A vocal supporter of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, CH Mukungunugwa, has sparked controversy after publicly lobbying for the erection of a statue of the president in Harare’s central business district. The proposal, shared on his X (formerly Twitter) account, has ignited spirited debate over the balance between symbolic gestures and pressing national needs.
Mukungunugwa argued that such a monument would serve as a fitting tribute to President Mnangagwa’s leadership while also creating a landmark for the city. “Bulawayo has its iconic Father Zimbabwe statue where people take memorable photos. Harare CBD should also have a grand statue of His Excellency President E.D. Mnangagwa!” he wrote.
He added: “A fitting tribute to his leadership & a new landmark for citizens and visitors to capture proud moments.” Mukungunugwa’s post drew hundreds of responses, ranging from strong support to sharp criticism.
Among supporters, some agreed that recognising leaders through statues fosters national pride and preserves historical memory. A small but vocal group argued that such monuments can inspire unity and civic identity while also boosting tourism. “A statue is more than stone; it’s a story,” one user commented. “It would immortalise Mnangagwa’s legacy for future generations.”
Calls for Mnangagwa Statue in Harare Ignite Fierce Debate
However, the majority of responses reflected scepticism and outright opposition, focusing on whether such a project should take precedence over Zimbabwe’s pressing socio-economic challenges.
Brighton Ramusi was among those criticising the idea, writing: “Majoring on minor issues and minoring on majors. Surely at this juncture, it can’t be our priority as a nation. The state of service delivery, health, education, water — just to mention a few — is what matters most to the povo.” His comment reflected wider frustration that symbolic projects risk overshadowing urgent needs in public services and infrastructure.
Another prominent critic, posting under the name Political Harmbiger, questioned whether Mnangagwa deserved such an honour in Harare. “Mnangagwa is not Harare’s iconic figure. Nelson Chamisa, Morgan Tsvangirai, and Elias Mudzuri are the only people voted resoundingly, which makes them more popular and iconic in Harare. Emmerson Mnangagwa is only popular in Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe, therefore his statue should be in those areas,” he wrote. This view raised the issue of political symbolism and regional loyalties in Zimbabwe’s capital.
Chikange Chikangsniso added another perspective, arguing against celebrating living leaders through statues: “We don’t celebrate living people. Why not first erect that of the Great Robert G. Mugabe?” His comment echoed a broader sentiment that monuments are traditionally reserved for historical figures whose legacies have been cemented over time.
The debate around the proposed statue reflects deeper tensions in Zimbabwean society over symbolic gestures versus practical governance. While monuments can celebrate history and leadership, critics argue they can divert resources from more urgent national priorities, such as improving public services, tackling unemployment, and addressing economic challenges.
The proposal also raises questions about political symbolism in Harare, a city that is both the nation’s political centre and a contested space for identity and memory. Supporters of Mukungunugwa’s idea see the statue as a way to honour leadership and inspire patriotism. Opponents view it as a misallocation of resources and a politically partisan gesture that may deepen divisions.
The discussion on social media reveals a range of opinions and highlights the role of public discourse in shaping national priorities. For some Zimbabweans, the idea of erecting a statue of a sitting president seems premature and politically charged. For others, it is a legitimate form of recognition and a way to embed a leader’s legacy in the nation’s visual and cultural landscape.
This online debate mirrors broader public scrutiny in Zimbabwe, where citizens are increasingly weighing symbolic national projects against the need for tangible improvements in service delivery and governance.
Whether the proposal for a Mnangagwa statue will gain traction remains uncertain. It is not clear if Mukungunugwa’s call will be taken up by government authorities or remain a subject of online discussion. What is clear, however, is that the conversation has highlighted a deeper question for Zimbabwe — how to balance acts of national symbolism with addressing the pressing needs of citizens.
The conversation also underlines how monuments and symbols continue to be powerful tools for shaping collective memory and political narratives. As Harare and the nation grapple with competing visions of legacy, development, and priorities, this debate over a statue may be only the beginning of a wider national discourse about the country’s future.
Source- Bulawayo24
