A recent statement by opposition leader Nelson Chamisa regarding the contested elections in Tanzania has ignited a heated and polarised debate among Zimbabweans online. The former Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) leader used the crisis in Tanzania to highlight shortcomings in regional electoral oversight, calling out both the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU) for their perceived failures. While some praised Chamisa’s regional stance, others questioned his priorities and even the legitimacy of his self-referenced political title.
Chamisa’s statement, published on X on 4 November 2025, condemned the handling of elections across the African continent by these influential regional bodies. He accused SADC and the AU of turning a blind eye to tyranny, flawed elections, and violations of democratic principles. While the intervention focused on Tanzania, the statement provoked a broader debate about Chamisa’s domestic political relevance and strategy.
In his address, Chamisa issued a pointed critique of continental institutions, asserting that they had become complicit in the erosion of democracy:
“We further call upon the AU to stop, and forthwith seize, the tradition of rubber stamping, and to cease endorsing tyranny and the reversal of democracy on the continent.”
Chamisa also directly addressed the Tanzanian electoral crisis, following the contested re-election of President Samia Suluhu Hassan, amid reports of the imprisonment of opposition figures and human rights abuses. He expressed solidarity with the opposition and called for urgent political remedies:
“In Tanzania, we urge the immediate release of the opposition leader, Tundu Lissu, and all other political prisoners, and stress the need for a political solution to address the problems affecting the citizens of Tanzania.”
Further, Chamisa emphasised the need to reform SADC and AU mechanisms to manage electoral disputes more effectively. According to him, structured frameworks and clear roadmaps are crucial to resolving conflicts and curbing the cycle of contested elections that have plagued countries such as Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Tanzania.
“There must be a framework and roadmap for resolving disputes in all countries with such challenges, in particular Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Tanzania. This will curb the recurring problems and the vicious cycle of disputed and discredited electoral processes,” the statement read.
Nelson Chamisa’s Tanzania Statement Sparks Polarised Debate Among Zimbabweans
The reaction on social media was swift and deeply divided. Many users focused on Chamisa’s self-reference as “President” in the statement, sparking debate over the legitimacy of the title.
User @zikhali_x wrote:
“When you refer to yourself as President, what do you mean, you are president of what exactly?”
Chamisa’s simple reply was:
“A Presidential Candidate.”
Other critics argued that Chamisa’s focus on Tanzania was misplaced, given Zimbabwe’s ongoing political and constitutional challenges.
Byron Dzinoreva tweeted:
“You go to Tanzania yet you have issued nothing in as far as constitutional protection is concerned in Zimbabwe. OMG.”
Chamisa responded:
“There is no constitution to protect or defend! It’s all torn apart and in tatters! We must instead defend and protect our country!”
Criticism over his self-titled presidency continued. Tawonga Kurewa asked pointedly in local vernacular,
“NdiPresident weyi?” [He is the President of what?]
Meanwhile, Emmanuel Anesu Mapaura questioned the consistency of Chamisa’s messaging, suggesting that his advocacy for Tanzanian opposition leaders appeared at odds with his domestic political ambitions.
Supporters, however, defended Chamisa, praising him for taking a principled stand on regional democracy. Some argued that the former opposition leader was using the Tanzanian case to highlight broader governance failures in southern Africa, indirectly drawing attention to Zimbabwe’s own challenges.
Political analysts noted that Chamisa’s intervention reflects a strategic attempt to position himself as a regional democratic advocate, while still grappling with a politically fractured domestic base. They argued that his critics may be focusing too narrowly on the optics of his title rather than the substance of his message.
“Chamisa is signalling that democracy and rule of law must extend beyond national borders. His advocacy for Tanzanian political prisoners highlights his commitment to democratic norms in the region,” said one analyst familiar with southern African politics.
Despite the backlash, Chamisa has remained unwavering in his position, asserting that regional accountability and electoral reforms are inseparable from Zimbabwe’s democratic struggles. His statements have reignited discussion about the role of regional bodies like SADC and AU in addressing election disputes, and the responsibility of opposition leaders to act beyond national borders.
As debate continues on social media, the Tanzania statement has underscored the polarised political landscape in Zimbabwe, reflecting both a population critical of Chamisa’s strategy and a segment that applauds his vocal advocacy for democracy beyond national boundaries.
Chamisa’s intervention, though controversial, highlights the interconnectedness of regional politics and domestic democratic challenges, and raises questions about how opposition figures navigate both national and continental responsibilities. For now, Zimbabweans remain divided, debating whether Chamisa’s regional advocacy strengthens or distracts from his political influence at home.
Source- iHarare
