By Nicky Love (@NickyLove250285)

In a political landscape often perceived as rigid and historically dominated by liberation war narratives, the emergence of figures like Dr. Kuda Tagwirei invites a necessary and timely conversation. It is a conversation that challenges us to look beyond entrenched narratives—and to confront a glaring contradiction at the heart of our political economy.

For decades, Zimbabwean politics has been framed within a specific historical context, dominated by those who fought for liberation or those who have held office for a long time. Yet, a persistent hypocrisy underpins this system: the ruling Zanu PF party has long embraced the financial interventions of business leaders, welcoming their capital and patronage, while simultaneously insisting that such figures remain on the political sidelines.

This begs the critical question: If the business skills and resources of individuals like Dr. Tagwirei are deemed essential for national development behind the scenes, why is their potential for frontline party leadership so often met with resistance? We are urged to consider a different kind of leader. One whose focus is not on past glory, but on future potential. One who speaks the language of innovation, economic modernization, and practical, investment-driven growth. Dr. Tagwirei represents this distinct profile, and his political consideration forces a direct challenge to an unspoken rule: businesspeople may fund the party, but they may not formally help lead it. Nonsense. 

His advocates see him as a breath of fresh air precisely because he symbolises a shift not just in style, but in breaking this very taboo. The shift is from a culture of financial dependency on business elites to a potential era of their accountable, transparent governance. It is about moving from backroom influence to front-room responsibility. Mupei chimuti – Give him the baton!

Of course, no public figure is without controversy, and Dr. Tagwirei has faced significant scrutiny—scrutiny that must be applied to any prospective leader. However, the core argument for a “new kind of leadership” is amplified by this hypocrisy.

Perhaps it is time to judge leadership less by its origin and more by its destination, and to abandon the untenable position of wanting the fruit of business genius while rejecting the tree. Let us put political differences aside to soberly assess the direction offered. The call for leadership that embraces progressive ways and champions innovation is urgent. It is also a call to end the double standard that has long shaped Zimbabwe’s political life.

Whether one sees Dr. Kuda Tagwirei as the definitive answer or merely a symbol of this needed transition, the conversation he triggers is critical. Zimbabwe must make room for new ideas and new profiles at the highest level. This means confronting the old hypocrisy head-on. Our shared goal—a prosperous, modern, and inclusive Zimbabwe—demands nothing less. The future is not about forgetting the past, but about having the courage to build beyond its contradictions.