In this in-depth conversation, the Editor of The Diplomat Africa, Mary Mundeya, sits down with the Founder and Publisher of Diplomat Media, Reginald Chapfunga, to reflect on the origins, challenges and evolution of one of Zimbabwe’s most influential diplomatic platforms, the Diplomat of the Year Awards. From launching during a period of deep polarisation to bringing ambassadors, ministers and global institutions under one roof, this is a story of conviction, risk and quiet persistence.
Take us back to 2009. You launched The Diplomat at a time when Zimbabwe was deeply polarised—diplomatically, politically and economically. What did you see then that others either ignored or were afraid to confront?
2009 was not just a difficult time, it was defining. Zimbabwe was emerging from an economic crisis and disputed elections. Relations with much of the international community—Europe, the United States, Australia and Canada were at their lowest. Diplomacy had become tense, almost transactional. Even in embassy corridors, there was a sense of distance and caution.
What I saw was a vacuum. There was no platform documenting, interpreting or even attempting to bridge those divides in a structured, credible way. Most narratives were either political or reactive. I believed there was room indeed, a need for a platform that could sit at the intersection of diplomacy, development and business, and speak to all sides without amplifying the noise.
Launching then was not about comfort. It was about relevance.
At a time when relations were strained, what gap were you trying to fill? Was this journalism, bridge-building, or quiet defiance?
It was all three. Journalism, certainly—but not the kind that chases headlines. We wanted to create a record, something more enduring. Bridge-building, yes but grounded in realism. Diplomacy is complex, and trust is earned slowly.
And perhaps there was an element of quiet defiance, to insist that engagement remains possible, even when official relations are strained.
The Diplomat of the Year Awards were born in that same climate. What was the original idea—beneath the ceremony?
At its core, the idea was simple: recognise excellence in diplomacy, create a neutral platform for engagement, and connect diplomacy to development outcomes.
But beneath that simplicity was a deeper intention—to create a space where embassies, regardless of their foreign policy positions, could meet not as opposing blocs but as members of a shared diplomatic community. A space where diplomats, government, development partners and business could interact openly.
It was about unity without uniformity.
Isn’t it difficult to create a space that feels genuinely neutral in a divided diplomatic community?
In the early years, there was suspicion from all sides. Some embassies wondered if we were aligned with government. Government, at times, wondered if we were aligned with external interests.
We had to be consistent, transparent and fair in how we engaged and how we recognised excellence. Over time, people began to see that the platform belonged to no single interest group.
Trust, in diplomacy, is cumulative.
You’ve described being caught between suspicion and uncertainty. What did that look like in practice?
It was subtle, but constant. Conversations that felt guarded. Invitations that went unanswered. A general hesitation to fully commit.
Even the first edition reflected that. Attendance was modest, and financially it was difficult—we carried debts for a long time. But beyond that was the uncertainty: whether the idea itself would be accepted.
Was there a moment when you thought the Awards might not survive?
Yes, after the first edition, and even into the second. When you invest time, energy and limited resources into something and the response is uncertain, you question everything.
But I believed the idea was bigger than the outcome. Sometimes, the early years are not about success, they are about proof of concept.
Which edition would you describe as the breakthrough?
The 2015 edition. This was due to a combination of factors, environment, timing, positioning and credibility aligned. Internally, Zimbabwe had stabilised somewhat under the Government of National Unity. Externally, there was gradual recalibration of engagement.
But more importantly, the Awards had demonstrated consistency. The Ministry of Tourism came on board, guests from the Office of the President and Cabinet attended, and diplomatic participation rose to nearly 90 percent.
Attendance exceeded expectations, and financial support followed. That year marked a turning point—the Awards were no longer seen as an experiment, but as a fixture on Zimbabwe’s diplomatic calendar.
Awards can sometimes be symbolic. Where has this platform had real impact?
The real impact is in the relationships it fosters. Conversations that begin at the Awards often extend beyond them into partnerships, collaborations and initiatives.
We also made a deliberate shift towards impact focusing on how diplomatic work translates into tangible outcomes for ordinary citizens. That shift changed the narrative from protocol to purpose.
Over fourteen editions, what patterns stand out in the themes and the diplomats you honoured?
The themes evolved with the times, from re-engagement and cooperation to economic diplomacy, investment promotion and now impact.
Similarly, the honourees reflected that shift. We moved from recognising presence to recognising measurable contribution—development programmes, trade facilitation, community transformation.
Over the years, the Awards have attracted strong corporate backing. How important has corporate support been to the Awards’ growth and sustainability?
It has been critical. Platforms like this cannot grow on vision alone—they require consistent, long-term support.
Stanbic Bank’s partnership over the past 14 years is a powerful example of what sustained corporate backing can achieve. It has not just been about sponsorship, but about belief in the platform and what it represents.
Corporate partners bring stability, credibility and scale. They allow us to maintain quality, expand reach, and focus on impact. More importantly, they signal to the diplomatic and development community that the platform is trusted and valued beyond the public sector.
As The Diplomat expands into a continental platform, how do the Awards evolve?
They must grow in scope without losing their core. The principles remain the same—recognition, connection and impact, but the scale becomes African.
The next phase is expansion—bringing the Awards to Southern and East Africa at country level, creating a network of diplomatic platforms across the region.
If the Awards were to disappear tomorrow, what would the diplomatic community lose?
A rare neutral space. A platform that connects diplomacy, development and business. A record of impact and excellency.
Finally—what still keeps you restless?
The sense that there is still more to be done. Africa’s story in diplomacy is still unfolding. The platform must evolve with it. There is always another level of impact to reach.
