Karabo Ngoepe is a journalist with over 15 years of experience in political, investigative, and human interest journalism who specialises in pan-African politics with a particular interest in SADC and Global South news.
Image: Supplied
THERE is a certain theatrical quality to Zimbabwe's opposition politics these days. Flags waved, platforms launched, statements fired off on X.
And yet, beneath the noise, there is nothing — no coherent structure, no unified strategy, no credible alternative vision for the country. When you strip away the drama, the resistance to Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CA3) looks less like a principled constitutional stand and more like the last gasp of a political class that has lost its footing and cannot admit it.
Let me be plain about where I stand. I support CA3. I believe the proposed shift from direct presidential elections to a parliamentary selection model is a legitimate, stabilising reform. I believe extending office terms or electoral cycles from five to seven years gives any government the runway it needs to implement long-term development plans without being perpetually distracted by election cycles.
And I believe, as ZANU-PF and its supporters have argued, that reducing the frequency of high-stakes presidential campaigns will reduce the political violence and social toxicity that has scarred this country for decades. Village heads and rural associations have said as much: fewer divisive election cycles mean more room for investment, for agriculture, for peace.
But this article is not really about the merits of CA3. It is about something more revealing, the state of the opposition that is fighting it.
To understand why the opposition’s resistance to CA3 is so strategically hollow, one needs only to trace the rubble of the Citizens Coalition for Change.
After Nelson Chamisa's CCC won over 103 parliamentary seats in the 2023 elections, denying ZANU-PF a two-thirds majority necessary to amend the Constitution, Zimbabwe's opposition was, briefly, in a position of genuine constitutional leverage.
Then came the collapse. A shadowy figure, Sengezo Tshabangu, emerged claiming to be the CCC's interim secretary-general and began recalling MPs and councillors aligned to Chamisa.
The recalls were upheld in court. Seat by seat, the opposition's parliamentary presence was dismantled. ZANU-PF eventually obtained the supermajority it needed. Chamisa, unable to hold his own party together, resigned in January 2024, citing government infiltration.
The reason the courts could not protect those MPs tells you everything: the CCC had no interim constitution, no party structures, and no documented minutes of meetings.
A political party fighting to protect Zimbabwe's Constitution did not have a constitution of its own. It had no institutional architecture. Critics described it openly as a "structureless party", one that was vulnerable precisely because it had been built around a personality rather than a programme.
When Chamisa finally departed, he took the energy of the movement with him. What remained splintered further. Tendai Biti broke away. Welshman Ncube drifted. Job Sikhala went his own way with a civic movement.
Douglas Mwonzora continued with his rump MDC Alliance. By the time CA3 was gazetted in February 2026, Zimbabwe's opposition landscape was not a political force, it was a collection of competing individuals, each with their own platform, their own grievances, and their own claim to moral authority.
What has emerged in opposition to CA3 is telling. Three organisations, the National Constitutional Assembly led by Professor Lovemore Madhuku, the Defend the Constitution Platform led by Jameson Timba, and the Constitutional Defenders Forum, convened by Tendai Biti, have announced a "coordinated framework" to resist the bill. On paper, this sounds like unity. In practice, it is a headline in search of a strategy.
These are not organisations with mass mobilisation capacity. They are networks of legal and political elites who hold press conferences, issue statements, and boycott hearings but have demonstrated no ability to translate their resistance into electoral or parliamentary consequences. The public hearings on CA3, held between March 30 and April 2, became their stage.
Rather than engaging the process and making their case on the record, opposition leaders withdrew, called the hearings a "charade," and urged citizens to submit written objections instead.
Over 300 000 submissions were received by Parliament, a remarkable figure, but one that reflects public anxiety rather than organised opposition. The opposition did not mobilise those submissions. It simply watched them arrive.
More damning still is what happened internally. Even as Timba and Madhuku tried to build a united front, Zimbabwe's most prominent opposition figure undermined it. Reports emerged that Chamisa had privately disparaged the anti-CA3 coalition as lacking legitimacy and being driven by “self-appointed elites”.
Though he later disputed the specific framing, the controversy itself, opposition leaders squabbling about who has the right to lead the resistance, exposed the paralysis at the heart of the movement.
The NewsHawks, one of Zimbabwe’s most respected independent outlets, described the opposition's politics as “increasingly fragmented following the collapse of the CCC”, noting that its internal battles were actively weakening the very resistance it claimed to champion.
Here is the argument that the opposition will not make publicly, because it would be too honest: they oppose CA3 not because of an abstract constitutional principle, but because CA3 changes the game in ways they do not know how to play.
