The CAB3 deceit: Let’s be clear, electing a ZANU-PF legislator does not mean the voter wants a ZANU-PF president

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The fundamental flaw of representative democracy is exposed when the representative ceases to represent the voter and instead answers exclusively to the party hierarchy. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

This paradox is laid bare by the contradictory arguments advanced by Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi regarding the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, CAB3. 

On one hand, the government defends the proposed shift toward a parliamentary system—where lawmakers, rather than citizens, elect the president—by claiming it remains a democratic expression of the people’s will. 

The logic is that because the public directly elects their MPs, those legislators carry a proxy mandate to choose the head of state on behalf of their constituents.

Yet, this entire theoretical defense collapses under the weight of the minister’s own recent pronouncements regarding party discipline. 

In ruling out a secret ballot for the upcoming CAB3 vote, Ziyambi explicitly declared that voting will be conducted via an open, divided House where lawmakers must follow the directives of the party leadership. 

By asserting that the party is supreme and that any legislator who deviates from the party line faces immediate expulsion from parliament, the minister has inadvertently rubbished his own representative democracy narrative. 

If an MP is legally and structurally compelled via the whip system to vote at the behest of a Politburo rather than their conscience or the specific desires of their constituency, they are no longer a vehicle for the people’s will. 

They are simply an instrument of party control.

This decoupling of the legislator from the electorate is particularly glaring when analyzed against the historical data of the 2018 and 2023 elections in Zimbabwe. 

In both cycles, ZANU-PF parliamentary candidates consistently outpolled their own presidential candidate, Emmerson Mnangagwa. 

This statistical trend demonstrates a deliberate behavior among voters, many of whom chose a local ZANU-PF representative to advocate for community development while concurrently withholding their vote from the party’s presidential contender. 

The split-ticket reality proves that electing a particular legislator does not automatically signify an endorsement of that party’s presidential choice. 

By removing the direct presidential ballot, the state is effectively stripping citizens of their right to choose a leader of their choice. 

Electing a ZANU-PF legislator does not mean the voter wants a ZANU-PF president, but under the whip system, that MP will be forced to vote for a ZANU-PF candidate anyway, even if their constituents wanted an opposition leader.

This contradictions by Ziyambi expose the fallacy that a system whereby parliament chooses the president is simply another way of the people electing the president. 

They are not the same. 

As made clear by the recent viral audio leak, if the allegations in them are true, then these constitutional amendments are purely designed to benefit tenderpreneur Kudakwashe Tagwirei after President Emmerson Mnangagwa steps down in 2030. 

Tagwirei—who not only supposedly harbors presidential ambitions but also presumably is Mnangagwa’s anointed successor—has zero support on the ground and would unlikely win a public presidential election. 

If Mnangagwa, who has been a ZANU-PF politician for decades, failed to get grassroots support even from his own party, securing less votes than his MPs, what more a novice like Tagwirei, whose only claim to the presidency is doling out of cash and goodies?

Even with his deep pockets—which, according to the allegations in the leaked audio, are deeper than any of his fellow tenderpreneurs—there is no way he can successfully buy the support of over two million ZANU-PF voters. 

Besides, even if he managed to give each and every ZANU-PF supporter $100, for example, this would never guarantee their vote. 

Mnangagwa knows this better, as state resources have been used repeatedly over the years to buy the loyalty of Zimbabweans, but he still failed to secure the same support as his MPs. 

As such, the proposed parliamentary election of the president is designed with Mnangagwa’s successor in mind. 

A parliament of only 360 people is far easier to control through both bribes and the whip system.

Ultimately, the argument that a parliamentary election of the president is simply an alternative form of democracy is a fallacy exposed by the realities of the whip system. 

When the right to directly choose the head of state is removed from the general public and handed over to a whipped legislature, the average citizen is completely disenfranchised from the executive branch of government. 

This proposed constitutional overhaul does not enhance stability or refine governance. 

It systematically shifts the sovereign power of the vote away from the population and consolidates it within a controlled boardroom, effectively stealing the people’s right to choose their own leader.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08