Charlton Hwende, the Citizens Coalition For Change (CCC) legislator for Kuwadzana East and Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee in the National Assembly, has stirred controversy with a post on X (formerly Twitter) that seemingly critiques his party’s weaknesses.
Hwende’s comment predicted a victory for Namibia’s SWAPO party and its candidate Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, citing key factors such as strong structures, institutionalism, internal democracy, financial stability, and incumbency power.
While appearing to focus on Namibia’s political landscape, Hwende’s remarks indirectly highlighted the shortcomings of his own party, CCC, in its battle against ZANU PF.
For the discerning, Hwende’s post draws a stark comparison between the structured, institutionally grounded approaches of liberation movements like SWAPO and ZANU PF and the opposition’s reliance on charismatic but unstructured leadership. His comments appear to critique Nelson Chamisa’s decision to centralize power and adopt “strategic ambiguity,” which sidelined institutional frameworks and structures in favor of a personality-driven campaign.
This approach, Hwende suggests, has proven to be CCC’s Achilles’ heel, leading to its inability to mount a credible challenge against ZANU PF. The parallels between SWAPO’s strength and ZANU PF’s dominance are clear in Hwende’s analysis.
Both liberation parties thrive on their deep-rooted structures, organizational discipline, and strong institutions—elements that opposition parties like CCC have failed to replicate. Hwende’s remarks seem to dismiss the opposition’s frequent claims of election rigging, instead emphasizing that their failure lies in a lack of organizational depth and the over-reliance on cult-style politics centered around Chamisa.
While Hwende’s observations align with critiques of the opposition’s strategy, they also underline a broader challenge for opposition parties in Southern Africa: the inability to develop homegrown, independent platforms free from external influence. The twin evils of weak institutional frameworks and western puppetry have often undermined opposition movements, leaving them ill-equipped to upstage liberation movements.
Even where opposition parties have momentarily succeeded, often with overt external support, such gains have proven unsustainable. Revolutionary parties like ZANU PF and SWAPO have consistently reclaimed power, bolstered by their historical legitimacy and the realization by SADC citizens of the pitfalls of externally driven opposition politics.
Hwende’s candid assessment, whether intentional or not, serves as a wake-up call for CCC and similar opposition movements.
Without addressing their structural and institutional weaknesses, the opposition’s chances of challenging entrenched liberation parties remain slim, leaving the region’s political landscape firmly in the grip of revolutionary movements.
