ZIMBABWE’S 2013 Constitution did not emerge by accident, nor was it a benevolent grant from those in power.
It is the culmination of a long, painful and deliberate constitutional struggle that began in earnest with the constitutional movement of 1997–98, led jointly by civic society and the democratic opposition.
Its historical contrast is instructive. The Lancaster House Constitution was the ruling party’s inheritance — a negotiated settlement designed to manage transition, not to entrench popular sovereignty.
By contrast, the 2013 Constitution is a product of democratic resistance: forged through mass mobilisation, civic pressure, political negotiations, and ultimately endorsed by the people themselves through a national referendum that even the ruling party supporters endorsed.
It is, in every meaningful sense, a child of Zimbabwe’s democratic movement.
Today, that Constitution is under direct threat. If the democratic contingent of our country were to sit back, remain silent or tacitly endorse its mutilation, that would amount to nothing less than political infanticide — the abandonment of our own democratic offspring at the very moment it is under assault.
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
My conscience will not allow me to walk away from the 2013 Constitution for any reason, including political convenience or expediency.
To do so would be an act of betrayal, not only of principle but also to fallen comrades in the democratic movement who perished, suffered and sacrificed over the last 29 years for constitutional democracy.
A good parent does not abandon a child because it has been attacked and its legs are broken. They defend it precisely because it is under threat.
It is for this reason that the recently launched Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP) is anchored on two inseparable objectives: first, to resist unconstitutional attempts to extend political power beyond lawful limits; and second, to compel the full implementation of the Constitution itself.
A view has recently emerged that “there is no Constitution to defend.” As a democrat, I respect the right of comrades and citizens to hold and express their opinions. But I fundamentally — and respectfully — reject this position. It is neither intellectually sustainable nor politically responsible.
A Constitution does not cease to exist because it is violated. If that were the case, no democratic society would ever have emerged from authoritarian rule through lawful struggle. Constitutions are violated precisely because they constrain power. Their breach is not evidence of their irrelevance; it is evidence of the threat they pose to unaccountable authority.
Zimbabwe is experiencing a breakdown of constitutionalism, not the extinction of the Constitution. This distinction matters. Breakdown describes conduct — the refusal to comply with constitutional obligations. Extinction would require lawful repeal by the people themselves. That has not happened.
The 2013 Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. It is the only foundational document adopted directly by Zimbabweans through a popular referendum. Its continued violation indicts those in authority; it does not invalidate the instrument itself.
More importantly, the Constitution’s content — if fully implemented — addresses the very electoral, political and governance reforms the democratic movement has demanded for decades: limits on executive power, electoral integrity, independent institutions, devolution, judicial independence, civil liberties, and accountable governance. To abandon this Constitution because it is under attack is to surrender the reform agenda at the very moment it is most threatened.
Some, who argue that “there is no Constitution to defend”, go further, claiming that citizens should defend the country, not the Constitution. This framing is conceptually flawed and legally incoherent.
A country is not defended by abandoning its Constitution. The defence of territorial integrity is the constitutional duty of the armed forces. The defence of constitutional order is the duty of citizens.
In law, a country is not merely land, borders or coercive power. A country is a constitutional order: a community bound by agreed rules, shared rights, defined institutions, and enforceable limits on authority. Strip away the Constitution and what remains is not a nation — it is ruled by force.
To argue that one can defend Zimbabwe while discarding its Constitution is to hollow out the very idea of the State. It is to defend the soil while surrendering sovereignty. It is to preserve symbols while abandoning substance.
Those who advocate “defending the country but not the Constitution” are, whether knowingly or not, advancing constitutional nihilism — the belief that law, rights and limits on power are optional when inconvenient. History shows that such thinking has never protected nations. It has only empowered arbitrary rule.
The Constitution itself is explicit on this point. Section 3(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe imposes a binding duty on every person, natural or juristic, including the State and all institutions of government, to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. This obligation is not symbolic. It is enforceable.
Defending Zimbabwe, therefore, means defending the Constitution we fought for.
That is the purpose of the Defend the Constitution Platform.
That is the duty of all democrats.
The Constitution is our shield, defending it means defending our future.