By Dr Shame Mugova
Few issues reveal the health of a society more clearly than the way wealth is created, displayed and perceived. In Zimbabwe today, questions about inequality are no longer confined to economics. They increasingly touch on politics, institutions, social cohesion and the legitimacy of the social contract itself.
Zimbabwe has never been a perfectly equal society. Neither has any other country. Inequality exists in every economy, and differences in income and wealth are often a natural consequence of differences in skills, entrepreneurship, investment, innovation and risk-taking. Successful societies require wealth creators. Economic development depends on entrepreneurs, industrialists, professionals, farmers, investors and innovators who create jobs, expand productive capacity and generate economic activity.
The existence of wealth is therefore not a problem. The more important question is how wealth is created, how opportunities are distributed, and whether citizens believe the rules of advancement are fair.
On this topic
This question has become increasingly important in Zimbabwe. A drive through some of Harare’s most affluent suburbs presents a striking picture. Large mansions continue to emerge in Borrowdale, Shawasha Hills, Glen Lorne and The Grange. Luxury vehicles are increasingly common. Stories of private jets, helicopters and extravagant lifestyles regularly dominate social media discussions.
At the same time, many public services continue to struggle, youth unemployment remains stubbornly high, informal economic activity continues to expand, and millions of Zimbabweans face significant economic uncertainty.
The contrast is difficult to ignore.
Every society has elites. The question is whether those elites are primarily perceived as the product of enterprise, innovation and productive activity, or as beneficiaries of political proximity and privileged access. It is this distinction that increasingly lies at the heart of Zimbabwe’s public conversation about inequality.
Political philosophers have long used the concept of the social contract to explain the relationship between citizens and the state. Citizens agree to obey laws, pay taxes and participate in public life. In return, governments are expected to provide security, infrastructure, public services, justice and an environment in which economic opportunity can flourish.
The legitimacy of public institutions depends largely on whether citizens believe this arrangement is functioning reasonably well.
Problems begin to emerge when citizens feel that the benefits and burdens of the social contract are distributed unevenly.
A society can tolerate considerable inequality when people believe opportunities remain accessible. Citizens may accept that some individuals become significantly wealthier than others if they can see a clear connection between effort, entrepreneurship, innovation and success. They may admire successful businesspeople when they perceive their achievements as the result of productive enterprise.
Attitudes change, however, when people begin to believe that economic advancement depends less on merit and more on access.
This distinction matters because economies are built not only on capital and resources but also on trust. Investors invest because they trust institutions. Entrepreneurs take risks because they trust that effort and innovation will be rewarded. Students pursue education because they trust it will create opportunities. Citizens pay taxes because they trust public resources will be managed responsibly.
When trust weakens, economic and political consequences follow.
Social media has amplified these perceptions. Images of luxury vehicles, mansions and lavish lifestyles now circulate instantly across platforms where citizens are simultaneously discussing unemployment, poor service delivery, deteriorating roads and rising living costs. Whether these comparisons are always fair is almost beside the point. Perceptions shape public attitudes, and public attitudes influence the level of trust people place in institutions.
Zimbabwe’s challenge is therefore not simply a question of who possesses wealth and who does not. The deeper issue is whether citizens believe that institutions operate fairly and impartially.
Public debates about politically connected businesspeople, state procurement processes, public contracts and unexplained wealth are significant not merely because of the individuals involved, but because of what such debates reveal about public perceptions.
Whether these perceptions are accurate in every case is almost secondary. What matters is that many citizens increasingly associate wealth with political proximity rather than productive activity. Once that belief becomes widespread, confidence in institutions begins to erode.
This phenomenon is not unique to Zimbabwe. History provides numerous examples of societies in which economic elites became closely intertwined with political power. In many cases, the greatest danger was not the existence of wealthy individuals but the emergence of a system in which economic opportunity appeared concentrated within narrow networks of influence.
Economists refer to this as rent-seeking behaviour. Rather than creating new value through production, innovation or investment, individuals seek economic advantages through privileged access to political power, regulation, public contracts or state resources.
The danger of rent-seeking is not merely that some individuals become wealthy. The greater danger is that productive citizens begin to conclude that education, innovation, entrepreneurship and hard work matter less than connections. Once that belief takes hold, incentives throughout the economy begin to weaken.
Why invest years building a business if success depends on political access?
Why innovate if influence matters more than productivity?
Why remain in the country if opportunities appear concentrated within narrow circles?
These questions matter because they shape behaviour.
Countries that have successfully transitioned to higher levels of development generally achieved this by strengthening institutions rather than individuals. They built systems in which success depended increasingly on competition, innovation, productivity and investment rather than patronage and political access.
The experiences of South Korea, Singapore, Ireland and Botswana differ significantly in history and context. Yet they share an important characteristic: they gradually created environments in which economic success became more closely associated with productive contribution than political proximity.
Zimbabwe possesses many of the ingredients necessary for economic success. The country has abundant mineral resources, significant agricultural potential, a strategic geographic location and a highly educated population. Yet resource endowments alone do not guarantee prosperity. Numerous countries have discovered that natural wealth can coexist with widespread poverty when institutions fail to distribute opportunities broadly or manage resources effectively.
The challenge facing Zimbabwe is therefore fundamentally institutional.
A nation cannot build long-term prosperity if large sections of the population believe the system is working for a few rather than for many. Social cohesion depends on a shared belief that progress is possible. Citizens do not expect identical outcomes, but they do expect fair opportunities. They expect that talent, education, entrepreneurship and innovation will be rewarded. They expect that public institutions will operate transparently and consistently.
When those expectations weaken, several consequences follow. Young people increasingly look abroad for opportunities. Professionals emigrate. Citizens disengage from public life. Trust declines. Cynicism grows. Economic decisions become driven by short-term survival rather than long-term investment.
Perhaps most importantly, citizens begin to lose faith in the future.
This is why inequality should concern everyone, including those who have benefited from economic success. Stable societies depend not only on economic growth but also on legitimacy. Citizens must feel that they share a common future and that public institutions serve the national interest rather than narrow interests.
The issue is not whether Zimbabwe should have wealthy citizens. Every successful country has wealthy citizens. The issue is whether wealth is generated within a system that ordinary people regard as fair, transparent and accessible.
Wealth can build houses, businesses and fortunes. Trust builds nations.
Zimbabwe’s long-term challenge is therefore not simply to create more wealth, but to ensure that citizens believe wealth is created within a system that is fair, transparent and open to talent. A society can survive inequality. What it struggles to survive is the belief that the ladder of opportunity has been pulled up.
Once that belief becomes widespread, the crisis is no longer economic.
It becomes a crisis of legitimacy.
Dr Shame Mugova is a Lecturer in Finance at Birmingham City University. The views expressed are his own.
Leave a Reply