Kenneth Kgwadi is a political writer.
Image: Supplied
There is a particular anxiety that defines constitutional debate in Zimbabwe. It is the anxiety of a country that has been disappointed before, by power that overreached, by institutions that did not hold, by promises that did not quite become practical.
And so, when change is proposed, suspicion arrives early. But suspicion, while understandable, is not a substitute for analysis.If we are to take the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.3 Bill seriously, and we must, then we must examine it not as a personality contest, but as a constitutional proposition.
Because constitutions are not written for individuals. They are written for systems. And systems outlive presidencies.It is worth remembering that Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution was never conceived in isolation. It was, in many respects, a careful borrowing exercise, drawing from comparative constitutional traditions, most notably that of South Africa.
That borrowing was not accidental. It was deliberate. South Africa’s constitutional design, forged in the aftermath of apartheid, attempted to balance power, entrench rights, and create institutions capable of mediating political conflict in a deeply divided society. Zimbabwe, facing its own historical and political complexities, chose to incorporate some of these principles: a bill of rights, recognition of devolution, and the strengthening of oversight institutions.But constitutions are not static documents.
They are living frameworks. And like all living things, they must adapt or risk becoming irrelevant.This is where Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.3 Bill enters the conversation. There has been a tendency, almost an instinct, to collapse the entire amendment into a single question: whether it benefits Emmerson Mnangagwa.
That framing is politically convenient, but constitutionally shallow. It narrows a structural debate into a personal one. And in doing so, it prevents us from engaging with the architecture of governance itself.Because the amendment is not one clause. It is a set of proposals that touch on how power is distributed, how institutions function, and how the state relates to citizens.
Take devolution.For years, devolution has existed more as a promise than a practice. Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.3 Bill attempts to give it sharper institutional expression, moving decision-making closer to communities.
This is not a radical departure. It is, in fact, consistent with the logic that underpins South Africa’s provincial and local government systems: that democracy is deepened when power is not excessively centralised.Then there is the question of executive stability.
The proposal to extend presidential terms from five to seven years has triggered predictable alarm. And yet, from a constitutional design perspective, the question is not whether five is morally superior to seven.
The question is whether a longer term produces better governance outcomes.Short electoral cycles often trap governments in a permanent campaign mode. Policy becomes reactive. Long-term planning becomes secondary. In contrast, a longer term, properly checked by institutions, can create space for implementation rather than perpetual mobilisation.
This is not theoretical. It is a recognition that development requires time, consistency, and policy continuity.Of course, this argument only holds if safeguards remain intact. Term limits must still exist. Oversight institutions must still function. Courts must remain independent. A longer term without accountability is dangerous.
But a longer term with accountability can be stabilising.This is the balance that constitutional reform must strike.Critics have raised concerns about process and process matters. A constitution is not only judged by what it says, but by how it is made. Allegations of violence or exclusion during consultations should not be dismissed.
They should be investigated and corrected. Because legitimacy is built not only on legality, but on trust.And yet, even here, we must be careful not to allow procedural disputes to eclipse substantive debate. Zimbabweans must ask: what kind of state are we trying to build? A centralised one, or a devolved one? A reactive one, or a strategic one?
A fragile one, or a stable one?These are constitutional questions. They deserve constitutional answers.There is also a broader context that cannot be ignored.
Since 2017, the administration of Emmerson Mnangagwa has pursued a re-engagement strategy, a “friend-to-all” posture in a shifting global order. Whether one agrees with its outcomes or not, it reflects an attempt to reposition Zimbabwe within a multipolar world.
Constitutional stability, in this context, is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite for economic confidence.Investors, institutions, and international partners do not engage with personalities. They engage with systems.
Predictable systems. Stable systems.This is why constitutional reform matters. It is also why it must be approached with intellectual honesty. To support the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.3 Bill is not to abandon vigilance. It is to recognise that constitutions must evolve and that evolution, if done carefully, can strengthen rather than weaken democracy.
Zimbabwe did not hesitate to borrow from South Africa when it needed to build a new constitutional order. It should not hesitate now to refine that order in light of experience.Because the real question is not whether change is comfortable.
It is whether it is necessary. And in a country still searching for a durable political settlement, standing still is not neutrality. It is a risk.
Kgwadi is a political scientist and freelance writer.