Is government intervention the right key for Zimbabwe’s digital creators?

The recent public clarification by Information Ministry Permanent Secretary Nick Mangwana regarding ICT Minister Tatenda Mavetera’s engagement with global tech giants marks a significant moment in Zimbabwe’s digital evolution.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08

It is a rare instance where the technicalities of the “creator economy” have moved from the periphery of social media banter to the center of national policy discourse.

Mangwana’s breakdown of the “three keys” required to unlock Zimbabwean monetization—platform restrictions, payment gateways, and verification hurdles—is logically sound and identifies the symptoms of a long-standing digital isolation.

However, while the government’s diagnosis of the problem is accurate, the proposed remedy of high-level state intervention warrants a deeper, more nuanced critique.

To truly understand why the digital gates remain locked, we must look beyond the “what” of these negotiations and interrogate the “why” and the “how,” ensuring that the quest for monetization does not inadvertently become a mechanism for state overreach or a superficial fix for deeper economic structural issues.

The assertion that Zimbabwe is “geolocked” out of programs like YouTube AdSense or Meta’s in-stream ads is an undeniable reality for thousands of talented youths.

For years, Zimbabwean creators have operated in a “digital shadow economy,” using VPNs, offshore bank accounts, and relatives in the diaspora to claim the fruits of their labor.

Mangwana is correct that an individual creator cannot rewrite the global compliance algorithms of a trillion-dollar company like Alphabet or Meta.

The systemic nature of these barriers necessitates a collective voice.

Yet, we must be intellectually honest about why these barriers exist in the first place.

Global tech companies do not exclude countries based on whim; they do so based on risk assessment.

This risk is often tied to the complexity of local financial regulations and the perceived stability of the legal environment.

When the government enters the room to negotiate, it is not just asking for a “key”; it is essentially asking for a vote of confidence in Zimbabwe’s regulatory and financial integrity.

For these negotiations to be successful, the government must demonstrate that the “official lists” Mangwana mentions were not updated to include Zimbabwe due to a lack of data, but rather due to a perceived risk that the state is now actively mitigating.

​The second pillar of Mangwana’s argument—the payment gateway limitation—touches on the most painful nerve of the Zimbabwean economy.

The struggle to integrate with platforms like PayPal or Wise is not merely a technical glitch that can be solved with a firm handshake between a Minister and a Silicon Valley executive.

It is a direct reflection of our volatile monetary landscape and the complexities of our banking sector.

Tech giants prioritize seamless, automated, and low-risk financial settlements.

If the “compliant and reliable payment pathway” the Ministry seeks involves navigating complex exchange controls or a fluctuating local currency, Big Tech will likely remain hesitant.

The digital economy thrives on the frictionless flow of capital.

Therefore, the government’s role should not just be “negotiating” for access, but aggressively reforming the internal financial environment to make it “PayPal-friendly.”

This means ensuring that when a creator in Mbare earns $100 from YouTube, they can access those funds with the same ease as a creator in Nairobi or Johannesburg, without the fear of arbitrary conversion or excessive intermediation.

​Perhaps the most sensitive aspect of Mangwana’s post is the issue of “Verification Hurdles.”

The proposal to have global platforms recognize and accept official Zimbabwean documents and databases is, on the surface, a necessary administrative step.

However, in the context of Zimbabwe’s recent history, this “key” carries a heavy weight.

Digital creators often value the internet as a space of autonomy, away from the watchful eye of the state.

There is a palpable concern among the creative community that linking digital identities to national databases for the purpose of monetization could facilitate increased surveillance or the premature imposition of digital taxes.

While verification is essential to prevent fraud, the government must guarantee that this process remains a facilitator of commerce, not a tool for policing content.

Transparency in these negotiations is paramount; creators need to know what data is being shared and what “operational rules” are being changed.

The goal should be to empower the creator, not to create a digital panopticon where the state sits as the ultimate gatekeeper of who gets paid and who does not.

Furthermore, we must address the “Middleman” dilemma.

Mangwana argues that only structured, government-level engagement can solve these issues.

While high-level diplomacy is required for policy shifts, there is a risk that the government positions itself as a necessary intermediary between the creator and the platform.

The beauty of the global digital economy is its decentralized, peer-to-peer nature.

The government’s primary objective should be to “get out of the way” by fixing the macro-barriers, rather than trying to manage the micro-relationships.

There is a lingering fear that “structured engagement” could lead to a scenario where the state seeks to license creators or mediate their earnings.

To build trust, the Ministry of ICT must involve the creators themselves in these negotiations.

The voices of those who have been “picking the locks” for a decade—the YouTubers, the developers, and the social media influencers—are more valuable in a boardroom with Google than any bureaucratic brief.

They understand the friction points because they live them every day.

​The “debate” Mangwana refers to is not born out of a lack of appreciation for the Minister’s efforts, but out of a healthy skepticism rooted in experience.

For years, the digital space in Zimbabwe has been a sanctuary for innovation that succeeded in spite of the prevailing economic conditions, not because of state support.

When the state now moves to “unlock” this space, it must do so with humility and a clear commitment to the freedom of the digital market.

We must also acknowledge that “monetization” is not a silver bullet for the challenges facing the youth.

Access to affordable high-speed internet, consistent electricity to power production studios, and a legal framework that protects intellectual property are just as critical as getting on the YouTube AdSense list.

Monetization is the finish line, but the infrastructure is the track.

Without a functional track, having the “keys” to the stadium won’t result in many winners.

Ultimately, the assertions by the Permanent Secretary highlight a pivotal shift in how the Zimbabwean state views the internet: no longer just as a threat to be managed, but as a resource to be harvested.

This is progress.

However, the “technical and bureaucratic obstacles” he mentions are the shadows cast by larger policy choices.

Negotiating with Big Tech is the easy part; the hard part is convincing the world—and Zimbabwean citizens—that the local environment is stable, transparent, and ready for global integration.

The “keys” the Minister is looking for are not just in Mountain View or Menlo Park; many of them are in Harare, held by the regulators, the central bankers, and the legislators.

If the government can align its domestic policies with the requirements of the global digital age, the “country lock” will break not because of a negotiation, but because Zimbabwe will have become an undeniable market of value.

The conversation started by Minister Mavetera is a welcome one, provided it remains a dialogue and not a monologue.

It must result in a digital ecosystem where the “keys” are handed directly to the creators, allowing them to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world.

Zimbabwean talent has never lacked the “keys” to creativity; it has only been hindered by the “locks” of geography and policy.

If these negotiations can truly remove the systemic barriers without adding new layers of control, then the Minister will have indeed added more than just “two cents” to the discussion—she will have invested in the future of the nation’s most vibrant asset: its intellectual and creative capital.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/