IT’S astonishing how some people would rather cling to self-delusion than face a truth staring them in the face
If Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) governor John Mushayavanhu thinks the recent increase in the usage of the Zimbabwe Gold (ZiG) to 40% is proof of growing public confidence in the local currency, then he is gravely mistaken.
*_To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08_*
In fact, this very statistic could just as easily be interpreted as a damning vote of no confidence in the ZiG.
The reality, which ordinary Zimbabweans know all too well, is that an increase in transactions made in ZiG does not necessarily mean that people trust it or want to keep it.
Rather, it is a reflection of the fact that Zimbabweans—most of whom earn their salaries in the local currency—are quick to get rid of it, using it for basic expenses while holding onto their US dollars, which they see as the only reliable store of value.
This is a survival tactic born out of bitter experience.
When people are given the choice between which currency to use and which one to save, they use the ZiG to spend and the greenback to preserve their purchasing power.
This is not rocket science—it is simply the behaviour of a nation that has been burnt too many times by its own currency.
We have seen this movie before with the Zimbabwe dollar, the bond note, and the RTGS dollar.
Each time, the government assured us of “stability” and “value preservation,” and each time we watched those currencies collapse, wiping out savings and salaries in the process.
Mushayavanhu’s belief that a 14-percentage-point increase in ZiG transactions is a victory ignores the context.
The local currency is still shunned in large parts of the economy.
Many landlords, service providers, and informal traders either refuse to accept it or only do so grudgingly, preferring to price goods and services in US dollars.
Even the government, which is pushing the ZiG as the backbone of a planned single-currency economy by 2030, continues to collect a significant portion of taxes and fees in foreign currency.
The ZiG is also still largely an electronic currency, which further undermines any claims of market-driven stability.
Even now, just over a year after its launch, you cannot freely access it in cash form.
Most banks do not have it in their ATMs, and in many cases, cash withdrawals in ZiG are simply not possible.
The RBZ’s talk of ensuring that banks keep “at least 3% of their ZiG deposits” in cash is laughably small and reveals how little of the currency is actually circulating physically.
This artificial scarcity creates a controlled environment in which the exchange rate can be kept on a short leash—meaning its “stability” is rigged.
A truly stable currency would not need to be shielded from market competition.
It would be able to freely trade alongside other currencies, without exchange controls, and still hold its value.
It would be so trusted by Zimbabweans that they would willingly keep it in their pockets or bank accounts, not rush to dispose of it or exchange it for something more dependable.
It would also be fully interchangeable with other currencies when travelling abroad or transacting online.
But as it stands, you can’t walk into a bank in another country and exchange ZiG for their local currency—it is simply not recognised or trusted internationally.
The RBZ’s narrative that more ZiG in use means people are embracing it is, therefore, misleading at best.
This is not the embrace of trust; it is the reflex of rejection.
The ZiG is the currency we spend as fast as possible, so that we can protect the value of our hard-earned money in US dollars.
In fact, the moment a salary hits a Zimbabwean’s account, the race begins to either buy goods before it loses value or convert the ZiG into forex.
That is not confidence—it is desperation.
What Mushayavanhu and the government seem unwilling to confront is that no currency can be truly stable without sound and transparent economic policies behind it.
A currency’s strength comes from the strength of the economy it represents, not from the governor’s speeches or from managed statistics.
Zimbabwe’s chronic inflationary pressures, its reliance on imports, rampant corruption, and weak productive capacity all undermine any hope of a stable local currency.
Unless those fundamentals change, the ZiG will eventually follow the same path as its failed predecessors.
The RBZ’s stated ambition to phase out the multicurrency system by 2030 and force sole use of the ZiG is equally alarming.
Zimbabweans have not forgotten what happened when they were previously forced to rely solely on the local currency.
Those years were marked by hyperinflation, shortages, and the complete collapse of savings.
Even now, the thought of losing access to US dollar bank deposits by 2030 fills people with anxiety—because the trust between the government and the public on matters of money was broken long ago and has never been rebuilt.
If Mushayavanhu genuinely wants Zimbabweans to choose the ZiG over the US dollar, the solution is not in marketing campaigns, forced usage, or controlled statistics.
It lies in creating an economy where the ZiG actually holds value over time, where prices are stable, and where people’s savings are safe.
That requires real economic reforms: tackling corruption head-on, restoring investor confidence, ensuring fiscal discipline, reducing the trade deficit through industrial and agricultural revival, and protecting property rights.
Only then will Zimbabweans stop treating the local currency as something to get rid of as quickly as possible.
It is also important to note that stability cannot be decreed into existence.
It must be earned.
The RBZ can boast about ZiG usage statistics all it wants, but as long as the currency is not freely accessible in cash form, not traded internationally, and not trusted as a store of value, it will remain a reluctant medium of exchange rather than a currency of choice.
Zimbabweans are not irrational.
They are not rejecting the ZiG out of spite or ignorance.
They are simply making rational financial decisions in a fragile economy, where history has taught them to be cautious.
If the government truly believes in the ZiG, it should let it stand on its own in the open market against other currencies.
If it thrives in that environment, then the people will embrace it willingly.
If it fails, then no amount of central bank spin will save it.
Until then, every percentage point increase in ZiG transactions is less a sign of confidence and more an indication that people are trying to offload it before its value erodes.
The RBZ can choose to keep fooling itself with selective interpretations, but the truth on the ground is plain to see: Zimbabweans trust the US dollar because it protects their hard-earned money, and they use the ZiG only because they have no choice.
That is not a vote of confidence—it is a silent but unmistakable vote of rejection.
What Zimbabwe needs is not a rebranded local currency wrapped in gold-themed marketing, but genuine currency reform anchored on solid economic fundamentals.
Only when the economy itself is fixed will the currency that represents it be truly stable.
Until that day comes, the ZiG will remain the currency we spend, not the currency we save.
*_● Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call : +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/_*
