- Details
- Written by: Joint Petition with Chief Ndiweni
- Category: Beyond CAB and Dictatorships
- Hits: 95
Chiefs and other traditional leaders are unelected, hereditary figures who serve as the primary local governance structure in rural areas, acting as custodians of cultural values, customs, and communal land while also performing administrative and judicial functions within their communities. In rural Zimbabwe, chiefs control land allocation and access to communal resources and resolve disputes.
Section 281(2) of the 2013 Constitution emphatically provides that traditional leaders must not be members of any political party or in any way participate in partisan politics or act in a partisan manner or further the interests of any political party. Clause 20 of CAB3 would repeal s 281(2).
However, what you may not know or appreciate, is that the Lancaster House agreement was never fully 'completed' as the petition clearly makes plain to the readers of both history and the corruption of CAB3.
Chief Ndiweni frames the present moment as the irrevocable breakdown of the Lancaster House Agreement of 21 December 1979. Industrial-scale corruption, the collapse of the rule of law, and — decisively — the current administration’s shredding of the 2013 Constitution have, in his account, nullified the settlement on which independent Zimbabwe was built. He records that the proposition of a two-state solution is not new: it was raised at Lancaster House itself by the late Paramount Chief Khayisa Ndiweni, who warned that a unitary state forced upon two historically distinct nations risked “crafting another failed African state.”
Within three years of independence, that warning was vindicated by genocide.
A Nation with a History and a Lineage
The Matabele Nation is part of the greater Nguni grouping of Southern Africa. Chief Ndiweni traces its foundation to King Mzilikazi of the Royal House Khumalo, who departed the Zulu kingdom in 1823 and, over a seventeen-year journey through what are now South Africa, Botswana and Zambia, built a nation by assimilation before establishing his kingdom between the Zambezi and the Limpopo by 1840. He was succeeded by King Lobengula, whose reign was overtaken by the discovery of gold, the fraudulent Rudd Concession, and the war with Cecil Rhodes’s British South Africa Company. Lobengula was never captured, killed or made to surrender; he disappeared into the landscape in 1893 — a fact, Chief Ndiweni argues, that has sustained the Nation’s sense that it was never truly defeated.
The Jameson Line and the Historical Two-State Reality
Central to Chief Ndiweni’s argument is that the territory was, in historical fact, two states divided by the Jameson Line — Matabeleland and Mashonaland — a division reaffirmed by the peace negotiated between the Matabele and Rhodes after the 1896 uprising. Even under colonial administration, he records, the two retained separate high courts, reserve banks, state houses, economic systems and traditional-leadership structures. The unitary state of 1980 was therefore an imposition upon a pre-existing dual reality, not a natural unit.
- Details
- Written by: Shorayi Spencer Guzha
- Category: Beyond CAB and Dictatorships
- Hits: 201
Beyond Zimbabwe's Borders: The Human Cost of Governance Failures
Any assessment of Zimbabwe's Security Council membership must also consider the experiences of millions of Zimbabweans beyond the country's borders.
For years, economic hardship, unemployment, and political uncertainty have contributed to large-scale migration from Zimbabwe to neighbouring countries, particularly South Africa. Many Zimbabweans have sought opportunities, safety, and economic stability across the Limpopo River. Yet their search for a better life has often exposed them to a different form of insecurity: xenophobia.
Recent anti-immigrant violence in South Africa has once again drawn attention to the vulnerability of foreign nationals, including Zimbabweans. Reports of attacks, displacement, intimidation, and even deaths linked to anti-migrant unrest have shocked the region and revived concerns about the protection of African migrants. South African authorities have condemned the violence, while neighbouring governments have expressed concern over the safety of their citizens.
The situation raises uncomfortable questions for both Harare and Pretoria.
For South Africa, recurring xenophobic violence challenges the country's long-standing image as a champion of African solidarity and human rights. For Zimbabwe, the continued exodus of citizens reflects unresolved domestic challenges that drive migration in the first place.
The irony is striking. Zimbabwe will soon occupy a seat on the United Nations Security Council, helping shape discussions on international peace, security, and human dignity. Yet many ordinary Zimbabweans continue to experience insecurity not in distant conflict zones but in their daily struggle for economic survival, political expression, and personal safety, whether at home or abroad.
- Details
- Written by: John C Burke
- Category: Beyond CAB and Dictatorships
- Hits: 187
Zimbabwe Deserves Better Than the Cage It Is Being Built
Why defeating CAB 3 is necessary — but not sufficient. The case for thinking beyond the bill, and beyond the system that produced it.
