By Reason Wafawarova.
Zimbabwe’s political history is not entirely barren of conscience. There was a time — not perfect, not romantic, not golden — but recognisably human — when public office still carried moral weight. When mistakes were not endlessly explained away. When shame still had political consequences. When resignation was not treated as weakness, but as responsibility.
There was a time when leaders fell on their swords. Today, that sentence sounds almost fictional. But it happened. Repeatedly.
And perhaps the most worrying development in our modern politics is not corruption itself — Zimbabwe has always had corruption — but the disappearance of the very idea that one should ever resign.
Not for failure. Not for incompetence. Not for crisis. Not even for death.
Something changed in the national character of leadership. And we need to talk about it honestly.
The Age of Conscience:
Take Maurice Nyagumbo. A liberation war veteran. Cabinet minister. Senior figure in the ruling establishment. When the Willowgate vehicle scandal exploded in 1988, Nyagumbo did not hire public relations experts. He did not blame “sanctions.” He did not accuse critics of being enemies of the revolution. He resigned. Not because the law forced him. Because his conscience did. Overwhelmed by shame, he later took his own life — a tragic and painful act that should never be romanticised — but one that reflected something we rarely see today: a political culture in which disgrace still mattered.
Then there was Michael Mawema, the nationalist credited with giving this country its name — Zimbabwe. Unwittingly implicated in a fraudulent housing scheme, Mawema did not litigate his reputation through connections or spin. He did not seek protection.He internalised the failure. The shame consumed him. Another tragic loss. He too ended his own life. Another example of a generation that treated moral stain as something unbearable. Today, such sensitivity almost feels alien.
Then came Edmund Garwe, Minister of Education. His offence? An exam paper accidentally left at home. His daughter found it. Took it to school. The leak became public. Not theft. Not looting. Not millions. A mistake. Garwe apologised. And resigned. Declaring himself unfit for public office. Today, entire national examinations collapse and we get press statements. Garwe resigned over a Zimbabwe Junior Certificate exam paper leak. Today we barely apologise for systemic breakdowns. The Resignation That Now Sounds Impossible:
Then there was Enos Chamunorwa Chikowore, Energy Minister in 2000. Zimbabwe plunged into a severe fuel crisis. Long queues. Economic paralysis. National frustration. Chikowore did not say: “It’s sabotage.” “It’s sanctions.” “It’s the opposition.”He said something simple and devastating: He had failed to foresee the crisis and failed to resolve it. So, he resigned. Imagine that sentence today. A minister stepping down because a national service failed under his watch. Today, fuel shortages last months. Hospitals collapse. Infrastructure fails. Ministers issue tweets. Chikowore left office. Because he believed leadership meant responsibility, not survival.
Principle Over Position:
Even policy disagreements once triggered exits. Simba Makoni, as Finance Minister, clashed with Robert Mugabe over fiscal recklessness and exchange-rate distortions. He resigned rather than preside over what he believed would destroy the economy. Nkosana Moyo did the same, stepping away from government when governance incoherence made meaningful reform impossible. These were not saints. They were politicians.But they shared something rare: They still believed office was conditional on competence and integrity. Not permanent. Not untouchable. Conditional.
Then Something Changed:
After the early 2000s, the resignations stopped. Not reduced. Stopped. Shame disappeared from politics. Failure became negotiable. Accountability became theatrical. We entered a new era — one where mistakes were no longer owned, only managed. Where survival mattered more than responsibility. Where public office ceased to be a moral burden and became merely a strategic position. And this is where the contrast becomes uncomfortable.
Then vs Now:
Then: A minister resigns over an exam paper. Now: The public health system collapses. Patients die in corridors. No resignation.
Then: A fuel crisis triggers self-reflection and exit. Now: Chronic energy and fuel instability is treated as background noise.
Then: Policy disagreement leads to resignation. Now: Policy disaster leads to reshuffle. Then: Leaders apologised. Now: They explain.
Then: Failure meant “I am responsible.” Now: Failure means “they are to blame.”
Something fundamental shifted. Not in law. In culture. Our political culture.
From Shame to Spectacle:
But perhaps silence is not even the right word. Silence suggests embarrassment. What we see today is not embarrassment. It is performance. Because the modern political culture has not merely lost shame — it has inverted it. Where earlier generations hid in disgrace, today’s political actors parade their impunity.
Public money disappears, and instead of quiet apologies we get motorcades. Contracts are paid in advance and never delivered, and instead of resignations we get rallies. Projects collapse, yet the contractors arrive in helicopters to address crowds about “empowerment.” Men who have not accounted for boreholes distribute crisp US$100 notes like confetti.
Tens of millions are received for goats, for solar plants, for hospitals, for roads — and the only visible delivery is luxury vehicles, mansions, private jets, and campaign T-shirts. The proceeds of failure are converted into applause. The poor, whose taxes funded the project, are handed pocket money from their own stolen future — and told to celebrate development. This is not merely corruption. It is theatre. The theatre of impunity.
In the past, scandal drove leaders indoors. Today, scandal drives them onto stages. In the past, disgrace produced resignations. Today, it produces louder microphones.
In the past, shame ended careers. Today, proximity to power converts failure into status.
We have moved from a politics of accountability to a politics of audacity. And audacity, in Zimbabwe’s current system, often pays better than competence.
The Silence of Today’s Leadership:
Consider recent years. Hospitals without medicines. Cancer patients without treatment. Ambulances without fuel. Serial killings terrorising rural communities. Deaths in police custody without explanation. High-profile corruption allegations measured not in thousands, but millions. Yet how many resignations? How many apologies? How many leaders saying: “This happened under my watch. I take responsibility.” The answer is painfully simple. None. The vocabulary of responsibility has vanished. Even tragedy now attracts statements — not accountability. Even scandal attracts denials — not departures.
Even death attracts silence. Blessing Mangezi was knocked down by a car fleeing bribe-chasing municipal parking rangers – who then fled the scene. Scene filmed and videos available. No one took responsibility.
A Generation That Cannot Imagine Resignation:
Perhaps the most revealing part of this story is generational. Young Zimbabweans today may not even understand why Nyagumbo resigned. Or why Garwe apologised. Or why Chikowore stepped down.
To them, resignation feels irrational. Because they have grown up in a system where power is defended at all costs. Where stepping down looks like weakness. Where holding office matters more than honour. And that is the real crisis. Not simply corruption. But moral numbness. A country where leaders feel nothing.
What We Lost:
Let us be clear. The past was not pure. There was corruption then too. There was repression then too. But there was also something else: The idea that public office required personal accountability. That when you failed the nation, you left. Quietly. Without excuses. Without conspiracy theories. Without blaming everyone else. Today, that idea feels almost revolutionary.
The Question We Must Ask:
So, the question is not simply: “Who is corrupt?” The deeper question is: “When did we decide that no failure is ever enough to resign?”
When did apology become weakness? When did conscience become optional? When did office become permanent?
Because a country where no one ever resigns is not strong. It is not stable. It is not resilient.
It is morally exhausted.
Final Thought:
Perhaps the saddest part of this reflection is this: Zimbabwe once produced leaders who could not live with disgrace. Today we produce leaders who cannot live without office. That is not progress. That is regression. And until we recover a political culture where responsibility means stepping aside when you fail, accountability will remain a slogan, not a practice. Because laws do not create conscience. People do.And somewhere along the way, we stopped expecting it.
Leave a Reply