The escalating hysteria over Constitutional Amendment No. 3 of 2026, particularly within opposition circles, exposes not a crisis in the Constitution, but a crisis in collective political maturity and constitutional literacy. A constitution is not a relic preserved behind glass; it is a governing instrument built to operate in the present. It exists to organise power, correct defects and respond to changing realities. Amendment, in itself, is neither betrayal nor taboo – it is part of constitutional design.
What is troubling is not opposition, but the drift toward confrontation. Incitement to violence is not democratic engagement; it is a crime. Citizens have every right to reject a proposal. But when political actors begin invoking “physical action” and mass mobilisation in tones that hint at disruption, the conversation shifts from reasoned disagreement to calculated instability.
Statements from figures such as Tendai Biti, Douglas Mwonzora, Jameson Timba and Lovemore Madhuku suggest a preference for spectacle over structured contestation. Zimbabwe has borne the costs of instability before – economically, socially and institutionally. To flirt with that risk in the name of constitutional defence is irresponsible.
The proper channels are clear: parliamentary debate, committee scrutiny, public submissions and judicial review. These are not procedural decorations; they are the backbone of constitutional democracy. If the amendment is flawed, challenge it in court. If it lacks political merit, defeat it in Parliament. To bypass institutions in favour of the street is not principled resistance – it is institutional abandonment.
Within the Citizens Coalition for Change, Secretary General Sengezo Tshabangu has indicated that CCC legislators will support the amendment in the interest of discipline and national stability. That decision may invite internal disagreement – including from Bulawayo Mayor David Coltart – but such disputes belong within party structures, not in the ignition of public unrest.
Zimbabweans are not political pawns. Several of those now urging mass demonstrations have previously failed to secure broad electoral support. It is therefore fair to question whether this campaign is driven by constitutional conviction or by the pursuit of renewed relevance.
Democracy is measured not by noise, but by process. It allows fierce debate, judicial challenge and legislative decision without descending into disorder. If constitutionalism means anything, it requires defending both the document and the stability that sustains it. Anything less is opportunism disguised as principle.
Post a comment