THE ruling Zanu PF party clearly has no time for democracy if it stands the way of the extension of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s rule to 2030.
In the push for decimating the Constitution, the party has put him above all else, to the detriment of the country at large.
That is the view in a nutshell of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and many others.
What is at stake in Zimbabwe today is not merely a Bill before Parliament, but the very meaning of democracy itself.
Democracy is not a procedural ritual.
It is not the mechanical passing of laws by those who hold temporary authority.
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
It is a covenant — rooted in public participation, consensus and the sovereign will of the people.
Strip it of these elements and what remains is not democracy, but its imitation.
The debate around Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB3) has exposed a dangerous drift away from these fundamentals.
When power begins to reconfigure the rules in its own favour, the line between governance and self-preservation becomes blurred.
And once that line disappears, institutions cease to serve the people — they serve those who control them.
The warning from the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission is, therefore, not abstract.
It goes to the heart of constitutional order: that laws must not be shaped by political expediency, nor constitutions bent to accommodate the ambitions of incumbents.
A constitution is meant to restrain power, not to enable its extension.
Democracy demands participation.
It demands that citizens are not spectators, but decision-makers.
It demands that on matters of national consequence — especially those that redefine the architecture of power — the people must speak directly.
That is why calls for a referendum are not oppositional tactics; they are democratic necessities.
Voices from across the political and civic spectra have captured this principle with clarity.
Opposition politician Job Sikhala reminds us that no one can be “the complainant, the prosecutor and the judge in their own case”.
Douglas Mwonzora points to the constitutional imperative to avoid conflict of interest.
These are not partisan arguments — they are foundational legal and democratic truths.
Beyond the legalities lies something deeper: trust.
Once citizens begin to feel excluded from decisions that shape their future, the social contract fractures.
Consultation that is choreographed, participation that is managed and dissent that is muted are not features of democracy — they are symptoms of its erosion.
History offers its own warnings. As political activist Judith Todd reflects, moments when power seeks to “hijack” the national trajectory have consequences that extend far beyond the present.
They leave scars that generations must carry.
Democracy, at its core, is about restraint.
It is about leaders recognising that authority is borrowed, not owned; that power is temporary, not permanent; and that legitimacy flows upwards from the people, not downwards from office.
When governance begins to centre on individual ambition or collective self-interest among those in power, democracy is no longer being practised — it is being displaced.
Zimbabwe does not lack laws. It does not lack institutions.
What it risks losing is the principle that gives laws and institutions meaning: that the people come first.
CAB3 has become a test of that principle.
And the answer should be simple: democracy must be preserved not through the convenience of those who govern, but through the consent of the governed.