The
debate,
organised
by
the
Centre
for
Innovation
and
Technology
(CITE)
in
collaboration
with
the
Bulawayo
Progressive
Residents
Association
(BPRA),
Election
Resource
Centre
(ERC)
and
the
Nkulumane
Constituency
Development
Committee,
saw
some
residents
pressing
candidates
on
constitutional
accountability.
The
participants
were
eager
to
question
candidates
contesting
the
December
20
by-election
and
tension
peaked
when
an
attendee
directly
challenged
the
Zanu
PF
candidate
on
how
he
would
defend
the
constitution
while
his
party
advocated
for
extending
the
presidency
to
2030
and
potentially
postponing
the
2028
elections.
“Zanu
PF
is
pushing
for
the
2030
agenda
so
that
it
continues
in
power
yet
the
constitution
says
a
term
for
Parliament
and
office
bearers
should
be
for
five
years
but
Zanu
PF
wants
its
rule
to
go
on.
You
are
oppressing
us.
I
am
a
woman,
a
mother
and
want
to
be
heard.
Please
respect
and
follow
the
constitution,”
she
said,
lifting
her
copy
of
the
constitution.
“We
don’t
want
the
2030
agenda,
we
want
elections
in
2028.
This
is
my
bible.
It
is
my
constitution.
I
am
actually
shaking
with
anger
and
feeling
hurt.
I
am
a
human
right
defender;
let
me
defend
the
constitution.”
In
response,
Murechu
framed
the
controversial
push
as
an
internal
party
resolution
subject
to
democratic
parliamentary
processes.
“Parties
come
up
with
resolutions,
even
the
opposition
has
its
own
resolutions
and
these
are
put
to
test,”
Murechu
stated.
“If
the
party
agrees
with
the
resolutions,
they
will
go
to
Parliament.
The
parliament
has
opposition
MPs,
if
that
issue
is
not
liked
there
it
will
hit
a
bump.”
He
elaborated
on
a
vision
of
majority
rule,
dismissing
the
notion
that
the
resolution
was
predetermined
to
succeed.
“If
MPs
do
not
agree
they
will
vote
and
zero
sum
winner
takes
all.
That
is
democracy.
It
is
a
Zanu
PF
resolution,
it
will
go
to
the
government
who
takes
it
to
Parliament
and
MPs
will
vote.
If
they
do
not
agree,
they
will
vote.
The
majority
vote
then
sees
the
light
of
the
day,”
Murechu
said.
Murechu
acknowledged
internal
dissent
within
Zanu
PF
itself,
using
a
simplistic
analogy
to
explain
his
view
of
democratic
decision-making.
“Even
within
our
party,
some
don’t
agree,
that
is
democracy
but
what
is
agreed
by
many
sees
the
light
of
the
day.
MPs
will
sit
and
vote
even
with
projects
and
programmes
but
the
majority
decides.
When
the
majority
want
a
borehole
and
others
want
a
chicken
fowl,
those
who
want
a
borehole
win,”
he
said.
He
also
pointed
to
existing
legal
challenges
as
evidence
of
a
functioning
system,
alluding
to
a
constitutional
court
petition
submitted
by
independent
candidate
Mbuso
Fuzwayo
to
stop
the
term
extension.
“There
are
legal
processes,
some
are
already
up,”
he
noted.
The
exchange
highlighted
the
central
political
conflict
in
Zimbabwe
as
the
ruling
party
is
trying
to
find
ways
to
amend
constitutional
term
limits.
His
remarks,
however,
drew
murmurs
from
the
crowd,
with
several
attendees
questioning
whether
a
Zanu
PF-controlled
Parliament
would
genuinely
reject
a
resolution
pushed
by
the
party
leadership.
Participants
at
the
debate
could
be
heard
saying
that
Murechu’s
defence
rested
entirely
on
the
procedural
aspect
of
the
proposed
change,
as
he
argued
that
a
parliamentary
vote
legitimises
the
outcome
while
sidestepping
the
substantive
critique
of
undermining
the
foundational
five-year
term
limit
enshrined
in
Zimbabwe’s
national
constitution.