Constitutional
coup:
Zimbabwe
citizens
are
not
being
consulted,
they
are
being
coerced.
Photo:
Supplied
Zimbabwe’s
Constitutional
Amendment
Bill
No
3
(CAB3)
is
not
reform
but
regression;
it
is
the
architecture
of
authoritarian
permanence
masquerading
as
progress.
The
bill
is
presented
by
Zanu-PF
as
a
modernising
reform,
yet
in
truth
it
is
a
constitutional
coup
unfolding
in
slow
motion.
What
is
being
advanced
is
not
renewal
but
regression
—
a
calculated
project
of
entrenchment,
cloaked
in
the
rhetoric
of
democracy
but
executed
through
violence,
intimidation
and
exclusion.
CAB3
is
less
a
reform
package
than
a
firewall
against
generational
change,
a
flag
planted
defiantly
in
the
soil
of
authoritarian
continuity.
The
hearings
have
been
anything
but
participatory;
they
have
descended
into
a
theatre
of
coercion.
In
Chitungwiza,
men
were
reportedly
assaulted
on
camera
simply
for
voicing
dissent,
while
civil
society
groups
and
eyewitnesses
allege
that
some
individuals
vanished
after
opposing
the
bill.
Police
reportedly
stood
idle,
complicit
in
the
silencing
of
dissent,
as
known
critics
were
denied
even
the
microphone.
This
is
not
consultation;
it
is
intimidation
masquerading
as
dialogue.
A
constitution
rewritten
under
duress,
with
cracked
ribs
and
missing
citizens
as
its
backdrop,
is
illegitimate
in
spirit
even
if
sanctified
in
law.
The
legitimacy
crisis
is
profound.
A
constitutional
amendment
ought
to
embody
the
highest
expression
of
collective
will,
yet
CAB3
is
being
forced
through
as
a
top-down
imposition.
Citizens
are
not
being
consulted;
they
are
being
coerced.
The
violence
at
hearings
is
not
incidental;
it
is
symptomatic
of
a
broader
authoritarian
drift,
a
deliberate
strategy
to
hollow
out
participatory
governance
and
replace
it
with
fear.
Against
this
backdrop
of
coercion,
civil
society
and
opposition
leaders
have
mounted
a
resistance
that
is
both
commendable
and
fearless.
Figures
such
as
Fadzai
Mahere,
Tendai
Biti,
Douglas
Coltart,
Jacob
Ngarivhume,
Jameson
Timba
and
others
have
stood
resolute,
boycotting
hearings
and
exposing
the
stage-managed
charade
for
what
it
is.
Their
courage
reminds
us
that
constitutionalism
is
not
defended
in
marble
halls
or
sterile
chambers
but
in
the
streets,
in
the
voices
of
ordinary
citizens
who
refuse
to
be
silenced.
Civil
society
organisations
have
demanded
the
suspension
of
hearings
until
transparency
and
safety
are
guaranteed.
Their
insistence
on
participatory
governance
underscores
a
profound
truth:
democracy
is
not
a
benevolence
dispensed
by
the
state
but
a
covenant
claimed
by
the
people.
Yet
Nelson
Chamisa’s
absence
looms
large,
conspicuous
to
the
point
of
indictment.
It
speaks
less
of
tactical
restraint
than
of
apathy
or
indifference
to
the
travails
and
aspirations
of
his
followers.
In
moments
of
constitutional
peril,
silence
is
complicity.
His
withdrawal
weakens
the
opposition’s
moral
force
and
leaves
civil
society
to
shoulder
the
burden
of
resistance
alone,
a
reminder
that
leadership
is
measured
not
in
rhetoric
but
in
presence
when
the
stakes
are
highest.
CAB3
is
not
an
isolated
aberration
but
part
of
a
continental
pattern
of
constitutional
capture.
It
mirrors
Uganda’s
scrapping
of
term
limits
in
2005
and
2017,
Rwanda’s
2015
referendum
that
extended
Paul
Kagame’s
rule
and
Cameroon’s
2008
removal
of
limits
that
entrenched
Paul
Biya’s
decades-long
presidency.
Each
of
these
cases
demonstrates
how
legal
frameworks
are
manipulated
not
to
expand
rights
but
to
entrench
ruling
elites,
bending
constitutions
into
instruments
of
permanence
rather
than
renewal.
Zimbabwe
now
joins
this
ignoble
club,
where
the
language
of
reform
is
weaponised
to
mask
regression.
This
continental
drift
is
dangerous
because
it
signals
a
broader
erosion
of
democratic
norms
across
Africa,
where
authoritarianism
advances
not
through
overt
coups
but
through
the
slow,
deliberate
rewriting
of
constitutions.
CAB3
is
thus
less
a
reform
package
than
a
reminder
that
the
most
enduring
threats
to
democracy
often
arrive
clothed
in
legality,
eroding
accountability
while
entrenching
power
under
the
guise
of
constitutional
change.
CAB3
strikes
at
the
very
heart
of
the
separation
of
powers
enshrined
in
Zimbabwe’s
2013
Constitution,
dismantling
the
delicate
balance
between
the
executive,
legislature
and
judiciary.
Judicial
appointments
are
to
be
further
politicised,
parliamentary
independence
hollowed
out
and
presidential
authority
dangerously
expanded.
The
proposed
shift
to
parliamentary
election
of
presidents,
presided
over
by
a
chief
justice
already
beholden
to
executive
prerogative,
is
a
cynical
stratagem
designed
to
strip
citizens
of
direct
electoral
accountability.
What
is
presented
as
reform
is
in
fact
regression:
citizens
will
cast
their
votes
for
MPs,
who
in
turn
will
select
the
president
in
a
process
already
compromised
by
ruling
party
dominance.
