Reports circulating in Zimbabwean media suggest that the United Kingdom may oppose Zimbabwe’s readmission into the Commonwealth, a move that—if true—signals a continuation of a fraught and deeply historical impasse. While no official confirmation has emerged from London, the very speculation warrants an examination of what such a decision would signify in the evolving narrative of British-Zimbabwean relations and the broader dynamics of global geopolitics. It would not merely be a bureaucratic manoeuvre but a missed opportunity for reconciliation, growth, and a resetting of both historical and contemporary wrongs.
To begin, the debate over Zimbabwe’s place in the Commonwealth is inextricably tied to the unresolved tensions surrounding land reform, a bitter legacy of colonial dispossession. The 1979 Lancaster House Agreement, which guaranteed compensation-based redistribution funded partly by Britain, represented a fragile hope for justice. However, as scholars such as Sam Moyo have articulated, Britain’s reneging on these commitments during Margaret Thatcher’s era sowed seeds of mistrust and, ultimately, instability. The fast track land reform of the early 2000s, though condemned for violence, was a desperate assertion of sovereignty and restitution by Zimbabwe. For the UK to sideline Zimbabwe now is to turn its back on a problem it helped create and an opportunity it has to mend the rift by embracing a multilateral platform like the Commonwealth to facilitate dialogue.
Yet this issue transcends land and sovereignty; it cuts to the heart of the UK’s diminishing stature in Africa. The Cold War era witnessed Britain wielding immense influence across the continent, but this is no longer the case. The vacuum has been adeptly filled by powers such as China, which offers infrastructure deals, and Russia, which forges security alliances, all with minimal rhetoric on human rights. Africa, home to the fastest-growing economies, represents an arena of global competition in which Britain’s participation is becoming peripheral. By opposing Zimbabwe’s bid, Britain risks alienating yet another African partner, surrendering moral and strategic leverage while fostering resentment among those who view the move as an extension of colonial paternalism.
Moreover, the growing Zimbabwean diaspora in the UK—estimated at over 200,000 individuals—represents an overlooked but potent element of this conversation. These are not mere emigrants but active contributors to British society, with Zimbabweans serving prominently in healthcare, academia, and entrepreneurship. Their remittances sustain Zimbabwe’s economy, their cultural footprint enriches the UK, and their voices increasingly influence policy debates. A policy of exclusion towards Zimbabwe, therefore, risks alienating this diaspora, who might otherwise act as cultural and economic bridges between the two nations. These are real people, carrying the weight of dislocation, and yearning for a Britain-Zimbabwe relationship defined by partnership rather than estrangement.
To complicate matters further, the UK’s purported stance on Zimbabwe appears profoundly hypocritical when viewed against its foreign policy elsewhere. For decades, Britain has framed its dealings with Zimbabwe through the lens of human rights, citing electoral malpractice, suppression of dissent, and governance issues as grounds for continued isolation. Yet, this posture stands in stark contrast to its unflinching support for Israel, even amidst the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, citing alleged war crimes, but Britain’s diplomatic backing remains steadfast. How does one reconcile such selective morality? For Zimbabweans, who have endured the brunt of sanctions ostensibly imposed for ethical reasons, the message is clear: human rights are not a universal principle but a geopolitical tool wielded selectively.
This contradiction is not merely theoretical; it has profound implications for how Britain is perceived globally. An increasingly multipolar world demands not only consistency but also adaptability in foreign policy. The Commonwealth, with its focus on shared history and multilateral cooperation, offers an ideal mechanism for fostering democratic values and reform in Zimbabwe. By choosing to exclude rather than engage, Britain risks eroding the credibility of its commitments, not only to Zimbabwe but to the Commonwealth as a whole.
The path forward is neither simple nor without challenges. Zimbabwe, under President Emmerson Mnangagwa has certainly made strides in navigating Zimbabwe through a period of considerable challenge, with visible progress in some areas of governance. Yet, there remains an undeniable space for further growth. However, these goals cannot be achieved in isolation; they require dialogue, support, and accountability. The Commonwealth, with its historical ties and diverse membership, is uniquely positioned to mediate this process. A policy of exclusion serves only to entrench divisions, perpetuating a narrative of mutual grievance rather than mutual growth.
In conclusion, Britain’s rumoured opposition to Zimbabwe’s Commonwealth bid would represent a profound failure of both diplomacy and imagination. It would miss a chance to address historical injustices, reinvigorate its dwindling influence in Africa, and strengthen its relationship with a dynamic diaspora. More importantly, it would send a message—whether intended or not—that Britain’s moral compass is guided less by principles and more by expediency. For a nation that once prided itself on being a global leader, such a stance would mark a disheartening retreat from relevance, leaving behind not only Zimbabwe but the promise of what their relationship could become.
Written by Farai Ian Muvuti, the Chief Executive Officer of The Southern African Times and the 2023 winner of the Young Entrepreneur of the Year award by the South African Chamber of Commerce UK.
