Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Must Be Debated With Logic, Not Emotion

Zimbabwe once again finds itself at a constitutional crossroads following the introduction of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. As with many governance debates in our country, the conversation has quickly degenerated into political shouting matches rather than sober national reflection.

Constitutions are not sacred relics; they are living governance instruments meant to evolve with society. However, amendments must be carefully interrogated to determine whether they strengthen democracy and improve governance for citizens or merely serve narrow political interests.

Several key clauses within Amendment Bill No. 3 have generated the most debate, including the proposal to extend the presidential and parliamentary term from five to seven years, the proposal to elect the President through Parliament, the abolishment of the Gender Commission, the transfer of some electoral functions from ZEC to the Registrar-General’s Office, and the introduction of a Delimitation Commission. These clauses must be assessed not through political emotion but through logic, institutional design, and their impact on the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans.

Zimbabwe has suffered for decades from what can only be described as permanent election mode. Every five years, the country plunges into an extended period of political contestation that destabilizes the economy, polarizes society, and diverts national focus away from development. Infrastructure programs stall, investment hesitates, and public institutions become politicized. The proposal to extend presidential and parliamentary terms to seven years must therefore be analysed from a governance perspective rather than through reflex political suspicion.

Longer electoral cycles can enable governments to implement long-term development policies, stabilise national planning frameworks, focus on institutional rehabilitation, and reduce the economic disruptions caused by constant electoral contestation. Zimbabwe is currently facing the collapse or deterioration of critical national institutions such as public healthcare systems, education infrastructure, parastatals, energy and water utilities, and transport networks. These institutions require long-term policy continuity, not governance cycles driven by short-term electoral survival. For this reason, Labour Economists and Afrikan Democrats believe that a seven-year electoral cycle could create policy stability necessary for national reconstruction, provided that term limits remain intact.

Another controversial proposal is the idea that the President be elected by Parliament rather than through direct popular vote. Many Zimbabweans have reacted emotionally to this suggestion, interpreting it as an erosion of democracy. Yet globally, many stable democracies elect their presidents through Parliament. Our neighbours South Africa and Botswana, both widely admired by Zimbabweans for their democratic governance systems, follow this model. In those systems, citizens elect Members of Parliament and Parliament then elects the President from among its members. This model reduces the hyper-personalised presidential politics that often dominates African political systems and encourages collective leadership through Parliament. However, this reform would only be truly democratic if accompanied by electoral system reform. Zimbabwe currently uses the First-Past-The-Post system to elect MPs, which distorts representation and excludes smaller political voices. LEAD therefore supports parliamentary election of the President only if Zimbabwe simultaneously reforms the parliamentary electoral system.

If Zimbabwe were to adopt parliamentary election of the President, the electoral system for MPs must change from First-Past-The-Post to Proportional Representation. Proportional Representation ensures that votes translate fairly into parliamentary seats, minority political voices are represented, and political diversity reflects the electorate. LEAD further proposes the adoption of Zebra List Proportional Representation, where party candidate lists alternate between men and women. Such a system would guarantee gender parity in Parliament, strengthen women’s political representation, and ensure plurality of voices in governance. Under a proportional system, Parliament would become a true reflection of the electorate, making the election of the President by Parliament more democratic and accountable.

While some clauses in the amendment deserve serious debate, the proposal to abolish the Gender Commission is deeply troubling. Zimbabwe continues to face serious gender inequalities in political representation, economic participation, access to resources, and protection from gender-based violence. The Gender Commission plays a vital role in monitoring gender equality commitments and promoting women’s rights within governance frameworks. Abolishing the commission sends a dangerous message that gender equality is no longer a national priority. At a time when Zimbabwe should be strengthening gender institutions, dismantling them would represent a serious regression in democratic accountability.

Another concerning provision is the proposed transfer of some electoral functions from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to the Registrar-General’s Office. Electoral management bodies must be independent and insulated from executive influence to maintain public trust. Zimbabwe’s democratic stability depends heavily on the credibility of electoral institutions. Moving electoral responsibilities away from ZEC risks undermining electoral transparency, weakening institutional independence, and deepening public distrust in electoral outcomes. Electoral reforms should aim to strengthen ZEC, not dilute its authority.

The proposed creation of a Delimitation Commission also raises questions. Delimitation of constituencies occurs once every ten years following a national census. Establishing a permanent commission for a process that occurs once per decade risks creating an unnecessary bureaucratic institution without clear justification. Zimbabwe should prioritise efficient governance structures, not expand institutions without demonstrable need.

Zimbabwe’s constitutional debate is often dominated by political mistrust, which is understandable given our history. However, governance decisions can not be driven purely by suspicion or political loyalty. As a nation, we must resist the temptation to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Some elements of Amendment Bill No. 3 deserve serious consideration because they may improve governance stability and democratic representation, while others must be firmly rejected because they weaken institutional integrity.

Constitutional reforms should ultimately answer one question: do they improve the lives of citizens? The proposals to extend electoral terms and to elect the President through Parliament could improve governance stability if accompanied by proportional representation reforms that ensure fair representation. However, abolishing the Gender Commission, weakening ZEC, and creating unnecessary institutions like a Delimitation Commission would undermine democratic accountability. Zimbabwe must approach constitutional reform with logic, not emotion. Our goal should not be to defend political positions but to build a governance system that prioritizes stability, representation, and national development for the benefit of all Zimbabweans.

May the Good Lord be our anchor during this time of uncertainty! God bless Zimbabwe!

Linda Tsungirirai Masarira is President of Labour Economists and Afrikan Democrats (LEAD)