ZIMBABWEANS are fully capable of debating constitutional amendments without resorting to violence.
The real question is: why does the ruling party appear to believe otherwise?
The recent resurgence of intimidation around discussions of constitutional reform is alarming.
A constitution is not a party document.
It is the supreme law of the land — the framework that defines limits of power, safeguards rights and structures succession.
Any proposal to amend it must undergo rigorous scrutiny and broad public consultation.
Keep Reading
- ED’s influence will take generations to erase
- ‘Govt spineless on wetland land barons’
- Govt under attack over banks lending ban
- Zim Constitution must be amended
Changes of such consequence must serve the national interest, not the ambitions of a power-hungry few.
What, then, is Zanu PF afraid of?
Zimbabwe’s own history disproves the notion that constitutional debate must descend into chaos.
In 2000, the country held a constitutional referendum that was fiercely contested — and the “No” vote prevailed.
In 2013, after an inclusive constitutional reform process, Zimbabweans again went to a referendum and endorsed a new Constitution.
Both exercises were politically charged.
Yet citizens debated, voted and accepted the outcomes without descending into nationwide violence.
That record matters.
It proves that Zimbabweans can disagree passionately over constitutional questions and still resolve them through the ballot.
The electorate is not the problem.
Peace begins with political leadership.
If leaders signal tolerance, respect for dissent and confidence in democratic processes, the country follows.
If they signal hostility, intolerance and coercion, tensions escalate.
Violence does not erupt spontaneously around constitutional reform; it is enabled — or restrained — by those at the top.
A government confident in its proposals should welcome debate.
If amendments are defensible, they will withstand scrutiny.
If they genuinely advance national interests, they will persuade citizens on merit.
Resorting to intimidation suggests insecurity about public support or legal standing.
The Constitution is not an inconvenience to be managed.
It is a covenant between the State and its citizens.
To manipulate it through fear is to weaken the very legitimacy it is meant to uphold.
Zimbabwe has shown before that it can conduct consequential constitutional referendums peacefully.
It can do so again.
But that requires leadership committed to dialogue over domination.
The violence against constitutional lawyer, Lovemore Madhuku and members of his party is an unwelcome return to the dark days of the late former President Robert Mugabe’s era.
The assault shows a regime that is determined to circumvent the Constitution at all costs to fulfil a desperate agenda to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s rule to 2030.
Government has introduced the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 3) Bill, 2026.
So, let the people debate. Let Parliament deliberate. Let the ballot decide.
And let peace begin at the top.