Correspondent
Parliament recently held public hearings to solicit citizens’ opinions on the proposed amendments to the Zimbabwean constitution.
The hearings, held over four days, showed a concerning sign for the country’s democracy: it appears to be regressing.
Issues that have long plagued our political space remain firmly in place; in fact, they appear to be worsening.
Violence, intimidation, busing and all manner of ugly scenes, which are as old as Zimbabwean politics itself, emerged.
One would think that in 2026, the approach would be different, but it appears we are stuck in a loop.
Outside of elections, this is the single largest political obstacle that ZANU-PF under President Mnangagwa has had to navigate.
While at face value the protagonists driving the amendment appear to be wearing confident and brave faces, their actions betray an underlying fear that the people may hold a different view.
No one may verbalise this palpable fear, but the proof is usually in the pudding. More is usually learnt from the unsaid.
Intolerance
The manner in which the constitutional amendment is being framed clearly shows one thing: the proponents are seeking a predetermined outcome.
In different outposts where these hearings were held, there were seemingly coordinated efforts to silence those suspected of holding views against the amendments.
In Harare, lawyer and activist Doug Coltart lost his mobile phone to a suspected member of a party largely interested in the outcome of the hearings.
David Coltart, lawyer and current Bulawayo Mayor, also accused the committee leading proceedings at the City Hall hearing in his city of overlooking him throughout the whole session.
In Nketa, Bulawayo, opposition politician Ostallos Siziba complained of the same treatment.
During the same Nketa hearing, a woman had to be rescued from a mob after she had revealed her T-shirt, which communicated her opposition to the amendment bill.
Stories from different areas communicate that there was tension in these hearings.
Harnessing Tension
The tension seemed to have been curated by an interested party.
While this sounds like another Zimbabwean politics story, the country remains in a mode where political participation looks risky to the average citizen.
That atmosphere is tantamount to exclusion, as it confirms the long-held notion that it is perhaps safer for rational, risk-averse people to stay away from politics.
No one should face danger because of their view on matters of national importance, especially something as important as a constitutional amendment.
The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission has put on record its concerns over the manner in which those with dissenting views appeared to be stifled during the process.
According to the Commission’s chair, Jessie Majome, “the commission found that while those in support of the constitutional amendment were able to give their views, the commission noted the harassment and intimidation of dissenting views.
Individuals and groups opposed to Constitutional Amendment 3 were denied an audience.”
The ZHRC also complained about the harassment, in various forms including physical violence, against those with differing views.
It is now on record that, no matter the outcome, the public hearings that preceded the planned constitutional amendment were punctuated by intolerance.
It means we have not progressed an inch from the days when people were maimed or threatened for their political opinions.
Digital Hooliganism
In Zimbabwe’s history, there has been a history of hooliganism.
Many people have lost their lives for their political persuasions. The scars from the deaths form part of the political trauma that shapes the country’s civic participation.
The violence that saw opposition activists lose their lives and the horrific scenes of the 2008 election run-off period have not yet washed off the minds of those old enough to remember.
Being attacked for a political opinion remains a strong reality in Zimbabwe.
What has worsened is that the platforms have multiplied with the coming in of social networks and digital spaces.
These days, the violence is now pervasive as it has gone virtual, too.
During the CAB3 discourse, there have been unsavoury words directed at those who do not believe it is the right course of action for the country.
Trolls hiding behind ghost accounts would make ad hominem attacks on commentators, political players and even journalists who sought to question the bill’s clauses.
This violence tacitly discourages people from making online submissions to Parliament, as the vitriol can easily discourage people from sending in their email submissions for fear of victimisation.
Deliberate Poor Planning
History has shown us, from the 1999 Referendum to the COPAC Constitution-making process, that the public likes to be heard on constitutional matters.
The net effect of this level of interest is that venues have to account for this participation appetite, which is compounded by interested parties who mobilise to ensure their preferred view gets airtime.
Political parties organise transport for their members, sometimes across provinces.
