Zimbabweans fear planned constitutional change will kill political choice | Elections News

Harare, Zimbabwe – Out on the streets of Chitungwiza, Zimbabwe’s third largest urban centre, the sun is blazing – just like the tempers inside a fully packed hall at the town’s main aquatic complex.

At the entrance stands a small mob, including a combative woman in a cream floral dress, who heckles every speaker championing plans to approve an amendment to the country’s constitution.

If approved, the amendment will extend the term of the current president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, to 2030. The bill, among other things, changes presidential and legislative terms from five to seven years while giving parliament the power to elect the president.

Currently, the president is chosen through a popular vote in direct elections and can only serve two terms. But while Mnangagwa is in his second term, his ZANU-PF party dominates parliament with a firm majority, and critics fear that the amendments could make it even harder for anyone other than a leader from the party to become president in the future.

This week, at venues across Zimbabwe, parliament hosted four days of public hearings to discuss the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.3) Bill, popularly known as CAB3, to collect people’s views on the proposed changes.

At the hearing in Chitungwiza, a supporter of the bill stood up and requested the microphone. She claimed she represented seven million supporters of the legislation — without giving any evidence to back her assertion.

“I’m not one of them!” retorted the woman in the floral dress, still heckling from the back of the room, her voice getting drowned out by the sea of chatter inside.

For and against

On the sidelines of another CAB3 hearing in Epworth, a densely populated working-class area south of Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare, resident Mike Kashiri said he supports the bill.

“It’s best if the president is elected by parliamentarians,” he told Al Jazeera.

“This reduces incidents of political violence. Every time we have presidential elections, there is a lot of violence. However, if we elect the MPs and the MPs elect the president, it will help us a lot,” he said.

Ishmael Phololo begs to differ. He is a cellphone technician with a unique workshop in Harare’s city centre that is made entirely out of cardboard and is located on the pavement.

Phololo said legislators were too detached from the suffering of ordinary citizens and should not be allowed to vote for the president on their behalf.

“An MP cannot relate to the people’s woes because the moment they get in parliament, they get cars and allowances,” he said.

He spoke strongly against extending the presidential term, but added that he believed that the government could force through these changes, whether people like him liked them or not.

This is a common feeling among ordinary Zimbabweans: one of hopelessness in the face of government actions they disagree with.

“If they [the government] want to have indefinite terms,” said Phololo, “they should just declare Zimbabwe a monarchy and stop pretending that we have democracy.”

To ‘enhance’ political continuity?

Last year, Zimbabwe’s Minister of Justice, Ziyambi Ziyambi, began making public statements about extending Mnangagwa’s term in office, which is currently set to expire in 2028.

At the time, it was unclear whether the government was really planning to go ahead with constitutional changes or was just testing the waters.

The government’s intentions, however, became clear in February when the cabinet okayed the move to amend the constitution.

A cabinet statement said proposed amendments, if passed, would “enhance political stability and policy continuity to allow development programmes to be implemented to completion”.

Cabinet approval of CAB3 then paved the way for the consultative hearings that took place from Monday to Thursday this week. But in many places, the sessions have been marred by chaos amid accusations of unfair collection of views by the moderators.

At the hearing in Epworth, an eager participant raised a hand to speak, taking the microphone handed to him by the moderator.

“I am here representing the Constitution Defenders Forum [CDF],” he said, his clear voice booming from the speakers of the public address system. But suddenly, the mic was quickly snatched away, and the man sat down.

It is unclear why he was not given an opportunity to speak, but his civic organisation — formed in early March — opposes CAB3.

CDF’s leaders, including former finance minister Tendai Biti, were recently arrested in the city of Mutare while mobilising people against the bill last month.

The former mayor of Epworth Local Board, Annah Sande, told Al Jazeera the mic was also snatched from her when she tried to oppose the bill.

“I was very disappointed but not shocked by the way the process [hearing] is being conducted,” said Sande. “The officials [moderating the hearings], who are seemingly supposed to be the technocrats, are members of the ruling party.”

Others say the process cannot be neutral because the public hearings are being spearheaded by MPs whose terms of office, too, would be extended if the bill passes.

