on social media. This period is also characterised by a concerted effort, both legislatively and through repression, to quell dissent and has seen the further shrinking of civic and democratic space, perhaps explaining the overreliance on online forms of expression and activism. 

Despite this deep-rooted legacy and a visibly increasing number of self-identified activists, the tangible outcomes of these efforts remain limited. This disconnect between effort and impact raises the question: is the issue one of commodification, or is it rooted in something more systemic?

Dr. Lewanika argued that while commodification exists, as demonstrated by instances such as the co-option of civil society actors after 2017 and the transformation of certain NGOs or individuals into state allies, it often distracts from the more pressing issue: the failure to build strong, resilient institutions.

Over time, Zimbabwe’s activism has increasingly centred on individuals, fostering a culture of personality-driven movements. These “superstar activists” attract attention and often capture the public imagination, but they seldom create structures and relationships that can sustain momentum beyond themselves. There is no regeneration of leadership, and no second or third layers of leadership within the movements and causes they lead. When these figures depart or are silenced, the movements they lead often disintegrate, revealing their institutional fragility.

While understandable in contexts where visibility and courage are rare, this overreliance on charismatic leadership has unintended consequences. It centralizes influence, limits collective leadership, and undermines continuity. Causes and organisations face repeated disruptions each time a leader departs, highlighting the risks of fostering strong individuals instead of robust institutions and systems. Even in contemporary civil society organisations, public perception is often linked to a single individual, leaving the contributions of broader teams at best unrecognised and undervalued, and at worst not given the opportunity to emerge.

Another significant theme in the discussion was the decline of intergenerational dialogue. Many seasoned activists have left Zimbabwe due to political repression or economic necessity, taking with them vital institutional knowledge and strategic insight. Meanwhile, younger activists, while energetic and adaptable, often lack mentorship or historical context. This generational divide undermines the strategic depth and cohesion of activist spaces, causing existing activists to fall into pitfalls that their predecessors are aware of because they too experienced them. This absence of intergenerational dialogue also compels activists to focus on short-term mobilization rather than long-term organizing.

Commodification, while driven by economic challenges and urgent issues of survival, is less a root cause and more a symptom of deeper vulnerabilities. What is needed is not merely more activism, but a reimagined model that is inclusive, grounded, and resilient. This involves building institutions that can endure beyond individuals, fostering intergenerational solidarity, and reconnecting with the lived experiences of communities. It also necessitates a broader definition of activism itself.

Lewanika emphasized that activism in Zimbabwe is often narrowly understood as high-risk protest or visible confrontation, which discourages broader participation. However, activism encompasses more than just street demonstrations. It includes storytelling, research, satire, policy work, and everyday community engagement. By expanding the “repertoires of contention,” activism can become more accessible and sustainable, particularly in a context where direct confrontation carries significant personal risk.

Creative forms of activism, such as satire, artivism, hacktivism, digital campaigns, and everyday acts of resistance, offer alternative pathways for engagement that minimise exposure to repression while still challenging power structures. These forms do not necessitate mass mobilisation or group coordination, yet they often encounter the challenge of fostering individual involvement. Moreover, they frequently neglect the reality that online visibility does not always translate into effective real-world organizing. 

Successful activism hinges on trust, relationships, and physical presence within communities. In today’s Zimbabwe, it is vital to explore ways to utilise the tools afforded by the digital age while strengthening the bonds of trust and community that facilitate collective action on pressing issues when necessary. Activism in contemporary Zimbabwe calls for an embrace of the “weapons of the weak ” and expanding the repertoire of dissent in ways that recognise the risk-averse nature of most Zimbabweans while also making meaningful efforts to establish robust, organised, and trusting local democracies that unite community members across diverse interests to advocate for common causes.  

The conversation concluded with acknowledgements that activism is inherently oppositional but does not need to be partisan. While activists often confront the state directly, activism does not always have to be dangerous, especially in authoritarian-learning contexts like Zimbabwe; it can also be creative. 

There was a clear call to reorient activism away from mere mobilisation to organising, from visibility to substance, and from short-term planning to long-term institution building in ways that regenerate leaders and incorporate multiple layers of leadership across the structures of the organizations that activists use to fight. Lewanika urged activists to introspect and examine what is within their control that may be hindering their ability to achieve results before blaming external actions for the failures of activists and movements. 

It also requires self-interrogation within civil society to address internal fractures, rebuild trust, and foster collaboration.

• Written by : Bathabile Dlamini and McDonald Lewanika