Divided opposition versus ‘solid’ Zanu PF

BY MOSES MATENGA

The ruling Zanu PF party has mobilised a disciplined ground game for Constitutional Amendment Number 3’s public hearings, but the opposition remains fragmented and staring disaster.

During the inclusive government (2009–2013), the constitution making process under the Constitutional Parliamentary Committee (COPAC) consumed Zanu PF’s politburo.

Meetings stretched into the wee hours with the ruling party elite working overtime to tie loose ends to the draft constitution.

For example, on 28 July 2012 a tense sitting lasted 12 hours as the party tied up loose ends on the draft, and another marathon on 8 August ran from 13:30 to 04:30. Those sessions were no theatre. they signalled how much the new constitution mattered to the ruling party and how determined it was to shape the outcome.

Thirteen years on, the stakes are similar. Parliament will begin public hearings on Amendment Number 3 to the 2013 constitution, and once again Zanu PF looks better prepared than its opponents.

The legislature has published schedules and venues; written submissions are being accepted; and Zanu PF has mobilised its machinery.

Senior politburo and central committee members have been dispatched across the country to rally supporters and rehearse key messages ahead of the hearings from March 30 to April 4. That coordinated push — visible, disciplined and relentless — is the kind of ground game that wins contested public debates.

By contrast, the opposition is fragmented. Aside from Professor Lovemore Madhuku of the National Constitutional Assembly, opposition leaders have not matched Zanu PF on the ground.

A handful of prominent figures have discussed the amendments in private forums or offices, rather than taking their argument to ordinary voters.

Some opposition activists say they face restrictions on campaigning around the parliamentary process; others simply lack a unified plan. The result is confusion among supporters at a moment when clarity and mobilisation matter most.

There are organised efforts to resist the amendments. Jameson Timba’s Defend the Constitution Platform has petitioned regionals and internationals — the UN, the AU and SADC — and launched a national petition demanding any fundamental constitutional change be subjected to a referendum.

Tendai Biti’s Constitution Defenders Forum has also been active. Yet these initiatives remain stove‑piped. Opposition circles lament a lack of a single, coherent strategy and consistent messaging that could translate civic unease into sustained public pressure.

Nelson Chamisa, who remains the largest vehicle of opposition sentiment, has been conspicuously equivocal.

As the most popular opposition figure, a clear, mobilising stance from him could focus disparate groups and give opponents tactical direction. Instead, his public messaging has been cautious — and in politics, caution can be read as absence.

Observers argue many opposition MPs in Parliament owe their seats more to the CCC brand than to personal popularity; that insecurity may make them reluctant to antagonise the ruling party or to lead an open mobilisation for fear of losing their posts and by extension their privileges that comes with being MPs.

This is not merely a contest of arguments; it is a contest of organisation. Zanu PF’s unified approach to the hearings suggests it understands that procedural moments — committee schedules, written submission points and public forums — can be engineered to produce political outcomes. If the opposition fails to cohere quickly, it risks allowing the amendment process to be shaped without meaningful resistance.

The looming public hearings are therefore a litmus test. They will show whether the opposition can turn scattered objections into a coordinated campaign that mobilises citizens, documents abuses, and forces accountability or whether this will confirm the end of opposition in Zimbabwe.

This is the time to concede, the opposition needs a solid survival plan to speak with one voice or to confirm irrelevance.