Direct presidential elections have always been the opposition's arena. Chamisa, twice, came close to winning by mobilising massive popular enthusiasm, 45% of the vote in 2018, 44% in 2023. The ballot box was the opposition's equaliser. Whatever ZANU-PF's structural advantages, a national vote allowed an opposition with a charismatic leader to compete, to galvanise, to dream.
Under the proposed parliamentary model, that equation changes entirely. The presidency would be determined by a joint sitting of Parliament, a chamber in which Zanu-PF, after the Tshabangu recalls and subsequent by-elections, holds a commanding majority.
Supporters of CA3 argue that this is more stable and less susceptible to violent populist contests. Critics call it disenfranchisement. But strip the constitutional language away, and what the opposition is really saying is: we don't have the parliamentary presence to compete in this system, and we don't know how to build it.
And that is a political failure of their own making. If the opposition had maintained credible parliamentary structures, if the CCC had not been built on personality and secrecy rather than institutions, the Tshabangu recalls would never have succeeded. If the opposition had contested the by-elections rather than boycotting them, ZANU-PF would not have its supermajority.
If Chamisa and Biti had not fallen out, if Morgan Tsvangirai's legacy had been handled with more care, if the opposition had learned after three decades that it cannot win Zimbabwe through charisma alone, things might look different today.
Instead, the opposition wasted its parliamentary leverage, lost its institutions, and now finds itself on the outside of a constitutional process with nothing but moral indignation to offer.
The Catholic Bishops have made more noise against CA3 than any opposition party has managed. Civil society lawyers have engaged more seriously with the specific clauses of the bill. The opposition has mostly performed outrage, and performed it poorly.
There is a case, one that the opposition refuses to make, that a parliamentary model of electing the president actually offers structural opportunities for a well-organised opposition.
In South Africa, the president is elected by Parliament. That system has, over time, incentivised strong party structures, coalition negotiations, and the building of broad parliamentary alliances.
It has produced competitive outcomes, most recently, the Government of National Unity (GNU) following the ANC’s loss of its majority in 2024. The key is that opposition parties in South Africa invested decades in building parliamentary presence, ideological coherence, and coalition capacity.
Zimbabwe’s opposition has done none of this. They have not built durable structures. They have not cultivated parliamentary talent systematically. They have not developed a coalition strategy.
They have built personality cults. And now, facing a constitutional model that rewards institutions over individuals, they are panicking and calling that panic a defence of democracy.
If they were serious about opposing CA3 on constitutional grounds, they would be engaging Parliament, not boycotting it. They would be submitting detailed legal briefs, not issuing press statements. They would be building the structures right now, today, that would allow them to compete in whatever constitutional framework emerges.
Instead, Chamisa is launching yet another movement, Agenda 2026, with no clear ideology, no defined membership structures, and, according to analysts, no meaningful departure from the “strategic ambiguity” that defined the structureless CCC.
As political analyst Abel Kapodogo has noted of Chamisa's approach: “Without clearly defined and communicated goals, any such movement is just a continuation of the infamous secretive and ineffective strategic ambiguity that we witnessed in the CCC.”
Zimbabwe deserves a serious opposition, one that engages seriously with constitutional questions, builds genuinely democratic internal structures, and competes on the strength of policy and organisation rather than personality and grievance.
The country’s democratic health depends on credible political competition, and no one who genuinely supports democracy should celebrate the opposition’s collapse.
But CA3’s opponents need to look honestly at what is happening. The fragmentation of the opposition is not ZANU-PF’s achievement alone, it is the opposition’s own doing. The Tshabangu crisis happened because the CCC had no constitution.
The supermajority happened because the opposition boycotted the by-elections. The current incoherence happened because leaders placed personal ambition above institutional discipline.
The Bill will almost certainly pass in Parliament. Zanu-PF has the numbers. The question for the opposition is what comes next and whether it will continue to perform outrage or finally begin the hard, unglamorous work of rebuilding.
CA3 has changed the rules of the game. The opposition’s job is not to refuse to play. It is to learn the new game, build the institutions that can compete within it, and hold power accountable through the structures available to them. That is what a serious political movement does.
Refusing to do so and calling that refusal a constitutional stand is not resistance. It is abdication.
* Karabo Ngoepe is a journalist with over 15 years of experience in political, investigative, and human interest journalism who specialises in pan-African politics with a particular interest in SADC and Global South news. He is a former CEO of Rubicon Media Group in Eswatini.
** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.