The
judiciary,
itself
compromised
by
decades
of
executive
influence,
will
preside
over
this
charade,
lending
a
veneer
of
legality
to
what
is
essentially
the
erosion
of
democratic
choice.
CAB3
is
not
a
renewal
of
constitutional
order
but
its
corrosion;
it
is
the
architecture
of
authoritarian
permanence,
constructed
brick
by
brick
under
the
guise
of
reform.
The
risks
posed
by
CAB3
are
neither
abstract
nor
distant;
they
are
immediate,
visceral
and
corrosive
to
Zimbabwe’s
fragile
democratic
order.
The
violent
hearings
have
already
delegitimised
the
bill,
exposing
it
as
a
top-down
imposition
rather
than
a
genuine
exercise
in
participatory
reform.
Intimidation
and
disruption
have
undermined
the
constitutional
guarantees
of
free
expression
and
assembly,
reducing
citizens
to
spectators
in
a
process
that
should
belong
to
them.
Each
incident
of
violence
deepens
mistrust
between
government
and
civil
society,
widening
the
fracture
lines
of
political
polarisation
and
eroding
the
possibility
of
consensus.
These
are
not
isolated
excesses
but
deliberate
strategies
of
authoritarian
consolidation.
Left
unchecked,
they
threaten
to
unravel
the
modest
democratic
gains
of
the
past
decade
and
entrench
a
system
in
which
power
is
preserved
not
by
consent
but
by
coercion,
ensuring
that
authoritarian
rule
is
carried
forward
for
generations
to
come.
CAB3’s
proposals
are
sweeping
in
scope
and
profoundly
dangerous
in
consequence.
By
eliminating
direct
presidential
elections
in
2028
and
relocating
them
to
parliamentary
chambers,
the
bill
strips
citizens
of
their
most
fundamental
democratic
choice.
Presidential
terms
are
to
be
extended
to
seven
years,
with
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
current
tenure
lengthened
by
two,
while
parliament
and
local
government
terms
are
similarly
prolonged,
consolidating
the
dominance
of
ruling
elites
and
insulating
them
from
accountability.
Traditional
leaders,
once
expected
to
embody
neutrality,
are
now
openly
politicised,
further
eroding
the
fragile
balance
of
representation.
The
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission
is
disempowered,
its
authority
over
boundaries
and
the
voters’
roll
transferred
to
commissions
operating
at
the
prerogative
of
the
presidency.
Judicial
independence
is
hollowed
out
as
presidential
appointments
go
unchecked,
while
the
military’s
constitutional
role
is
diluted
from
upholding
the
Constitution
to
merely
“acting
in
accordance
with”
it
—
a
subtle
but
perilous
redefinition
that
weakens
its
obligation
to
defend
democratic
order.
Taken
together,
these
measures
do
not
constitute
reform
but
regression;
they
are
the
deliberate
construction
of
authoritarian
permanence,
a
constitutional
edifice
designed
to
preserve
power
indefinitely
under
the
guise
of
legality.
The
corrective
path
is
not
simply
the
rejection
of
CAB3
but
the
reclamation
of
constitutionalism
as
a
living
covenant
between
citizens
and
the
state.
Zimbabwe
must
resist
the
continental
drift
towards
constitutional
capture,
where
constitutions
are
manipulated
into
instruments
of
permanence
and
instead
anchor
renewal
in
participatory
governance.
This
means
re-establishing
the
Constitution
as
a
framework
of
accountability,
not
a
weapon
of
entrenchment
and
restoring
it
as
the
people’s
charter
rather
than
the
ruling
elite’s
shield.
The
best
outcome
is
one
that
safeguards
the
democratic
architecture
rather
than
dismantles
it.
Term
limits
must
be
preserved
as
the
ultimate
check
against
indefinite
incumbency.
The
separation
of
powers
must
be
reinforced
so
that
the
judiciary
and
legislature
can
stand
as
genuine
counterweights
to
executive
authority.
Consultation
must
be
inclusive
and
free
from
violence,
ensuring
that
every
citizen
and
civic
group
can
participate
without
fear.
Above
all,
civic
trust
must
be
restored
so
that
constitutional
reform
is
seen
not
as
a
partisan
project
but
as
a
collective
undertaking
in
service
of
the
people.
To
achieve
this,
decisive
steps
must
be
taken.
CAB3
must
be
challenged
in
the
Constitutional
Court,
framed
as
a
violation
of
the
spirit
of
the
2013
Constitution.
Evidence
of
violence
and
intimidation
must
be
documented
and
exposed
to
regional
and
international
bodies,
ensuring
that
Zimbabwe’s
crisis
is
not
hidden
but
scrutinised.
The
opposition
must
build
a
unified
front,
hosting
alternative
citizens’
hearings
that
reflect
genuine
public
opinion.
Grassroots
dialogues
must
be
mobilised
in
provinces
such
as
the
Midlands,
linking
constitutional
critique
to
tangible
socio-economic
needs
like
housing
and
infrastructure
reform.
Finally,
reforms
must
be
advanced
that
decentralise
power
and
entrench
civic
protections,
ensuring
that
no
future
amendment
can
be
weaponised.
CAB3
is
not
reform
but
a
regression
all
Zimbabweans
must
resist,
not
only
for
the
sake
of
the
present
but
for
generations
to
come.
Wellington
Muzengeza
is
a
political
risk
analyst
and
urban
strategist
offering
insight
on
urban
planning,
infrastructure,
leadership
succession
and
governance
reform
across
Africa’s
evolving
post-liberation
urban
landscapes.
Source:
Zimbabwe’s
jarring,
phantom
reform
–
The
Mail
&
Guardian
Post
published
in:
Featured