THERE is a certain clarity that comes with a conditional yes. It is not quite support and not quite opposition. It is an invitation dressed as a dare.
So here it is. I will support Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB3), wholeheartedly, enthusiastically, with all the civic spirit one can muster, if a few small conditions are met.
They are not radical. They are merely proportionate to the ambition of the Bill itself.
Condition one: Power must carry risk
If CAB3 is to concentrate authority, then that authority must come with consequence.
The rule is simple.
Keep Reading
- Cars up for grabs in batteries competition
- Chamisa party defiant after ban
- Gwanda accident victim seeks justice
- Village Rhapsody: How Zimbabwe can improve governance
If the economy contracts for two consecutive years or if the national budget records a persistent deficit beyond an agreed threshold, then every sitting Member of Parliament and the President becomes ineligible to run for office.
Not censured. Not reshuffled. Not recycled into a different ministry. Finished.
The logic is not punitive. It is corrective.
If leadership is to be centralised, then responsibility must be indivisible.
Success has many fathers. Failure should have a clear address.
And if that contraction occurs within the first half of the seven-year term, then a snap election is automatically triggered at the halfway point.
The public should not be required to endure the full duration of a failing mandate.
Condition two: Appointments must be reversible
CAB3 expands the scope of appointments. Very well. Then let us expand the scope of removal.
Every senior appointment made under the authority of the President should be subject to a public confirmation process and more importantly, a public recall mechanism.
Not a distant, procedural inquiry. A real vote, triggered by citizens, time-bound, transparent.
If the people are to be governed by appointees, the people must have the means to dismiss them.
Condition three: Parliament must earn its new role
If Parliament is to play a greater role in selecting leadership, then Parliament must itself be reformed.
Attendance records should be published in real time.
Voting records should be accessible and intelligible.
Constituents should be able to see, without effort, how their representatives act when it matters.
And if an MP fails to meet a minimum threshold of participation, debates attended, committees served, votes cast, they should forfeit the right to stand again.
In addition, every MP should be required to hold a minimum of two town hall meetings with their constituents every quarter.
Not ceremonial appearances, but open forums with recorded questions and responses.
Representation should not be a title. It should be a measurable activity.
Condition four: Emergency powers must expire
If Zimbabwe is to move forward, it must finally let go of its habit of governing through exception.
Any law or provision that grants extraordinary powers to the Executive must come with a fixed expiry date.
Not a renewable clause buried in legal language. A hard stop.
When the date arrives, the power lapses.
No extension without a super majority.
No quiet renewals. No administrative sleight of hand.
An emergency, by definition, cannot be permanent.
Condition five: Citizens must have the last word
If CAB3 alters the way leaders are chosen, then the changes should be subject to a national referendum.
Not as a courtesy, but as a requirement.
Let the people decide whether they are comfortable with the new arrangement.
Let them endorse it, reject it or reshape it.
If the Bill is as sound as its proponents suggest, it should have nothing to fear from the electorate.
A modest proposal
None of these conditions are impossible.
They do not require new inventions, only new habits.
They ask, simply, that power be matched with accountability, that authority be balanced by consequence.
And yet, one suspects they will be treated as unreasonable.
This is the quiet tension at the heart of the current moment.
The State asks for trust, while offering structures that reduce the need for it.
Citizens are told to believe, while being given fewer ways to verify.
So the conditional yes remains.
I will support CAB3 wholeheartedly, if it is willing to bind itself to the same standards it asks the country to accept.
If it can imagine a system in which power is not only exercised, but also constrained.
If it can prove, in law and in practice, that the rules apply upwards as much as they apply downwards.
Until then, support feels premature.
Not because the idea of reform is objectionable, but because reform without restraint has a familiar shape.
Zimbabwe has seen it before.
And once you recognise the pattern, it becomes difficult to applaud it without conditions.