One particular party is notorious for this kind of behaviour.
The civic society also encourages those they believe align with their interpretation of issues to be present in these hearings.
The whole CAB3 hearing process was spread over 65 venues across the whole country.
This translates to one venue for every 246 000 people. In 2013, over 3 million people voted for the constitution that is in place, and this interest should have been accounted for in planning for the hearings.
“The commission found most of the venues to be small, relative to the turnout,” ZHRC found in its assessment of the hearings.
This saw some interested participants being turned away from the venues.
To the naked eye, this may seem like just a continuation of the incompetence we have seen at every level of governance in Zimbabwe, but in effect, this is a strategic dereliction of planning duty.
During the 2023 election, a seeming operational blunder affected the polls.
Ballot papers were delivered late to polling stations known to be situated in traditional opposition strongholds. This meant that some voters had to forgo voting.
The strategy seems firmly in place, where man-made chaos is designed to favour an intended political outcome, which in this case is the sailing of the constitutional amendment.
Follow the numbers
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.” — Aaron Levenstein.
There are important numbers we must take note of, in 2013 during the referendum; 3,079,966 voted “Yes” and 179,489 voted “No, while there were 56,627 spoiled ballots.
This amounts to 3,316,082 votes, with 95% of the participants consenting to the 2013 constitution.
Now these numbers are difficult to reconcile with what ZANU PF members are saying regarding the just-ended hearings.
During the ZCC Easter Gathering, Minister of State for National Security and ZANU-PF Politburo Member, Lovemore Matuke, publicly said statistics in his possession showed that 98% of participants in the parliamentary hearings are in support of the constitutional changes.
These numbers seem somewhat suspicious.
Is it possible that in a 13-year window, the public that voted “Yes” for the constitution with all its clauses, suddenly wants the same constitution to be amended?
While a public hearing is not a referendum, in the present instance, it is the closest the country will get towards knowing what the public sentiment may be as far as the proposed constitutional changes are concerned.
Things are not what they seem
These constitutional amendments are by no means innocent attempts to make the law more efficient.
Ordinarily, the reasoning behind legal amendments is to ensure that the law serves the people and, in the case of a constitution, speaks to their collective aspirations.
Most of the clauses seem to have a surface interpretation and a political net effect.
I will detail some below.
An amendment to Section 92 is set to change the manner in which the President is elected.
Currently, the President is elected by popular vote, and the proposal is that the President will be selected by Parliament.
This innocently looks like a change in mechanics in the manner in which the country chooses its head of state, but this is a clear reorganisation of the democratic system.
From a distance, this looks like a culmination of ZANU-PF’s succession dynamics, where the consolidation of power is done through Parliament instead of their usual congress approach.
Another controversial Section in the amendment process is Section 95, which seeks to extend the term of office of the Presidency from five to seven years.
Answers Without Questions
There have not been any compelling reasons as to why this is a necessity currently.
The argument that President Mnangagwa needs time to complete ongoing projects is near absurd; national projects are driven by a documented scope, and anyone can come in and pursue completion.
Take, for example, the Gwayi-Shangani Dam project, which was conceptualised in 1912, but it is now being implemented in 2026. This shows that national aspirations do not need individuals, but institutions.
As long as the Presidency remains a functional office, projects that are underway will continue, regardless of who is in office.
This amendment presently looks like legal footwork to just extend President Mnangagwa’s last term in office.
There are several other clauses that have a dual element that are part of this proposed omnibus amendment.
From where ordinary people stand, this seems like an academic exercise.
Public hearings that do not allow open debate and different opinions become expensively constituted echo chambers.
Maybe one day, our democracy will grow to a point where ideas can be openly debated, and people can express their views.
What we have now is a stagnant democracy, present, visible, but stuck in the mud.
———————————————————————————————————-
Love what we do? We’re dedicated to opening up democracy, one article, video and story at a time. If you find our reporting helpful, you can support the Magamba Network team by buying us a coffee. It’s quick, easy, and makes a real difference!
————————————————————————————————————
