Zimbabwean lawmakers have approved a bill to replace direct presidential elections with parliamentary voting. Critics argue this could undermine democracy and strengthen the ruling party's control.
Key points
Zimbabwean lawmakers approved a bill to change presidential election process
Bill replaces direct elections with parliamentary voting
216 lawmakers voted in favor, 42 against
Opponents fear loss of democratic accountability
Bill moves to Senate for further approval
Mentioned in this story
Zimbabwe National AssemblyZimbabwe
Harare, Zimbabwe – Zimbabwean lawmakers have approved a bill that would replace direct presidential elections with a vote by parliament, a proposal that supporters say would promote policy continuity but that opponents fear could weaken democratic accountability and further entrench the ruling party’s grip on power.
“I just cannot believe that these are the people who want to elect a president on behalf of everyone,” Barnabas Gura, a 38-year-old from Harare’s Glen View suburb, told Al Jazeera.
“Only 210 members of parliament vote on behalf of a population of 15 million. It is preposterous.”
On Thursday, Constitutional Amendment Bill No 3 passed the National Assembly after 216 lawmakers voted in favour and 42 against. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is also expected to secure the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments.
The bill seeks to amend Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution by replacing the direct election of the president with election by a joint sitting of the Senate and National Assembly.
Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the bill’s sponsor, has rejected criticism that the proposed changes would undermine Zimbabwe’s constitutional order.
Speaking in parliament on June 3, Ziyambi said the bill was “not an abandonment of our constitutional order in any way, shape or form but a continuation of it”.
“It is a product of practical and experience of institutional reflection and of honesty that after more than a decade of implementation of certain provisions of the constitution requires refinement to enhance their functionality, coherence and their service to national progress,” he told lawmakers.
Ziyambi said there was considerable misinformation surrounding the bill, particularly on social media.
“This bill does not give the president a term extension or a third term. It does not take away the right to vote. It does not postpone elections. It does not concentrate power or the running of elections in the hands of the president,” he said.
Opponents, however, dispute that interpretation and argue the proposed changes would strengthen President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s influence over the political system and could pave the way for him to remain in office beyond the end of his constitutional term in 2028.
Bill threatens democracy
Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers from the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the opposition Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), say the changes would promote long-term policy continuity and give Mnangagwa more time to complete his development agenda.
Gura is unconvinced.
He said two more years would not improve the lives of Zimbabweans struggling with poverty.
“Mnangagwa has failed for the past eight years. Only a few who are close to the ruling class are benefiting. More time will not make any difference,” he said.
Q&A
What does the new Zimbabwean bill propose regarding presidential elections?
The bill proposes to replace direct presidential elections with a vote by parliament, specifically a joint sitting of the Senate and National Assembly.
How many lawmakers voted for the bill in Zimbabwe's National Assembly?
216 lawmakers voted in favor of the bill, while 42 voted against it.
What are the concerns of opponents regarding the new bill in Zimbabwe?
Opponents fear that the bill could weaken democratic accountability and further entrench the ruling party's grip on power.
What is the next step for the Zimbabwean bill after passing the National Assembly?
The bill will move to the Senate, where it is expected to secure the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments.
See every story in News — including breaking news and analysis.
ZANU-PF has been in power since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. Mnangagwa came to power in November 2017 after former President Robert Mugabe was removed from office following a military intervention.
Under the current constitution, Mnangagwa is due to leave office in 2028.
Pride Mkono, a social justice activist and human rights defender, said the proposed amendment would further entrench ZANU-PF’s dominance.
“Since independence, the ZANU-PF party has dominated politics until 2000, when it was challenged by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. However, the opposition is now comatose and lacks capacity to challenge it,” Mkono told Al Jazeera.
“So, we will effectively enter a one-party state, but one dominated by a cartel of individuals.”
He said the objective of the proposed changes was not to improve the lives of ordinary people.
“It means a continuation of economic and social services collapse and mass impoverishment of the masses,” Mkono said.
Obert Masaraure, a human rights defender and president of the Amalgamated Rural Teachers’ Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ), said the amendment would severely weaken the country’s fragile democracy.
