HARARE — Zimbabwe’s ruling party, Zanu PF, has defended controversial proposals to overhaul key provisions of the Constitution, arguing that the supreme law is a “living document” that must evolve. However, opposition figures and constitutional analysts have raised alarm, describing the reforms as a calculated move to consolidate power.
Cabinet this week approved the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill of 2026, which seeks to fundamentally alter the method of electing the President. Under the proposals, the Head of State would no longer be chosen directly by voters, but elected by Parliament through an absolute majority vote, with the Chief Justice presiding over the process.
The Bill also proposes extending the Presidential term from five to seven years — a shift critics say weakens electoral accountability and risks entrenching incumbency.
In a strategic document presented at a Zanu PF Politburo seminar in Harare, the party’s Legal Affairs Secretary, Ziyambi Ziyambi, and his deputy, Fortune Chasi, framed the amendments as constitutionally justified. The document, titled “Understanding the Party-State Constitution Nexus for Enhanced Governance,” asserts that Zanu PF’s ideological leadership is inseparable from the functioning of the State.
“ZANU PF is the political embodiment of the people’s will, the national Constitution is its legal formalisation,” the document states.
The ruling party dismissed longstanding opposition concerns about the conflation of party and State, branding such arguments “historically illiterate and constitutionally unfounded.” Zanu PF further argued that its guiding role does not violate constitutional principles but instead fulfils them.
Yet opposition leaders view the narrative differently.
Political commentators argue that the proposed parliamentary election of the President represents a significant departure from democratic norms established in the 2013 Constitution. Direct presidential elections were introduced precisely to strengthen citizen participation and reduce elite bargaining, analysts note.
“This is not refinement — it is regression,” said one Harare-based constitutional expert. “Removing the people from the presidential ballot fundamentally alters the social contract.”
Critics also question the comparison with South Africa frequently cited by Zanu PF officials. While South Africa elects its President through Parliament, its broader institutional framework — including stronger legislative independence and internal party accountability — differs markedly from Zimbabwe’s political environment.
The Zanu PF document portrays the Constitution adopted in 2013 as a product of compromise during the Government of National Unity, suggesting that certain provisions reflect “political pressures of that moment.” Amendments, it argues, are therefore necessary to align the law with long-term national objectives.
Opposition figures, however, warn that repeated constitutional changes risk undermining stability rather than enhancing it.
“The Constitution was meant to protect citizens from shifting political interests,” an opposition MP said. “If every electoral cycle triggers structural changes, constitutionalism itself becomes fragile.”
Concerns have also been raised over the extension of presidential terms, a politically sensitive issue across the region. Governance watchdogs caution that lengthening tenure without strengthening checks and balances may heighten fears of executive overreach.
While Zanu PF insists that its parliamentary majority provides the democratic legitimacy to enact amendments, critics counter that constitutional authority ultimately rests with citizens, not party dominance.
“The central question,” said a political analyst, “is whether constitutional change is being driven by national consensus or political expediency.”
As debate intensifies, the proposed amendments are likely to deepen divisions in a country where constitutional reform has historically been intertwined with struggles over power, legitimacy, and democratic accountability.
