ZANU PF’s threat to expel party members who oppose the proposed constitutional changes lays bare the authoritarian instincts critics have long warned about.
What should be a moment for open national dialogue is instead being recast as a test of loyalty.
The ruling party’s hard line became unmistakably clear when Manicaland provincial political commissar Albert Nyakuedzwa warned that anyone who fails to support the Constitutional Amendment Bill will be “expelled from the party”.
His remarks leave little doubt that dissent within Zanu PF is being treated not as democratic debate, but as rebellion.
Manicaland provincial chairperson Tawanda Mukodza has framed the push for the amendments in stark terms, describing it as a matter of “life and death” — rhetoric that underscores the high political stakes surrounding the proposed changes and signals an environment where disagreement is increasingly unwelcome.
At the centre of the controversy is Constitutional Amendment Bill No 3, whose most contentious provision is the proposed extension of both Parliament’s term and that of President Emmerson Mnangagwa by two years. If adopted, the measure could keep the current administration in power until 2030.
Keep Reading
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Letters: Ensuring Africa’s food security through availability of quality seeds
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
The implications are profound. The Bill would stretch Parliament’s tenure from five to seven years and, under certain conditions, allow Parliament to elect a president — effectively removing the citizenry’s direct role in choosing the country’s leadership. These are not minor technical adjustments; they are sweeping changes to Zimbabwe’s democratic architecture.
Such changes demand legitimacy and in a constitutional democracy, legitimacy flows from the people.
A referendum is not merely a procedural step — it is the clearest expression of popular sovereignty. Yet Zanu PF and the government insist it is unnecessary, arguing that the amendments do not technically alter constitutional terms of office but merely adjust the election
cycle.
Such reasoning sidesteps the central issue: legitimacy. Constitutional changes of this magnitude — particularly those that reshape the balance between voters and elected officials — should be subjected to the will of the people through a referendum.
A referendum, it appears, is not part of Zanu PF’s nomenclature. Rather, the party wants to use its two-thirds majority in Parliament to railroad the Bill.
But forcing through major constitutional changes on the strength of parliamentary numbers alone risks undermining the democratic principles the Constitution is meant to protect.
The threat against dissenting party members go far beyond internal discipline. They reveal a troubling political culture in which loyalty is demanded and debate discouraged.
If members of the ruling party risk expulsion for questioning constitutional amendments, what chance do ordinary citizens, opposition supporters or civil society groups have of freely expressing their views about the future of their country?
Evidence so far shows that dissenters are not tolerated.
Constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku was recently assaulted after publicly criticising the proposed amendments — an incident that sent shockwaves through the legal and political communities.
At the same time, police have reportedly blocked civic organisations from holding meetings aimed at educating citizens and gathering public views on the Bill.
Public consultations conducted under such conditions can hardly be described as genuine.
This raises questions about the effectiveness of the Parliament-driven public hearings. Will citizens be free to air their grievances without risking retribution?
The hearings risk appearing little more than a procedural formality — a box-ticking exercise designed to rubber-stamp a decision that has already been made.
Adding to these concerns are plans by Zanu PF to enlist traditional leaders to mobilise villagers in support of the amendments ahead of the hearings.
Chiefs and village heads wield enormous influence in rural communities and are expected to serve as custodians of culture and community welfare.
Dragging them into partisan political campaigns risks eroding their neutrality and undermining the delicate balance between traditional authority and democratic governance.
At stake is more than the fate of a single Bill. It is the principle that the Constitution belongs to the people — and that any attempt to rewrite it must begin and end with their consent.