“Power will be usurped from the people, and the executive acting in concert with the elites will freely loot national resources, exploit workers, destroy the environment and dehumanise our people without any restraint,” Masaraure told Al Jazeera.
Young people such as Gura say they have little reason to believe extending Mnangagwa’s tenure would improve their prospects.
He argues that removing direct presidential elections would strip citizens of one of the few mechanisms available to hold leaders accountable.
“This is a direct attack on accountability and transparency,” he said, adding that ZANU-PF had promised jobs ahead of the 2018 elections but failed to deliver.
Masaraure drew parallels with the colonial era.
“If you can not vote, you can not hold anyone accountable,” he said.
Violence and intimidation
A parliamentary committee report tabled in the National Assembly earlier this month said 99.4 percent of submissions received during nationwide consultations supported the proposed changes.
But the consultation process was marred by allegations of intimidation and violence.
Activists and rights groups say suspected state security agents abducted and tortured several opponents of the bill.
In Chiredzi, suspected ZANU-PF youths assaulted activist Gilbert Mutebuki after preventing him from speaking against the bill during a public hearing in late March.
Gura said he was also denied an opportunity to speak, along with other citizens opposed to the proposal.
Rawlings Magede, senior programme lead at Heal Zimbabwe Trust, disputed the parliamentary committee’s findings.
“It is not true that most people are in support of the bill. Those supporting it are only a few who think that by supporting the bill, they will get some rewards. People are desperate for gifts,” Magede told Al Jazeera.
He said the reported level of support was misleading and did not reflect the views of many Zimbabweans.
ZANU-PF controls parliament
The ruling party controls both the National Assembly and the Senate.
Its parliamentary dominance grew after the 2023 elections, when Senator Sengezo Tshabangu recalled a number of CCC legislators, strengthening ZANU-PF’s position in parliament.
Critics say many opposition lawmakers who remained in parliament are politically vulnerable because of Tshabangu’s influence.
The opposition remains fragmented and has struggled to mount a coordinated challenge to the ruling party.
Mkono said that although ZANU-PF enjoys a two-thirds majority in parliament, passage of the bill was never really in doubt.
To prevent individual lawmakers from voting independently, he said, the party wanted an open vote by show of hands.
“This is subtle intimidation and closes all avenues for genuine expression of MPs’ views. It is as archaic as it is diabolic,” he said.
Wicknell Chivayo, a controversial businessman and ally of Mnangagwa, has faced accusations from critics of attempting to influence lawmakers through gifts of cash and vehicles.
In April, he offered legislators $3.6m if they passed the bill before withdrawing the offer following public criticism, including from some ZANU-PF youths.
During debate on the bill, Chivayo gave vehicles and cash to MPs Remigious Matangira and Samantha Mureyani after they spoke in support of it in the National Assembly. Critics have described such gifts as inducements intended to influence support for the bill.
Tatenda Chikumbu, from Kambuzuma, another densely populated suburb of Harare, said he has little faith in lawmakers.
“If they can be bribed and vote for the bill, how can I trust them to vote for the president once the amendment is done?” Chikumbu asked Al Jazeera.
Susan Matsunga, an opposition MP who received a vehicle from Chivayo, supported the bill during debates last week.
During voting in the National Assembly on Thursday, more than 30 opposition lawmakers voted in favour of the bill.
Courts are the last line of defence
With the bill now headed to the Senate, opponents are increasingly looking to the courts.
Mkono said legal challenges could slow the process, but argued that political mobilisation offered the strongest response.
“Social movements must be launched and all concerned Zimbabweans come together to fight this politically. That is the only viable option,” he said.
Several legal challenges are already before the courts.
Some citizens are suing their MPs for supporting the bill. Others are challenging proposals that could extend Mnangagwa’s tenure. Human rights activist Youngerson Matete has approached the High Court seeking to stop enactment of the bill without a referendum.
Many Zimbabweans, however, have lost confidence in the judiciary, which critics accuse of lacking independence. The Constitutional Court has already started dismissing some of the cases based on technicalities.
For Gura, the stakes extend beyond the next election cycle.
The proposed constitutional changes, he said, would shape the future of the country his children will inherit.
“This is a direct attack on accountability and transparency,” he said.
