Service delivery dragnet must not only be cast—it must catch.

Service delivery dragnet must not only be cast—it must catch.

The government’s launch of the Minimum Service Delivery Standards Framework marks a potentially transformative moment in Zimbabwe’s long and painful struggle with dysfunctional local authorities.

For decades, residents across the country—urban and rural alike—have endured collapsing public services: dry taps, overflowing sewers, pothole-riddled roads, and garbage-strewn neighborhoods.

The new framework aims to bring order by setting enforceable national service delivery standards for every local authority, with real-time digital tracking and strict performance indicators.

It is a welcome development—but only if it is backed by firm, consistent enforcement and structural reforms that ensure compliance and accountability.

This framework introduces a long-overdue layer of objectivity and transparency into a system that has long been defined by political expediency, mismanagement, and impunity.

For the first time, councils will be held to measurable benchmarks for essential services such as water, sanitation, roads, housing, public lighting, and health. Whether in Harare or Hurungwe, every council will be assessed against the same national criteria—and residents will finally have a yardstick to demand better.

Crucially, the government has promised to embed technology at the heart of the reform.

Each council’s performance will be monitored through a digital dashboard system that tracks compliance in real time. This data will be accessible not only to central authorities but also, ideally, to the public—thereby empowering citizens to hold their councils to account.

But for all its promise, the framework will only succeed if enforcement is real and non-negotiable. Zimbabwe has no shortage of grand policy pronouncements.

What it lacks is sustained political will to see them through.

The performance-based contracts introduced in recent years are a case in point: widely publicised, but rarely enforced. Councils and parastatals continued to underdeliver, with no tangible consequences.

Residents’ organisations like the Combined Harare Residents Association (CHRA) have rightly flagged gaps in the framework’s design.

CHRA Director Reuben Akili questioned the vagueness of the standards and the lack of citizen consultation. What precisely constitutes a “minimum” service in water provision?

How frequent should refuse collection be? What are the sanitation benchmarks?

Without clearly defined thresholds and community involvement, the framework risks being reduced to bureaucratic box-ticking, divorced from the realities on the ground.

Equally concerning is the capacity gap. Many local authorities, particularly in rural areas, operate without the financial or technological resources required to implement real-time digital reporting. While the government has hinted at capacity-building support, there are no clear timelines or budget allocations. If these councils are set up to fail, the entire system collapses under its own weight.

Legal reform is another critical missing piece. Zimbabwe’s outdated local government legislation does not adequately define accountability mechanisms or empower citizens to challenge non-performance. Without binding legal provisions that codify these standards—and attach clear penalties to their violation—the framework will remain vulnerable to the same cycles of dysfunction that have plagued the sector for decades.

That said, the feedback mechanism included in the framework is a progressive feature. Residents will have the opportunity to evaluate their council’s performance based on predefined expectations.

If implemented correctly, this could become a powerful tool for civic engagement and democratic oversight. However, feedback must be actionable. Councils must not only listen but be compelled to respond—whether by improving performance or facing administrative sanctions.

Ultimately, this initiative must be applied uniformly, without fear or favour. The risk of politicisation is real. Opposition-led councils must not be disproportionately targeted, nor should ruling-party controlled authorities be shielded from scrutiny. The national dashboard must serve as a neutral, data-driven tool for measuring performance—not a political weapon.

The Minimum Service Delivery Standards Framework is, without question, a step in the right direction.

It signals an acknowledgement that citizens deserve reliable, consistent, and quality services—and that councils must be judged by their output, not their affiliations.

But the real measure of its success will lie in implementation. Will councils be held accountable? Will non-performance carry consequences? Will residents see real, tangible change?

The government has made its intent clear: “No compromise to service delivery.”

It must now prove that this is not just rhetoric. There is no shortage of public frustration. Zimbabweans have waited too long for clean water, working streetlights, and functioning refuse systems.

This time, the state must not blink. The service delivery dragnet must not only be cast—it must catch.