Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The mask of democratic pretense has not merely slipped in Zimbabwe—it has been violently torn away by the very hands tasked with upholding it.
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
The recent remarks by ZANU PF Treasurer Patrick Chinamasa regarding the chaotic public hearings for Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill serve as a chilling epitaph for the notion of inclusive governance.
During the hearing at the City Sports Centre, human rights lawyer Doug Coltart was surrounded, shoved, and slapped by a partisan mob that broke his glasses and snatched his phone from his hands.
Furthermore, the few public hearing venues dotted around the country—mostly small halls unable to accommodate more than a hundred people—were immediately swarmed by bussed-in crowds.
These individuals, coached on specific talking points, used jeers, booing, and threats to drown out anyone who dared speak against the bill.
In a single, reckless broadside, Chinamasa did more than just defend a rowdy mob.
He inadvertently provided a masterclass in the anatomy of an autocracy, confirming that the state-led consultations were never intended to be a platform for the people, but rather a choreographed performance of partisan dominance.
To witness a senior official characterize a parliamentary process as an event naturally and predictably dominated by a 99.99 percent ruling party majority is to witness the formal declaration of a one-party state in all but name.
Parliament is, by constitutional mandate, an institution of the entire Republic.
Its hearings are funded by the taxpayer and are legally required to provide a safe, neutral, and accessible space for every citizen to influence the legislative process.
Public hearings are, in fact, designed to amplify the voices of dissent, as the state’s support for its own proposed laws is already a foregone conclusion.
Even the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission voiced grave concerns today regarding the conduct of these hearings.
When Chinamasa frames these hearings as ZANU PF territory where dissent is viewed as a “provocation,” he is essentially stating that the Constitution stops at the door of the City Sports Centre.
This is a tragic revelation that strips the “public” out of “public hearing” and replaces it with a narrow, exclusionary partisanship that treats the divergent views of fellow citizens as an existential threat.
The logic employed by Chinamasa to justify the silencing of opposition voices is as intellectually bankrupt as it is dangerous.
By invoking “Behavioral Sciences” to explain why a crowd of “one mind” would react violently to a differing viewpoint, he is not offering a scientific observation but rather providing a moral license for mob rule.
It is a staggering admission of intolerance to suggest that the presence of a few individuals with a 0.01 percent opposing view is a “provocative” act that warrants a predictable, violent response.
In a functioning democracy, the “behavioral” expectation is that a majority, no matter how large, listens to and debates the minority.
To argue that human nature makes violence inevitable when confronted with dissent is to argue against the very concept of civilization and the rule of law.
It suggests that ZANU PF supporters are incapable of the basic civic restraint required for a democratic society to function.
Furthermore, the comparison to the year AD 33 is perhaps the most revealing and disturbing aspect of this entire tirade.
By likening the modern political atmosphere in Zimbabwe to the mob dynamics of the first century, Chinamasa is effectively admitting that his party’s political culture has not evolved beyond the primitive impulses of ancient history.
If the standard for Zimbabwean political conduct in 2026 is a mob from two millennia ago, then the promise of a modern, progressive, and democratic nation is a lie.
This historical reference does not exculpate the perpetrators of violence.
Instead, it condemns them by suggesting that they are driven by the same blind, unthinking fervor that has been used to justify historical atrocities for centuries.
It is a dark irony that a party claiming to lead a modern liberation movement would reach so far back into the annals of antiquity to justify contemporary thuggery.
The tragedy of this statement lies in its confirmation that the ruling party views the opposition not as legitimate participants in a national conversation, but as “agents provocateurs” whose very existence is a disruption.
Labeling human rights lawyers and citizens as “foolish” for attending a public hearing to voice their dissent is a direct assault on the spirit of Section 141 of the Constitution.
That section explicitly mandates Parliament to facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes.
If a citizen is deemed “naive” or “foolish” for attempting to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right, then the law itself has been rendered a mockery.
Chinamasa is essentially telling the Zimbabwean public that if they do not agree with the government, they should stay home for their own safety.
This is the language of intimidation, not of leadership.
The statement also inadvertently exposes the underlying motive behind Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill.
The bill, which seeks to extend presidential and parliamentary terms to 2030, is a monumental shift in the country’s democratic framework.
Such a significant change requires the highest level of genuine, uncoerced public consensus.
However, when the process for gathering that consensus is described by the ruling party’s treasurer as a partisan stronghold where dissent is unwelcome, the entire legislative endeavor loses its legitimacy.
It confirms the our long-standing claim that these hearings are a superficial “box-ticking” exercise designed to provide a thin veneer of legality to a preordained political outcome.
The “99.99 percent” figure is not a sign of popularity but a metric of exclusion—a statistical shadow cast by the systematic purging of alternative voices from the public square.
We must also interrogate the silence and complicity of the parliamentary officials who allowed these hearings to devolve into what Chinamasa calls a “predictable” explosion of partisan fervor.
If Parliament cannot guarantee the safety of citizens who come to express their views, then it has failed in its primary duty to the people.
By allowing these venues to be packed with bussed-in party faithful who view the expression of a differing opinion as a declaration of war, the institution has allowed itself to be captured and weaponized.
Chinamasa’s statement serves as the final confirmation of this capture.
He speaks with the confidence of someone who knows that the institutions of the state will not hold his party accountable for the “predictable” behavior of its masses.
The long-term implications of this rhetoric are devastating for the prospect of national healing and cohesion.
When a senior leader tells the nation that a crowd of one mind “does not take kindly to a differing viewpoint,” he is setting a standard for political engagement that begins and ends with the fist.
He is signaling to every young person in the country that the way to deal with a debate is to outnumber and overwhelm the opponent through sheer physical presence and intimidation.
This is a recipe for perpetual conflict and a total breakdown of the social contract.
It creates a society where truth is not determined by the strength of an argument, but by the volume of the shouting and the threat of the mob.
In the final analysis, Patrick Chinamasa has done the nation a backhanded favor by being so transparently honest about his party’s disdain for democratic dissent.
He has stripped away the flowery language of “reform” and “engagement” that often characterizes government communications, leaving behind the raw, ugly reality of political intolerance.
His words should serve as a wake-up call to the international community and to every Zimbabwean who still believes in the possibility of a fair and just society.
The tragedy is not just that the hearings were disrupted, but that the disruption was defended as a natural consequence of “human frailty.”
If the goal of our political system is merely to reflect the worst impulses of ancient history rather than the highest aspirations of modern democracy, then the road to 2030 will be a very dark one indeed.
Zimbabweans deserve a Parliament that protects their voices, not a ruling party that mocks their “foolishness” for daring to speak.
- 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