“I just want to say that I’m old enough to have been through this before. The last time was November 11, 1965, when Ian Smith declared his UDI. That was an attempt by those in power to hijack our country. The same thing is happening today,” Judith Todd, a veteran human rights and political activist, said recently while discussing the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3).
“Ian Smith declared a state of emergency to manage that. He locked up many people, killed others, and it led to war. I hope CAB 3 does not lead to war, but it is already causing suffering. We must resist. A group of people in power have decided to hijack our country, and the consequences will be too terrible,” she added.
“Smith did it to prevent the majority from ever having one man, one vote. There was a war, and Zimbabwe was then founded on one man, one vote. Now the new hijackers are taking that vote away from us. We must say no.”
The political moment unfolding in Zimbabwe is not merely another episode in its turbulent post-independence history—it is a defining test of constitutionalism, democratic legitimacy, and the integrity of public institutions.
At the centre of this moment is Emmerson Mnangagwa, whose trajectory from liberation-era insider to post-coup reformist has increasingly come under scrutiny. What was once framed as a transition toward a “new dispensation” now appears, to many critics, as a reversion to entrenched authoritarian patterns cloaked in procedural legality.
The proposed extension of presidential and parliamentary terms—reportedly pursued with urgency despite constitutional constraints—signals more than political ambition. It represents a structural challenge to democratic norms. At issue is not only whether Mnangagwa seeks to remain in power into advanced age, but whether the mechanisms being used to achieve that goal undermine the foundational principle of popular sovereignty.
Keep Reading
- NoViolet Bulawayo’s new novel is an instant Zimbabwean classic
- Jah Prayzah, Zanu PF rekindles ‘lost love’
- Bank workers appeal to Ncube for tax relief
- Indosakusa marks 21-year anniversary milestone
The illusion of reform
In the aftermath of the 2017 military intervention that removed Robert Mugabe, Mnangagwa positioned himself as a reformer—one who would dismantle repressive legal frameworks and re-engage with democratic institutions. Early moves, such as repealing certain restrictive laws, appeared to validate this narrative. However, the durability of reform is measured not by initial gestures, but by sustained institutional transformation.
Evidence now suggests regression rather than progression. The reintroduction of restrictive legislation, increased hostility toward dissent, and the tightening of civic space all point to continuity rather than rupture with the past. The “mask,” as critics describe it, has indeed slipped—revealing a governance model more concerned with control than accountability.
Constitutional subversion and conflict of interest
A central critique of the proposed constitutional amendment lies in the principle of conflict of interest. As articulated by opposition figures and civil society actors, Members of Parliament—who stand to benefit directly from term extensions—are being positioned as both architects and arbiters of the amendment. This violates a core tenet of constitutional governance: those who stand to gain from a law should not be its sole judges.
The argument advanced by figures such as Job Sikhala and Douglas Mwonzora is legally grounded. They contend that such an amendment must be subjected to a national referendum, particularly given its implications for electoral rights and the structure of executive authority. Section 328 of the Constitution is invoked as a safeguard against precisely this kind of unilateral alteration.
The current parliamentary outreach process is widely criticised as performative—characterised by selective participation, suppression of dissenting voices, and logistical manipulation. This undermines the legitimacy of any conclusions drawn from it and raises serious questions about procedural integrity.
Historical echoes
The warnings issued by veteran figures like Judith Todd are not rhetorical flourishes; they are grounded in historical precedent. Her reference to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Ian Smith draws a parallel between past and present attempts to consolidate power through exceptional measures.
While the contexts differ, the underlying concern is consistent: the erosion of democratic rights under the guise of national necessity. The invocation of emergency powers, the sidelining of electoral processes, and the suppression of opposition are patterns Zimbabwe has experienced before—with profound consequences.
Democratic legitimacy vs legal formalism
One of the most insidious aspects of the current situation is the reliance on legal formalism to justify actions that may be substantively undemocratic. The passage of a constitutional amendment through Parliament, even if procedurally valid, does not equate to democratic legitimacy—especially when the process is compromised by conflicts of interest and exclusionary practices.
Democracy is not merely the rule of law; it is the rule of the people through law. When legal mechanisms are used to circumvent popular will, the system risks devolving into what scholars term “electoral authoritarianism”—a regime that maintains the appearance of democratic processes while hollowing out their substance.
The stakes ahead
Zimbabwe stands at a critical juncture. The decisions made in this period will shape not only the tenure of its current leadership, but the resilience of its democratic institutions for years to come. The call for a referendum is not just a procedural demand—it is a reaffirmation of the principle that sovereignty resides with the people.
If the current trajectory continues—marked by constitutional manipulation, institutional capture, and suppression of dissent—the country risks entrenching a cycle of governance that prioritises power retention over public accountability. Conversely, a return to participatory decision-making and constitutional fidelity could signal a genuine commitment to democratic renewal.
The question is no longer whether Zimbabwe is transitioning toward democracy, but whether it is retreating from it. The actions of those in power will determine the answer. What remains clear is that the legitimacy of any political system rests not on the longevity of its leaders, but on the consent of its governed.
In this moment of uncertainty, the imperative is not just to observe, but to critically engage—to ensure that the constitutional order reflects the will, rights, and aspirations of the people it is meant to serve.