Zimbabwe’s ruling party, Zanu-PF, wants to amend the constitution through a bill in parliament. It won’t be that simple, however. Under the constitution, voters must approve such changes through a referendum.
The new bill’s most significant proposals include extending presidential and parliamentary terms by two years.
This would allow Zimbabwe’s 83-year-old president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, to remain in power until 2030, ending the hopes of vice-president Constantino Chiwenga reaching the presidency in 2028.
Chiwenga, as the head of the armed forces, was the main organiser of the 2017 coup that brought the exiled Mnangagwa to power.
The proposals could also pave the way for further changes that help Zanu-PF realise its long-cherished dream of permanent rule. The amendment proposes ending direct presidential elections. Instead, the president would be chosen by members of parliament. Given that Zanu-PF can, and has, co-opted enough MPs to dominate parliament, this would consolidate executive power within the ruling party.
Other proposed changes include expanding the senate to 90 members and returning the electoral commission to a largely discredited registrar-general who has been accused of bias. The bill also creates a Delimitation Commission that would allow the ruling party to shift constituency boundaries.
I have researched and written on Zimbabwe’s political history and political economy since the early 1980s. In my view, these changes risk weakening already fragile democratic protections in Zimbabwe.
Extending term limits entrenches incumbency. Long-serving president Robert Mugabe established de-facto one-party rule – always contested, but maintained consistently by carefully calibrated doses of coercion, cheating and crafted consensus – in 1987 as he became executive president. This followed the genocidal Gukurahundi massacre of the 1980s when thousands of people were killed as Zimbabwe’s main opposition party was crushed.
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. At 89, he has a universally appalling human rights record; he understands democracy differently from most people and does not hesitate to curtail it. PHOTO/FILE
The military forced Mugabe to resign in 2017 under “Operation Restore Legacy”. Mugabe was at the time 93. The coup was later legitimised by being given the “military-assisted transition” label.
Zanu-PF veteran Mnangagwa, who had been Mugabe’s recently fired deputy, and since 1978 his key security advisor, took on his mantle. This transition was violently consummated with a contested election in 2018 and vicious quelling of the January 2019 “stay-away” protests calling on the state to improve citizen livelihoods.
These latest proposed amendments – dubbed Agenda 2030 – point to a system where political competition is narrowed and power is more tightly controlled by the ruling party and its leaders.
What it means for Zimbabwe
Removing direct presidential elections reduces voter choice. The weakening of independent institutions – including electoral and judicial bodies – further reduces accountability.
The constitutional amendment proposes that the presidential vote take place in parliament by party-based MPs, who would likely elect one of their own.
However, the generally unpopular ruling party fears going through the necessary referendum to pass such changes. Additionally, 90 days of public consultation on constitutional amendments are needed. The Zanu-PF state has already compressed these to four days at about 65 locations, allowing about an hour each for discussion.
The first meetings were stacked with busloads of Zanu-PF supporters. And as happens during the party’s rallies, there were gifts of bikes and food as the carrots, and intimidation and threats as the sticks. Besides this mix, session chairs ignored opposition efforts to voice their opinions.
By the end of the second day of these meetings, the coalition of the three “defend the constitution” movements opposing Zanu-PF’s proposals boycotted the hearings.
No matter: Zanu-PF will either choose to push a referendum forward (with low participation) or pursue more repressive and/or judicially engineered means to secure the amendments.
What it means for Zanu-PF
The proposed constitutional amendments also have major implications within Zanu-PF itself, particularly for Chiwenga. They would effectively end his chances of becoming president in 2028.
In 2008, highly contested presidential election results forced Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai to a run-off. As is widely acknowledged, Mnangagwa and Chiwenga – then leading Zimbabwe’s Joint Operations Command – agreed to let Mugabe stay on. They would strike at a more opportune time: Mnangagwa would then lead first, and Chiwenga would take power in the next term.
The severe violence during the run-off led to a transitional inclusive government. This eventually led to the development of the 2013 constitution, which introduced a two-term limit for the presidency.
At a Zanu-PF congress soon after the 2018 election, Mnangagwa announced he’d vie again in 2023.
Now, the proposed extension to 2030 effectively blocks Chiwenga’s path to the presidency. At the very least, those two years would allow Mnangagwa to consolidate his – and his family’s – power. Zanu-PF’s ever present factional tensions will be exacerbated.
As my book Mugabe’s Legacy: Coups, Conspiracies, and the Conceits of Power in Zimbabwe argues, Zanu-PF’s past and present – before, during and after the liberation war – are replete with factional fighting as those near its top seek to entrench one-party rule with its control over the country’s wealth.
What it means for opposition politics
Zimbabwe’s opposition remains fragmented and weakened. The once-powerful Movement for Democratic Change splintered and its closest successor succumbed to Zanu-PF, partly induced by its leader’s megalomania.
After the boycott of the hearings, how will the proposed constitutional amendments be stopped? Resistance to the proposals had created an opportunity for greater opposition unity.
Events such as the October 2025 firebombing of a civil society meeting meant to discuss the amendments foretold the current intimidation.
Will the changes sail through?
Success on the constitutional amendments is not guaranteed. Internal factional tensions, particularly around succession, could complicate the process. Chiwenga is far from the only challenger in Mnangagwa’s sight.
If (when?) the shambolic – yet brutal – ruling party manages to move to a post-Agenda 2030 phase, it may well crash under the weight of its own contradictions. And with it all of Zimbabwe goes.
Written by David B. Moorec, Research Associate, Dept of Anthropology & Development Studies and Fellow, Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, University of Johannesburg
