Allegations of “Coaching” Emerge Amidst Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Overhaul
Reports have surfaced suggesting that members of the ruling Zanu PF party are allegedly being “coached” on how to contribute to a proposed constitutional overhaul in Zimbabwe. Analysts contend that such practices undermine the integrity of the parliamentary public consultation process, a cornerstone of democratic legislative reform.
These alleged “rehearsals” are said to have taken place in various districts prior to the commencement of nationwide public hearings. The proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill 3 aims to introduce significant changes to the nation’s supreme law. Key proposals include the potential abolition of direct presidential elections, an extension of both presidential and parliamentary terms from the current five years to seven, and the dismantling of certain independent commissions. Furthermore, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec) could see its administrative powers curtailed under the proposed amendments.
A particularly contentious point within the proposed bill, reportedly causing division even within Zanu PF, is the suggestion to extend the president’s tenure from 2028 to 2030. Insiders indicate that pushback from both ordinary party members and senior figures has led the party leadership to issue a stringent directive against any public dissent on this matter.
As part of these alleged efforts, party members are reportedly being provided with a standardized template for their submissions. This template purportedly guides contributors to express support for specific clauses, such as:
- “Secondly, I support the extension of the tenure of both the president and parliament from five to seven years (Clauses 4, 9 and 10).”
The provided script further elaborates on the rationale behind extending electoral cycles:
- “Short electoral cycles often disrupt the continuity of policy and development initiatives. Critical projects in areas such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, and water provision require sustained attention. A longer term enables consistency in planning and execution, thereby improving outcomes for citizens.”
The document reportedly concludes with a plea for parliamentary support for the bill’s enactment:
- “In conclusion, I recognise that the constitution must remain responsive to the evolving needs and aspirations of the people it serves. The amendments proposed in this bill collectively advance the objectives of stability, efficiency, and accountability in governance. I therefore respectfully urge the honourable house to support its enactment.”
Denials and Criticisms of the Process
Zanu PF’s director of information, Farai Marapira, has vehemently denied these allegations. He stated on Friday that the party is not coaching its members and insisted that they are encouraged to express their opinions freely. “No such activity is occurring In Zanu PF,” Marapira asserted. “We encourage open discussion and opinion sharing which is how the Amendment came to be. Any talk of suppressed dissent is imaginary.”
However, political analysts have expressed deep concern over these reports, noting that they coincide with alleged instances of opposition consultation meetings being disrupted. Analyst Ibbo Mandaza commented that the situation was “not surprising given the overall objective of running roughshod over the people.” This sentiment was echoed by reports of a public meeting organised by opposition legislator Richard Tsvangirai being halted by police in Norton.
Political analyst Reuben Mbofana cautioned that the practice of enforcing predetermined positions poses a significant threat to the validity of public hearings. “When individuals are compelled—whether directly or indirectly—to submit predetermined positions, those submissions can no longer be regarded as authentic expressions of personal opinion,” Mbofana explained. He added that while such submissions might be procedurally counted, they do not represent genuine voluntary participation. Critically, Mbofana warned that these practices risk delegitimizing the entire constitutional amendment process.
Mbofana further elaborated on the implications:
- “When participation is coordinated under pressure or compulsion, the credibility of the process is compromised, because it becomes difficult to ascertain whether the outcome reflects the true will of the people.”
Another political analyst, Rashweat Mukundu, also questioned the democratic nature of the proceedings. “So essentially, the violence that we are seeing against those to this constitutional amendment, the manipulation and the mind controls of Zanu PF supporters and structures that we are seeing clearly shows that this is not a democratic process,” Mukundu stated. “If anything is democratic, then each individual in Zimbabwe must speak freely.”
Concerns Over Democratic Principles
Harare-based analyst Rejoice Ngwenya described the alleged efforts to silence party members as “primitive.” She further noted that, in the words of Professor Lovemore Madhuku, “everything that Zanu PF will do related to the Bill will be contestable in court.”
Analyst Vivi Gwede raised a pertinent question regarding the necessity of coercion. “If there’s agreement within the ruling party about the resolution and the amendment, why would coercing people be necessary,” Gwede inquired. Her question highlights the perception that if a proposal truly enjoys widespread genuine support, then the need for pre-determined narratives and alleged directives would be obviated. The ongoing public consultations are therefore being closely scrutinized for genuine public input versus orchestrated support.
