As Parliament debates Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3), attention has understandably focused on the contents of the bill itself.
Yet there is another question that deserves equal scrutiny: whether Parliament is providing a fair opportunity for all elected representatives to participate in the debate.
The first days of debate have exposed a troubling anomaly that has persisted for more than two years within the opposition benches.
Following the resignation of the then CCC president Nelson Chamisa in January 2024, a leadership dispute emerged within the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC).
One side is led by senator Jameson Timba, elected by the Citizens National Assembly and supported by the majority of CCC Members of Parliament.
The other is aligned to Sengezo Tshabangu and enjoys official recognition from parliamentary authorities.
Whatever view one takes of that dispute, a practical consequence has emerged.
Parliamentary processes have consistently treated one opposition grouping as the sole recognised opposition caucus while excluding or disadvantaging the other, despite the latter commanding the support of the majority of opposition MPs.
The effects have been significant.
Over the past two years, Members aligned to Timba have routinely found themselves disadvantaged in speaking opportunities, parliamentary travel, committee assignments, and committee leadership positions. In several instances they have been removed from committee chairmanships and committee structures altogether.
Now, during one of the most important constitutional debates since the adoption of the 2013 constitution, the same pattern appears to be repeating itself.
Lists of speakers were submitted from both government and opposition benches.
Yet 16 MPs from the CCC Progressive Caucus were reportedly removed from the speaking list on the first day of the CAB3 debate.
The result is that a substantial bloc of elected representatives may be denied an opportunity to place the views of their constituents on the parliamentary record during debate on a Bill that seeks to alter important aspects of Zimbabwe's constitutional order.
This should concern all democrats, regardless of where they stand on CAB3.
The issue is not whether one agrees with the views of these members.
The issue is whether the citizens who elected them are entitled to be heard.
Parliament does not belong to political parties. It belongs to the people of Zimbabwe.
MPs enter the chamber carrying the voices, hopes, fears and concerns of their constituents.
To deny an MP an opportunity to participate meaningfully in a constitutional debate is, in effect, to deny representation to the citizens who sent them there.
Some may argue that speaking arrangements are a matter for party whips. That explanation is insufficient.
The speaker of Parliament is not a passive observer of parliamentary processes. The office exists precisely to protect the integrity, fairness and credibility of parliamentary proceedings. The speaker is expected to rise above factional interests and ensure that Parliament functions as a democratic institution rather than an arena where administrative decisions determine whose voices are heard and whose are not.
There is no obvious constitutional or parliamentary principle or rule that requires the recognition of only one opposition caucus where a clear political division exists.
Equally, there is no principle that justifies the exclusion of a substantial number of elected representatives from participating in a debate of national significance.
The responsibility for ensuring fairness cannot be delegated indefinitely to party structures. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Speaker.
The events unfolding in Parliament also bear an uncomfortable resemblance to what many Zimbabweans witnessed during the recent public hearings on CAB3.
Across the country, concerns were raised about the exclusion of dissenting voices, intimidation, disruptions and the denial of opportunities for citizens to express alternative views.
If Parliament now reproduces the same pattern within its own chamber, the legitimacy of the process will inevitably come into question.
A constitutional amendment process derives its strength not from the size of a majority but from the fairness of the process through which competing views are heard and considered.
Democracy is not tested when we listen to those with whom we agree. Democracy is tested when we protect the right of those with whom we disagree to be heard.
The debate on CAB3 will eventually come to an end. Votes will be cast. Political fortunes will rise and fall.
But the precedent established by Parliament's conduct will remain.
If elected representatives can be selectively silenced today, future majorities may be tempted to do the same tomorrow. In that event, Parliament ceases to be the nation's deliberative chamber and becomes merely an instrument of those who control procedure.
Zimbabwe deserves better.
At this critical constitutional moment, every elected representative should be afforded a fair opportunity to speak, and every citizen should know that their voice, through their Member of Parliament, has been heard.
That is not a favour bestowed by parliamentary authorities. It is the essence of representative democracy.
*Senator Jameson Zvidzai Timba is a political leader, strategist and public policy commentator.