marble nkomo
BETWEEN 1965 and 1979, Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, often referred to as the Bush War, was waged with clear and unmistakable objectives: the reclamation of stolen land and the restoration of the fundamental right to vote.
It was not, as some now contend, a battle for a specific voting model or for the principle of “one man, one vote” in the narrow sense of directly electing a leader.
That distinction is not trivial. The right to vote speaks to dignity, belonging and citizenship — an affirmation of a people’s right to participate in determining their own destiny after decades of exclusion.
A voting system, by contrast, is simply the vehicle through which that right is exercised. To conflate the two is to blur history and misrepresent the very foundations upon which Zimbabwe’s independence was built.
When independence was attained in 1980, the Lancaster House Constitution provided for elections under a party-based parliamentary system.
Zanu-PF secured a resounding victory, and its leader, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, assumed the role of Prime Minister.
Crucially, Mugabe was not elected through direct individual ballots cast in his name; rather, his leadership flowed from the party’s electoral triumph. This was not an anomaly or a betrayal of the liberation struggle, but a direct outcome of the negotiated settlement reached at Lancaster House.
It was only later that direct presidential elections were introduced, following constitutional amendments in 1987 and 1990. Amendment No. 7 (Act 23 of 1987) fundamentally altered the political architecture by concentrating power in the presidency and ushering in direct elections.
Ironically, this period marked the beginning of Zimbabwe’s long and troubled history of disputed elections, as the system increasingly evolved into a system that prioritised individual control over collective oversight.
Today, Bill 3 seeks to correct this historical imbalance, yet debate surrounding it risks distorting the past.
Those intent on misleading the public and entrenching a draconian system argue that the liberation war was fought to guarantee the direct election of leaders.
The historical record tells a different story. The struggle was fought to reclaim land and to restore the right to vote — not to constitutionalise a particular electoral formula.
To assert otherwise is to mislead the public and to dishonour the sacrifices of those who took up arms in pursuit of freedom.
As Zimbabwe reflects on where it has come from and contemplates the road ahead, it is essential to return to first principles — the genuine aspirations of the liberation fighters.
Their struggle centred on land ownership and participation in governance, not on political systems later moulded to serve narrow interests and concentrated power.
The debate on Bill 3 must not attempt to rewrite history; it must respect it. Bill 3 advances peace and prosperity for all, not privilege for a select few. —O. GUTU
Online Reporter