The dangerous deception of clause 21: why traditional leaders must never be partisan

The state propaganda machinery is currently in overdrive, seeking to sanitize an outright assault on the bedrock of democratic governance under the guise of correcting a constitutional contradiction. 

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

In an infographic shared by Information Ministry Permanent Secretary Nick Mangwana, the government attempts to justify Clause 21 of the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill. 

The state argues that traditional leaders already participate in governance through the Senate, customary courts, and land administration. 

Therefore, they claim Section 281(2)—which bars chiefs from active politics—is an anomalous restriction.

This is a deliberate, malicious distortion of the fundamental principles of constitutionalism. 

There is a vast, unbridgeable gulf between acting as an institutional pillar of state governance and functioning as a partisan political tool. 

By seeking to dismantle the constitutional wall separating traditional leadership from partisan politics, the state is not resolving an inconsistency; it is actively weaponizing a revered cultural institution to tighten its grip on power.

To understand why this amendment is so profoundly dangerous, one must interrogate why traditional leaders were barred from active politics in the first place. 

The framers of the 2013 Constitution, echoing the deep-seated desires of millions of Zimbabweans during the outreach phase, understood that a chief, a headman, or a village head belongs to everyone in the community. 

Traditional leaders are the custodians of cultural heritage, communal values, and local justice. 

Their authority is non-negotiable and inherited, meaning subjects do not choose them through a ballot. 

Because their jurisdiction covers every single resident in their area, regardless of political affiliation, they must remain fiercely neutral. 

The moment a traditional leader dons a political party t-shirt, they cease to be a unifying father or mother figure and instantly become a factional player. 

Forcing or allowing them into the political arena strips ordinary citizens of their constitutional right to freedom of association, as subjects cannot freely choose a political path when their traditional custodian is actively campaigning for an opponent.

This principle of political neutrality among non-elected constitutional figures is not unique to Zimbabwe; it is a global standard essential for social cohesion. 

Look at the United Kingdom, where the King of England serves as the head of state and holds immense symbolic power. 

By strict constitutional convention, the monarch remains entirely non-partisan, does not vote, and never publicly expresses political opinions. 

The same rule applies to traditional and cultural leaders across various modern democracies globally. 

In South Africa, the constitution recognizes the National House of Traditional Leaders, yet chiefs who enter active politics are required to step down from their traditional roles to preserve community neutrality. 

Similarly, Article 276(1) of the Ghanaian Constitution explicitly bars chiefs from taking part in active party politics, a restriction firmly upheld by their Supreme Court to protect the dignity of the office. 

In Botswana, the dikgosi sit in a dedicated constitutional advisory body, the Ntlo ya Dikgosi, but must completely abdicate their traditional thrones the moment they choose to pursue partisan political ambitions.

This neutrality is maintained precisely because these figures represent the entire nation or community, not just a ruling clique. 

If the British monarch were to endorse a political party, it would trigger an immediate constitutional crisis and destroy the legitimacy of the crown. 

Zimbabwe’s attempt to legalize the partisan alignment of chiefs is a backward step that isolates the country from civilized democratic norms.

The historical trajectory of traditional leadership in Zimbabwe provides a grim warning of what happens when chiefs are dragged into political warfare. 

During the colonial era, the minority regime systematically co-opted traditional leaders, turning them into paid agents of the state to suppress the liberation struggle, collect taxes, and monitor communities. 

This weaponization of culture deeply alienated chiefs from their people, fracturing rural society. 

Tragically, the post-independence dispensation did not dismantle this oppressive machinery; instead, it perfected it. 

For decades, the ruling party has used traditional leaders as political commissars, tasking them with violently intimidating opposition supporters, denying food aid to perceived dissidents, and commanding rural voters to vote a certain way. 

We have seen chiefs being bought with luxury double-cab vehicles and hefty allowances right on the eve of crucial elections, transforming a sacred institution into a mercenary wing of the state. 

Clause 21 is simply a cynical attempt to retroactively legalize this lawless, partisan capture.

The claims made by Mangwana that Clause 21 strengthens accountability and corrects a power imbalance are entirely fraudulent. 

In reality, legalizing partisan behavior among traditional leaders removes the last shred of institutional accountability, turning chiefs into untouchable political tyrants who can abuse their judicial and land-allocation powers to punish political rivals with absolute impunity. 

When a chief presides over a customary court or distributes communal land while holding a political party card, justice is buried, and discrimination becomes the law of the land. 

Rural citizens, who are already vulnerable, will be left entirely at the mercy of state-sponsored traditional elites.

This proposed clause must be fiercely rejected by every right-thinking Zimbabwean. 

It is not an administrative cleanup of the constitution; it is a direct assault on rural democracy, social cohesion, and the rule of law. 

Traditional leaders must remain the neutral custodians of our heritage, standing far above the toxic, transient fray of partisan politics. 

Turning them into political operatives completely destroys their dignity, betrays the liberation struggle’s promise of total freedom, and guarantees the permanent subjugation of rural communities to partisan tyranny. 

Clause 21 is a catastrophic misstep that must not be allowed to stand.

• 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