IN contemporary Zimbabwean political discourse, few assertions capture the country’s evolving governance dynamics more sharply than social media political commentator Derick Goto’s recent claim that ZANU–PF has ceased to be a political party and has instead become the political ecosystem itself. This observation, while provocative, invites a deeper academic reflection on the nature of political institutionalisation, state-party entanglement, and the reconfiguration of power within hybrid regimes.
By Clifford Munetsi | Opinion & Analysis | Political Science Review
Goto’s remarks emerged against the backdrop of intensified intra-party purges within ZANU–PF, as President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s faction consolidates authority ahead of the party’s national conference. Analysts widely interpret these dismissals as part of a strategic containment of Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s faction, a continuation of the factional rivalries that have defined Zimbabwe’s post-Mugabe succession politics. Yet beyond internal manoeuvring, Goto’s statement gestures toward a broader and more enduring reality: that ZANU–PF has become coterminous with the state, and thus inseparable from the logic of governance itself.
The Evolution from Party to Polity
From a political science standpoint, Goto’s characterisation of ZANU–PF as the “political ecosystem” captures a process of party-state fusion—a phenomenon typical of post-liberation regimes in Africa. In such systems, the ruling party transcends its electoral role, embedding itself in every administrative, economic, and ideological fibre of national life.
Zimbabwe’s case reflects what scholars like Jean-François Bayart have termed the politics of the belly—a mode of governance where the distinction between state and party is eroded, and access to political power becomes synonymous with access to resources, legitimacy, and identity. Since independence in 1980, ZANU–PF has gradually absorbed the functions of statecraft, from policy formation to social ordering, positioning itself not merely as a governing entity but as the living architecture of the Zimbabwean polity.
Goto’s assertion that “every major conversation, from fiscal policy to social commentary, inevitably orbits around ZANU–PF” captures this institutional centrality. Whether in Parliament, the media, or the informal economy of street politics, the party remains the gravitational centre of Zimbabwe’s discursive universe. Opposition parties, civic actors, and even critical voices on social media often engage in reactive politics—anti-ZANU–PF politics—thereby reinforcing the very dominance they oppose.
The Opposition’s Structural Subordination
The argument that “opposition voices operate within the gravitational pull of ZANU–PF” resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemonic power. Hegemony, in this sense, is not merely coercive but ideational: it shapes the parameters of what is politically thinkable. In Zimbabwe, even dissent operates within a language defined by ZANU–PF’s liberation ethos, nationalist legitimacy, and sovereignty discourse.
The MDC’s historical trajectory illustrates this subordination. While initially embodying a counter-hegemonic movement in the early 2000s, it gradually internalised the same vocabulary of patriotism and sovereignty—terms long monopolised by ZANU–PF. Thus, opposition politics became less about proposing a new paradigm of governance and more about negotiating legitimacy within ZANU–PF’s moral and symbolic order.
In Goto’s framing, this is why even digital dissenters—those who amplify anti-government narratives—derive their visibility through the ruling party. ZANU–PF defines not only the political agenda but also the emotional economy of resistance: frustration, satire, and outrage are all mediated by its continued dominance.
The Living Architecture of the State
Goto’s description of ZANU–PF as the “living architecture of the state” carries profound implications. It suggests not merely the party’s administrative control, but its ontological fusion with Zimbabwe’s identity as a sovereign state. This mirrors the nationalist mythos cultivated since the liberation struggle, where ZANU–PF positioned itself as both the author and guardian of independence.
In this reading, to oppose ZANU–PF is to risk being cast as anti-nation. This conflation of party loyalty with patriotism has produced a self-reinforcing system in which ZANU–PF’s survival becomes indistinguishable from that of the Republic itself. The party is not simply in power—it is the institutional embodiment of sovereignty.
This aligns with Goto’s concluding claim that ZANU–PF has “transcended the binary of ruling and opposition politics.” Indeed, the party has achieved a form of post-competitive dominance, where elections function as ritual affirmations of legitimacy rather than sites of genuine contestation. This is not to suggest that political pluralism is absent, but that it exists in subordination to the dominant logic of the liberation state—a system that privileges continuity over alternation, authority over accountability, and history over innovation.
The Ecosystem as a Mode of Governance
To describe ZANU–PF as an ecosystem is to acknowledge its adaptive resilience. Like an ecosystem, it evolves, absorbs shocks, and reconfigures its internal balance of power without collapsing. The current factional manoeuvres between Mnangagwa and Chiwenga, therefore, are not existential threats but ecological recalibrations—the natural metabolism of a system designed to survive internal contradictions.
This adaptive capacity is partly why ZANU–PF remains unchallenged despite periodic crises—economic, electoral, or moral. Its legitimacy is sustained not solely through coercion but through a diffuse web of patronage, symbolism, and political memory. It thrives in ambiguity: simultaneously revolutionary and conservative, nationalist and pragmatic, traditionalist and technocratic.
Conclusion: ZANU–PF as the Idea and Institution
In the final analysis, Goto’s contention that “ZANU–PF is the nation’s centre of political gravity” is not hyperbole—it is a sociopolitical diagnosis. The party’s evolution from revolutionary movement to political ecosystem reflects the broader African post-liberation dilemma: how to democratise without dismantling the liberation narrative that legitimised independence.
As Zimbabwe moves toward its Vision 2030 aspirations, the question is not merely whether ZANU–PF can reform, but whether the state itself can reimagine governance beyond its shadow. For now, the ruling party remains both the architect and the arena of Zimbabwean politics—the idea and the institution, simultaneously shaping and consuming the space of national possibility.
This article is part of the Political Science Review series examining state-party relations, governance, and institutional evolution in post-liberation African states.
The post ZANU–PF as the Political Ecosystem: Beyond Party Politics into the Architecture of the Zimbabwean State first appeared on The Zimbabwe Mail.