Sidumisile Mabena
THERE has been a deliberate and worrying attempt to misinform the public about the nature, purpose, and legality of Bill 3. What should have been a straightforward constitutional and governance discussion has instead been distorted into a theatre of false claims by individuals who either misunderstand the law or are intentionally twisting it for personal gain.
When a bill is gazetted, every citizen, organisation, and interest group is legally entitled to submit opinions. These submissions form part of agenda setting, not binding instructions to Parliament or the Executive. To suggest that sentiments expressed by retired Air Marshal Henry Muchena and others amount to directives to Parliament or the President is inaccurate and misleading. It is a misrepresentation crafted to provoke outrage rather than inform public debate.
Equally minister “deviated” from a Zanu-PF resolution and therefore rendered the bill illegal. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both law and parliamentary procedure. A minister is empowered — and expected — to propose measures that strengthen governance and national development. Party resolutions provide policy guidance, but they do not restrict ministers from identifying additional structural weaknesses that require reform.
One such weakness is Zimbabwe’s short election cycle, which has kept the country in a near-permanent campaign mode. This has undermined governance, investment, and long-term national planning. The minister correctly highlighted this concern and proposed reforms. Even the seven-year cycle, which aligns with the party’s resolution, is modest. A ten-year cycle would offer greater stability for national development.
The minister also addressed the recurrent issue of disputed presidential elections, which have often been weaponised as justification for sanctions — sanctions whose true origins lie in land reform, not electoral disputes. By proposing that Parliament elect the President, the bill seeks to remove a flashpoint that external actors have exploited for years. Crucially, this does not diminish the public’s role in choosing their leaders. Parties will openly present their candidates before elections, and voters will decide whether to endorse those choices.
Those opposing Bill 3 are not defending democracy; they are defending their own positions. They accuse the President of power seeking, yet their conduct reveals their own appetite for influence and control. Their resistance is not rooted in principle but in discomfort — discomfort with reforms that threaten long-standing privilege.
If these individuals genuinely believe in their opposition, democracy offers a clear and honourable path: resign from the party and openly campaign against its direction. That is the essence of principle. That is the expectation of democracy. What is unacceptable is hiding behind the party name while undermining its collective decisions and the national interest.
Parliament will conduct outreach. Citizens will have their say. If the majority oppose the bill, Parliament can amend or shelve it. And if opponents believe the bill violates the Constitution, the courts remain open to them. That is how constitutional democracy is meant to function.
What is not acceptable is the growing reliance on misinformation, fear-mongering, and internal sabotage. Zimbabwe deserves an honest, informed debate — not one polluted by those who claim to defend democracy while fighting only to protect their own power. —O Gutu
Online Reporter