AS Zimbabwe continues to face deep economic, political and social challenges, familiar calls for national dialogue are once again echoing across the political landscape.
This is nothing new and many citizens meet these appeals with weary scepticism — and understandably so.
For years, such conversations have repeated themselves, yielding the same outcomes with no tangible change.
Dialogue has too often remained the preserve of the political elite, held in exclusive rooms far removed from the daily struggles of ordinary people.
Yet, recent developments across the country are beginning to tell a different story — one that speaks to the quiet, transformative power of community dialogue.
A national study, Promoting Bottom-Up Dialogue: A Study of Community-Level Dialogue Experiences in Zimbabwe, has revealed the vibrant culture that exists at the community level, where local leaders convene dialogues focused on “bread and butter” issues.
Keep Reading
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
While varying in scope and subject — from access to health and education to service delivery and economic disputes — these dialogues represent a bottom-up approach and experience in which local constituents are not just participants but also drivers of change.
Rooted in Zimbabwe’s traditional culture, this practice draws from the Shona and Ndebele concepts of the Dare and iDale — spaces for discussion, justice and collective decision-making. These deeply ingrained traditions show that dialogue is not foreign to Zimbabweans; it is part of who we are. And today, that same spirit offers valuable lessons for strengthening and enriching national dialogue efforts.
Communities in dialogue-led action
In Zimbabwe, NGOs and activists have often led environmental campaigns. Increasingly, however, communities themselves are taking matters into their own hands.
As the face of civil society changes across the nation, communities are realising that no one is coming to their rescue. Events over the past year have shown communities taking ownership of their land and water — not waiting for others to act on their behalf.
For instance, the Mazayi River cyanide spill in Maphisa galvanised villagers to take decisive action. Villagers noticed dead fish floating downstream and traced the contamination to a suspected breach of a nearby mine’s slimes dam. What began as immediate local outrage evolved into a national conversation about mining oversight, environmental accountability and the rights of communities to safe water and land. The response showed how empowered local voices can elevate village-level issues to the national level.
Similarly, the ongoing Bryden Country School case illustrates how sustained community dialogue can challenge powerful minority interests.
The planned construction of a cement factory near the school raised fears over zoning violations, air quality and long-term health risks for students. A determined headmistress, working closely with parents and residents, consistently raised the school’s environmental and health concerns to all who cared to listen — and those who did not want to listen. Their persistent engagement forced authorities and national stakeholders to listen and respond.
These cases demonstrate that when communities embody citizen agency — manifesting in being informed, organised and persistent — they can shape decisions that directly impact their lives and extend beyond their communities.
These community victories hint at something larger — the potential of dialogue not just to solve local problems, but to redefine how power responds to it.
From dialogue to political will
As issue-based community dialogues gain momentum, it is important to ensure they lead to real solutions. At the same time, as more spaces and platforms for dialogue emerge at the community level, the quality of the format and outcomes must also improve.
The Practitioner’s Toolkit for Promoting Successful and Sustainable Community Dialogue Outcomes was developed with local community-based organisations (CBOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs) to ensure that community dialogue practitioners have a benchmark upon which they can reference and utilise while convening their dialogues.
These local experiences raise a critical question often asked by sceptics: can bottom-up dialogue truly matter in a centralised system run by and for a few powerful elites?
The answer is that bottom-up dialogue matters precisely because power is centralised. By its very nature, power is held by a few, which makes collective action all the more important. When citizens organise around shared issues, they create the social and political pressure that compels leaders to act. No leader governs in a vacuum; even the most insulated elite must eventually respond to the pulse of the country’s communities.
When communities are organised and vocal, they create the political will that leaders require to act. Politicians, by their nature, respond to visibility, legitimacy and sustained pressure. When citizens mobilise around issues such as water, waste, education and service delivery, they set the agenda. Even the most insulated policymakers are forced to pay attention to conversations that refuse to fade away. Dialogue restores legitimacy where authority alone cannot.
Community-led dialogue, therefore, is not merely about solving local problems; it is also about shaping national discourse — from below. It transforms passive frustration into active participation and makes the government accountable through action, not just rhetoric.
Several ongoing dialogues at the national level are gaining traction and, although vital for the country, remain deeply disconnected from the issues and platforms that are driving change in Zimbabwe’s communities.
The bottom-up approach to dialogue and its architecture embodies the potential to connect these efforts, particularly in a context that has proven time and again that quick fixes to national challenges are cosmetic and synthetic. Real change requires a foundational shift that empowers community members to hold their leaders accountable.
A blueprint for the future of bottom-up dialogue
The logic for interventions that continue to promote bottom-up dialogue is simple, yet powerful: Zimbabwe already possesses trusted and functioning dialogue structures in the form of traditional leaders, community-based organisations and church groups, among other citizen- and community-led dialogue platforms. By capacitating these groups with relevant knowledge, skills and platforms, meaningful transformation can take place.
If these dialogues and platforms are continuously strengthened and promoted — and connected both horizontally across communities and vertically to ongoing national-level dialogues and decision-makers — Zimbabwe can cultivate a culture of community participation that endures beyond electoral cycles and shifting political climates.
Practical ways must be found to reduce the distance between local realities and national priorities. The often-quoted ideals of inclusion and participation must materialise in visible, tangible results — not remain abstract promises.
If national dialogue starts with the conversations citizens are already having in their communities, then the process has already begun. What remains is for national actors to wake up and embrace it.
- Tariro Senderayi is a human rights activist