IN Zimbabwe, importance is often measured by spectacle.
Who arrives with a convoy. Who has people opening doors for them.
Who can make one phone call and suddenly solve problems that ordinary citizens spend months battling.
We say we believe in institutions, but in practice we trust names, faces and connections.
Zimbabwe has always had a soft spot for the “big man”.
The phenomenon stretches across politics, business, religion and sport.
Keep Reading
- Priests are under God’s scrutiny
- Priests are under God’s scrutiny
- Indigenous churches campaign for ED
- Govt blames religious anti-vaxxers for deadly measles outbreak
Zimbabweans are drawn to powerful personalities — figures who project confidence, authority, wealth and influence.
In a country where life has often felt economically uncertain and institutionally fragile, the “big man” becomes more than just an individual.
He becomes reassurance.
He becomes access.
Sometimes, he even becomes hope.
This is why Zimbabwean politics has rarely been driven purely by policy debates.
Elections are often built around personalities rather than ideas.
Political slogans become attached to individuals instead of institutions.
Loyalty is directed toward leaders more than systems.
The “big man” becomes the institution.
This culture did not emerge by accident.
Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle produced towering political figures who came to symbolise resistance, nationalism and independence itself.
Liberation politics naturally elevated commanders and charismatic leaders into larger-than-life figures.
That culture survived independence.
Over time, it evolved into a society where political legitimacy is often linked to personality, presence and perceived strength.
But Zimbabwe’s “big man” culture extends far beyond politics.
In business, public fascination increasingly surrounds wealthy and flamboyant personalities.
The businessman who donates vehicles, bankrolls football clubs or publicly distributes cash quickly becomes a national talking point.
The bigger the gesture, the bigger the profile.
Social media has amplified this culture dramatically.
Public philanthropy is no longer just charity.
It is now performance, branding and influence rolled into one.
Supporters celebrate generosity.
Critics question motives. Bloggers chase clicks.
But regardless of opinion, attention always flows back to the individual.
The “big man” thrives on visibility.
Even religion reflects the same dynamics.
Across Zimbabwe’s religious landscape, charismatic figures increasingly overshadow institutions themselves.
Congregants sometimes become more emotionally attached to prophets and preachers than to doctrine.
Titles become important.
Entourages become important.
Access to the “man of God” becomes important.
For many followers, proximity to influence is interpreted as proximity to blessing.
Sport follows a similar pattern.
Football clubs often survive because of wealthy benefactors rather than sustainable structures.
Communities rally around individuals who finance teams and tournaments.
But when those individuals disappear, entire institutions can collapse overnight.
This reveals something deeper about Zimbabwean society.
The “big man” succeeds because institutions frequently fail.
When healthcare systems struggle, citizens celebrate the businessman paying hospital bills.
When unemployment rises, communities celebrate the individual creating opportunities.
When football clubs lack sponsorship, supporters celebrate the benefactor keeping the team alive.
In many ways, Zimbabwe’s “big men” fill spaces abandoned by weak systems.
But there is also a dangerous side to this culture.
Overreliance on personalities weakens institutions even further.
When organisations revolve around one dominant figure, continuity becomes fragile.
Political parties fracture after leadership disputes.
Businesses decline once founders disappear. Churches split. Football clubs collapse.
The system survives only as long as the “big man” remains standing.
This culture can also weaken accountability.
Powerful individuals are often surrounded by praise singers and loyalists unwilling to challenge them.
Public debate becomes emotional instead of rational.
Citizens begin defending personalities rather than interrogating ideas.
Influence starts mattering more than competence.
Yet there are signs Zimbabwe may slowly be changing.
A younger, digitally connected generation appears increasingly sceptical of unquestioned authority.
Social media has made it harder for powerful figures to completely control narratives.
Today’s Zimbabweans can celebrate someone in the morning and drag them on X by lunchtime.
At the same time, younger citizens increasingly speak the language of transparency and institutional accountability.
Still, Zimbabwe’s attraction to powerful personalities remains deeply rooted.
Perhaps this is because Zimbabweans are not simply fascinated by power itself.
They are fascinated by what power represents.
Security.
Connection.
Protection.
Opportunity.
In difficult economic conditions, the “big man” becomes a symbol of possibility — proof that somebody, somewhere, still has the ability to make things happen.
That is why Zimbabwe’s fascination with powerful personalities is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
The challenge is not eliminating influential individuals.
Every society produces them.
The challenge is building institutions strong enough to outlive them.
Because sustainable nations cannot depend forever on personalities.