Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The ongoing Parliamentary public hearings on Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, otherwise known as CAB3, represent a watershed moment for the future of democracy in Zimbabwe.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
However, the discourse surrounding this proposed shift from the popular election of the President to a parliamentary selection model is being muddied by a deeply dishonest and dangerous narrative.
During these sessions, several clearly coached but undeniably ignorant ZANU-PF supporters have begun to parrot a specific talking point that is as intellectually bankrupt as it is factually incorrect.
This is the claim that moving the election of the President into the halls of Parliament would bring Zimbabwe in line with other successful African democracies, most notably South Africa.
This comparison is not just a misunderstanding of political science; it is a deliberate attempt to deceive the Zimbabwean public into surrendering their most fundamental right to choose their leader.
We must dismantle this discredited yarn before it takes root, because the proposed Zimbabwean system and the South African model share nothing in common except for a superficial naming of the process.
To understand why this comparison is a lie, one must first look at the foundation of the South African electoral system.
South Africa operates on a system of total proportional representation.
In that country, when a citizen casts a vote in a general election, they merely vote for a political party rather than a particular candidate representing a party in a constituency, as we do in Zimbabwe.
Consequently, every single vote is counted toward a national total.
If a party receives forty percent of the national vote, they receive forty percent of the seats in the National Assembly.
In a 400-seat house like South Africa’s, this translates to exactly 160 seats, as evidenced by the 2024 elections where the ANC’s 40.18% share of the vote resulted in 159 seats.
Similarly, the Democratic Alliance received 21.81% of the national vote and was accordingly allocated 87 seats.
There is no such thing as a “wasted” vote in the South African context because the makeup of Parliament is a near-perfect mathematical mirror of the people’s will.
When the South African Parliament subsequently sits to select a President, that individual is the indirect choice of the majority of the population.
The President is the product of a legislative body that truly represents the diverse ideological and demographic spread of the electorate.
In this environment, the parliamentary selection of a leader is a legitimate extension of the “one man, one vote” principle because the parliamentary arithmetic is an honest reflection of the national ballot.
Contrast this with the reality of the Zimbabwean electoral landscape.
Zimbabwe operates on a “winner takes all” or first-past-the-post system.
Under this arrangement, the country is carved into various constituencies where a candidate only needs a simple majority to win the seat.
If a candidate wins a constituency by a single vote, they take one hundred percent of the representation for that area while the other forty-nine percent of the voters are effectively silenced and erased from the parliamentary record.
This system inherently distorts the will of the people and often produces a Parliament that does not reflect the actual popular vote margin across the country.
We have seen instances where a party may win a significant portion of the national popular vote but end up with a measly handful of seats because of how those votes are geographically distributed.
A prime example is the 2018 general election, where the MDC Alliance garnered nearly 45% of the popular vote for the National Assembly yet secured only 88 out of 270 seats, representing 33% of the house.
Meanwhile, ZANU-PF, with approximately 52% of the vote, walked away with a massive two-thirds majority of 179 seats.
A Parliament born of such a skewed process is not a representative body; it is a distorted assembly where the “winner takes all” mechanics have filtered out the nuances of the public’s true preferences.
The danger of CAB3 lies in the fact that it seeks to marry this flawed, non-representative parliamentary structure with the power to select the Head of State.
If Zimbabwe moves to a system where a President is chosen by a Parliament that was itself elected through a “winner takes all” system, we are creating a leader who is twice removed from the people.
Such a President would not be the choice of the Zimbabwean masses but rather the choice of a political elite that has already benefitted from a distorted electoral map.
This is a direct assault on the very tenet of “one man, one vote” that was the clarion call of the liberation struggle.
Thousands of brave Zimbabweans did not fight and die so that their right to choose their leader could be outsourced to a group of parliamentarians who may not even represent the majority of the national sentiment.
To suggest that this is “democratic” simply because South Africa does something vaguely similar is the height of political gaslighting.
If the authorities in Zimbabwe were genuinely interested in emulating the South African model, the current constitutional amendments would look entirely different.
A sincere move toward the South African system would require the total dismantling of the “winner takes all” system and its replacement with a total proportional representation framework.
It would require a commitment to ensuring that every single vote cast in every corner of the country carries the same weight in determining the composition of the legislature.
The fact that the government is pushing for parliamentary selection of the President while stubbornly clinging to the “winner takes all” model for legislative seats proves that this is not about democratic reform.
It is about power consolidation.
It is about creating a buffer between the executive and the people, ensuring that a leader can be installed without having to face the messy, unpredictable business of a popular national mandate.
The legitimacy of a leader is the bedrock of national stability.
A President who is directly elected by the people, even in a flawed process, can at least claim a direct mandate from the citizens.
However, a President who is the product of a backroom parliamentary selection within a skewed “winner takes all” system will forever walk with the shadow of illegitimacy.
Such a leader will not be “loved” or genuinely chosen by the people; they will be viewed as a technical appointee of a party machine.
In a country already suffering from deep-seated toxicity and extreme political polarization, this move is like pouring petrol on a smoldering fire.
We are currently grappling with the fallout of disputed elections, yet the solution being proposed is to move further away from transparency and direct accountability.
The greatest danger inherent in this constitutional proposal is that it will deepen the crisis of governance in Zimbabwe.
Instead of encouraging an end to the polarization that has crippled our economy and social fabric, this system will make things worse.
A President selected by a flawed Parliament will be even more unacceptable to the people than one who emerged from a direct, albeit rigged, election.
At least in a direct election, the people feel they have a stake in the fight.
By removing the popular vote, the authorities are effectively telling the Zimbabwean citizen that their individual voice no longer matters in the selection of the highest office in the land.
This breeds resentment, apathy, and a total breakdown of the social contract between the governor and the governed.
We must be uncompromising in our critique of this fraudulent narrative.
We cannot allow coached voices in public hearings to go unchallenged when they claim that this amendment is a step toward “modern African democracy.”
There is nothing modern about stripping citizens of their right to vote.
There is nothing democratic about using a distorted parliamentary mirror to select a national leader.
The South African system works because it is built on the foundation of mathematical fairness and total inclusion.
The Zimbabwean proposal is built on the foundation of exclusion and the preservation of the status quo through legislative maneuvering.
The Zimbabwean people deserve the truth.
They deserve to know that the comparison to South Africa is a hollow mask intended to hide an ugly reality.
This amendment is not about efficiency, and it is certainly not about following the lead of our neighbors.
It is a calculated move to ensure that the Presidency remains insulated from the direct will of the people.
If we allow this lie to persist, we are not just losing a vote; we are losing the very essence of the sovereignty that so many fought to secure.
We must demand that the principle of “one man, one vote” remains sacrosanct and that any move to change how we choose our President must be met with the fiercest intellectual and civic resistance.
Zimbabwe is not South Africa, and the proposed system is not democracy; it is a retreat into the shadows of autocracy disguised as constitutional progress.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08