George Charamba has served two presidents across a rupture that ended one man\u2019s rule and secured another\u2019s. That continuity invites a question more important than which speech he may have written: what, exactly, has remained constant? The leadership changed. The public relations machinery carried on. Zimbabweans were expected to believe that familiar defenders of the old order could explain the new one without much accounting for their previous work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The latest controversy returned Charamba to the centre of ZANU PF\u2019s factional suspicions after Emmerson Mnangagwa and Constantino Chiwenga delivered conference speeches interpreted as competing political messages. Accusations followed about his involvement in drafting them. But one correction matters: Charamba publicly denied that he still writes speeches under the Second Republic. It would be dishonest to present his authorship as established fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
His response nevertheless revealed something worth examining. Alongside his denial, he attacked The NewsHawks as a \u201cdying Soros outfit\u201d. A factual correction became another occasion to disparage the publication asking questions. Citizens deserved a straightforward explanation of his responsibilities. Instead, they received the familiar suggestion that an inconvenient newsroom must have a suspect political identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Charamba has been here before. In July 2017, Grace Mugabe publicly reprimanded him at a Chinhoyi rally, accusing him of using state media to favour her factional opponents while neglecting her activities. Her accusations were not an independent finding of misconduct. The spectacle did, however, expose how openly the presidential household treated public communication as territory to be contested within the ruling party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grace was hardly defending editorial independence. She wanted favourable attention herself. That is what made the episode so revealing. The dispute concerned which powerful personalities received coverage, while the public\u2019s right to fair information barely featured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Months later, Mugabe fell. Charamba remained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By 2018, he had been promoted under Mnangagwa to deputy chief secretary responsible for presidential communications. In an interview, he said he had considered retiring but had been persuaded to stay by the new President. That explanation belongs in the record, alongside the undeniable fact that his career survived the destruction of his former boss\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Remaining in public service after a change of leadership is not inherently wrong. Professional administrations need continuity. But continuity deserves respect when it preserves competence, impartiality and institutional memory. When the same communications establishment defends successive political orders without accounting for earlier failures, citizens are entitled to ask whose interests that continuity protects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is where greed enters the discussion. It need not mean a proven theft or a secret payment. There is also an appetite for permanent relevance, for proximity to authority, for never becoming an ordinary citizen who must ask questions from outside the gate. That appetite can make every political reversal seem defensible, provided one\u2019s own place remains secure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The deeper failure belongs to ZANU PF\u2019s political culture. Public office becomes inseparable from factional usefulness. Officials are scrutinised for which leader they might favour, while their obligation to serve the whole country slips into the background.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Zimbabwe does not need more sophisticated packaging for that arrangement. Elegant prose and modern storytelling would not solve the underlying problem. Government communication should provide verifiable information, explain decisions and answer criticism without treating independent journalists as enemies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Charamba\u2019s private motives cannot be established from his longevity. His public conduct can be judged. So can a system that repeatedly turns questions of accountability into arguments about loyalty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The country owes no official a permanent seat near power. Those paid to speak for public institutions owe citizens truthful answers, including when the truth inconveniences the people who appointed them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
George Charamba has served two presidents across a rupture that ended one man\u2019s rule and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":676,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","category-politics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t