“Beneficiaries of the proposed amendments are [the ones] consulting the people,” said Gift Siziba, a former opposition MP and close ally of Nelson Chamisa, the opposition candidate and runner-up in Zimbabwe’s last presidential election.

Three organisations led by prominent opposition leaders, namely the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), and the CDF are opposing CAB3. On Wednesday this week, the leader of DCP, Jameson Timba, released a statement that the three organisations are joining forces.

“We will establish a coordinated framework to work and act collectively in defence of the Constitution,” read part of the statement. Timba said all three organisations have stopped participating in CAB3 hearings because they are “fundamentally flawed, exclusionary and inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the constitution”.

Deep concerns

Across Zimbabwe, though many support the consultation process, many others have deep concerns.

Citizens are asking why the hearings are being held at only a few venues across the country; why hearings are taking place during the week when most people are at work; and why the sessions are only happening for four days.

What happens when the hearings are over is also a concern for many.

The government’s plan is for the bill to go before parliament, where Mnangagwa’s ruling ZANU-PF party has a majority. A vote there means the legislation will likely pass. So many Zimbabweans say that it should go to a referendum instead, so all citizens can vote for the outcome they want.

Justice Mavedzenge, a Zimbabwean constitutional expert and political analyst, argued that CAB3 is an attempt by the president to cling to power. He also noted that Mnangagwa chaired the cabinet meeting that approved this bill that would see his rule extended.

Even though Mnangagwa is on record denying aspirations to stay in office beyond his current term, Mavedzenge believes he is the architect of the political manoeuvring currently taking place to amend the constitution.

“His intention is to leave power when one of his family members is ready to take over,” said Mavedzenge. “So I believe that this proposed amendment bill is an attempt by President Mnangagwa himself to cling on to power, but also to roll out some dynastic plans for the country.”

This is not the first time concerns have been raised about dynastic politics in Zimbabwe. During the late former president Robert Mugabe’s last days in power, it was widely believed that he intended for his wife, Grace Mugabe, to succeed him. Mugabe, however, was succeeded by Mnangagwa through a coup, which the current government frames as a “military assisted transition”.

While Mnangagwa and Mugabe have many differences in how they have governed Zimbabwe, the legitimacy of elections under both leaders has been questioned, with the opposition accusing ZANU-PF of manipulating polls. The ruling party has been known to clamp down on dissenting voices with a heavy hand, often disrupting opposition meetings and arresting activists.

‘Tolerate political differences’

Supporters of CAB3 and the officials championing it say Mnangagwa is doing a good job and should be allowed to continue.

Mavedzenge disagrees with this.

“This bill and the motivations that are given to advance it do not make sense in an environment of extreme poverty,”  the analyst said.

Former opposition MP Siziba echoes those sentiments, noting that Zimbabwe’s economy is in tatters.

He also dismisses the argument that if a leader is doing well, their term should be extended.

“Term limits are not meant for people who fail,” he said. “They are meant for people who succeed because they must lead and leave.”

In response to those who argue that CAB3 will mean going to the polls less frequently, thereby reducing electoral toxicity, Mavedzenge says that is not the solution.

“Toxicity is addressed by changing attitudes, particularly attitudes of senior ZANU-PF political officials. They need to change from intolerance to begin to tolerate political differences. If you look at the way they [ZANU-PF officials] are treating citizens who have opposing views on this constitutional bill, you will see that they are still intolerant.”

In the period leading up to the CAB3 public hearings, and as they were conducted this week, there were reports of arrests and abductions of activists opposing the bill.

Back at the hearing in Epworth, CAB3 supporter Kashiri marvelled at the work Mnangagwa has done and said the president needs time to do more.

“There are a lot of commendable projects going on around the country, thanks to the president,” said Kashiri. “He has built the Trablablas Interchange, the new parliament, Masvingo Road to Beit Bridge [highway]. We now have dams and jobs. Which means seven years will give the president ample time to do good things.”

But cellphone technician Phololo is sceptical and has many questions.

“What if the president’s projects are not completed in the extra years they want to add? What will happen then?” he asked.

“After the seven years they are proposing, will the president leave or will he want another seven years? … What if the person who succeeds the president says they can only complete their projects after 20 years? What will happen then?”