‘One man one vote’’s Revolutionary praxis in Zimbabwe (Politics belongs to the masses)

The late Professor Masipula Sithole and I would occasionally argue about what was a ‘majority vote’ in Zimbabwe.  And we would also argue about something called a ‘qualified franchise’ as it related to the period between 1962 and 1965 before the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).

As well as how it sort of worked with the Internal Settlement of 1978-1980 where Bishop Muzorewa was the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. In both cited cases, the major issue was the lack of a clear concept of ‘majority rule’.  A debate that we went long into the night arguing about the aversion of Rhodesians to it.

With me as the student and ‘Prof Mas’ as the mentor. These debates would end with Prof Mas saying with a slight stammer, “Mwanangu, democracy has many forms, but it must not only be accepted but owned by the masses’.

We had traversed concepts of a ‘one party state’ as exemplified by pre-1990 Tanzania, the proportional representation system as seen in post 1994 South Africa and our own Lancaster House constitutional order that had an initial parliamentary system that guaranteed white representation in our legislature.

My key take away from that conversation with Prof Mas was that democracy must be popularly legitimate and organic. It must also be reflective of historical nuances as they relate to contemporary global developments.

The current government and ruling Zanu Pf party intends to do away with a direct presidential election voting system that has been used over the last 30 years in Zimbabwe.

And within the contemporary or the now’ we are faced with this new perspective of democracy that is called Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3 (CAB3) of 2026.  Wherein the current government and ruling Zanu Pf party intends to do away with a direct presidential election voting system that has been used over the last 30 years in Zimbabwe.

This abrupt change would be done via empowering Parliament to elect the president as an electoral college.

The public reaction to this has been apparent.  It is not a popular move on the part of the ruling party.  But it retains a technical and constitutional dimension that appears unassailable given the current composition of our Parliament.   And also the divided state of the mainstream political opposition. Together with a severely handicapped civil society.

But the counter narrative that caught my attention has been that of how these CAB3 maneuvers are against the liberation struggle of ‘one man-one vote’ for a free Zimbabwe.   This has been put into the public domain largely via war veterans of the liberation struggle but more significantly with current vice president Chiwenga’s public acknowledgements of the same.

There is no doubt that this argument of one man one vote is important in Zimbabwe’s political lexicon.  One need not only listen to war veterans but also go to the national archives to encounter multiple pro-liberation flyers, magazines, radio programmes that talked to the very same matter. Especially as the liberation struggle escalated from 1972-1979.

It was not subject to the multiple, legalistic and elitist interpretations that we are witnessing today.  It was  not only a phrase but a common understanding as to being one of the key reasons why the liberation struggle was fought.

The liberatory consciousness assumption was that once independence was acquired there would be a direct form of democracy via an electoral process that allows all Zimbabweans, educated, uneducated, rich, poor, rural or urban to vote for leaders of their choice.   Hence the phenomenal turnout in the 1980 general election which brough Zanu Pf into power.  One in which quite literally, one man/one womn voted for the party/candidate of their choice based on their political party preference.

It was an election that had an immediate dual effect.   One that would elect not only a member of parliament but also by dint of the same process, a prime minister and therefore executive authority over the country.

Where we look at CAB3 we are being offered a disenfranchisement of a direct democratic process.

Where we look at CAB3 we are being offered a disenfranchisement of a direct democratic process.   It is couched in the language of legal elitism and abstract intentions of protecting an already existent political oligarchy via the ruling Zanu PF party and its ‘zviganandas’.

These newfound Zimbabwean oligarchs are intent on creating a false impression that they mean well for the country while feathering not only their political but also economic nests for protection beyond the incumbent president. Via an elitist constitutional amendment.

The only problem for them is that legitimacy is not merely legal. It derives from the people, or what in the liberation struggle was referred to as the ‘masses’.

President of Zimbabwe on the occasion of Zimbabwe’s 46th anniversary of independence. Photo: President of Zimbabwe via Twitter/@edmnangagwa

So while technically the minister of justice Ziyambi Ziyambi and his principal ED Mnangagwa can get away with this CAB3 proposal via passing it through parliament, they cannot skirt the fact of the revolutionary legitimizing intentions of the mantra of ‘one-man-one vote’.

Our compromised national parliament (house of assembly and senate) can pass CAB3 but it will not change the political perception in the short and long term future of its members being considered the proverbial ‘sellouts’.  All in order to extend their own terms of office and the perks that come with the same.

One man one vote remains an historical revolutionary lesson/praxis for all Zimbabweans.  It was never meant to be mitigated by abstract legalistic and elitist arguments.  It was always meant to be enabled as far best as possible.

It might not be the definitive meaning of a democratic order but it remains its foundation and its beginning.

And no, our people are not politically ignorant to require a parliament to select a national president without their say so or via political party influenced gerrymandering. There is no sustainable stability or ‘development’ that comes from elitist pacts.  More so if they give the impression of being embedded in the constitution.  Politics is not written on paper.  It belongs to the masses ma cdes.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity

This article was first published by Takura Zhangazha  and it is published here with permission of the writer.

Follow This Is Africa on Twitter and Facebook to join the conversation.