Beyond CAB Constitutional Reform zexit.org · May 2026
There is a question that Zimbabweans — at home and in the diaspora — must begin to ask more openly, and to answer more boldly. Not merely: how do we stop Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3? But the deeper, more consequential question that follows: what comes after?
CAB 3 must be defeated. That remains the immediate and urgent task. Every march, every petition, every statement of principled opposition to this bill is correct and necessary. What ZANU-PF is attempting — the rewriting of constitutional protections to extend its grip on power, to neutralise accountability, and to enshrine the supremacy of the party over the people — must be resisted with everything the democratic movement can bring to bear.
But resistance alone is not a destination. And opposition to a broken system — however vital — is not the same as the vision of what a repaired, reimagined Zimbabwe might look like.
The architecture of the problem
Zimbabwe's crisis is not, at its root, a crisis of the wrong people holding the right offices. It is a crisis of structure. The very architecture of the Zimbabwean state — the highly centralised, winner-takes-all, unitary model inherited from the colonial era and deepened under ZANU-PF's long dominance — makes authoritarian capture not merely possible, but almost inevitable.
When all meaningful power flows from a single centre; when provinces are administrative conveniences rather than genuine units of self-governance; when traditional leadership is co-opted rather than constitutionally protected; when the executive can reach into the judiciary, the electoral commission, and the security apparatus without meaningful obstruction — then the character of the person at the top matters far less than the character of the system itself.
"A new Zimbabwe will not be built by replacing one occupant of the same throne. It will be built by dismantling the throne, and distributing its power among the people to whom it has always belonged."
This is why the struggle cannot end with CAB 3's defeat — welcome as that would be. ZANU-PF, or its successors, would simply return with CAB 4, or CAB 5, or some new instrument of the same ambition. The structural incentives remain unchanged. The cage remains, even if its current locksmith is removed.
What an alternative looks like
Across the democratic world — and increasingly across Africa — there is growing recognition that the most resilient democracies are those that disperse power rather than concentrate it. Federal and devolved systems, far from being exotic or alien to African governance traditions, are in many respects far more consistent with how African societies have always organised themselves: through communities, through regional identities, through the legitimate authority of traditional and civic leadership at the local level.
Zimbabwe's nine provinces have distinct histories, distinct economic profiles, and — critically — distinct democratic aspirations that a unitary state headquartered in Harare has consistently failed to honour. The Matabeleland question — never honestly addressed, never properly healed — is perhaps the most visible expression of what happens when a centralised state treats the diversity of its own people as a threat rather than a strength.
There are voices — serious voices, with both constitutional grounding and grassroots legitimacy — who have begun to articulate what a different structural settlement for Zimbabwe might look like. A model in which provinces govern themselves in the matters closest to their people's lives. A model in which traditional leadership is not the client of the ruling party but the independent, constitutionally protected servant of its own communities. A model in which the checks on executive power are structural, not merely nominal — built into the system rather than dependent on the goodwill of whoever holds office.
This is not a single party's answer
It would be a mistake — and a deliberate misreading — to present what is emerging in this space as simply the platform of any one political tendency or faction. The conversation about structural alternatives to ZANU-PF's unitary dictatorship model is broader than any individual, broader than any single organisation, and deliberately so.
What is being proposed, in various forms by various voices, is not a new political party seeking to occupy the same Harare throne by different means. It is a fundamentally different answer to the question of how power should be held, distributed, and constrained in a democratic Zimbabwe. It draws on constitutional thinking, on African governance traditions, on comparative experience from federal democracies on this continent and beyond.
It is, in short, a conversation about architecture. About whether Zimbabwe rebuilds the same house that keeps falling — or whether it finally, seriously, considers building something different.
"The opposition's task is not only to be a better version of what ZANU-PF has been. It is to be a repudiation of the model itself."
Beyond CAB: a space for that conversation
This section of zexit.org — Beyond CAB — is created in that spirit. It is a space to think past the immediate crisis without losing sight of it; to hold in mind both the urgent necessity of defeating CAB 3 and the longer, harder work of imagining and building the Zimbabwe that must follow.
In the weeks and months ahead, this space will carry analysis of structural alternatives to Zimbabwe's current governance model, contributions from thinkers and activists across the diaspora and within Zimbabwe itself, and — as proposals develop — direct engagement with the constitutional questions that any serious post-ZANU settlement will need to answer.
The conversation has begun. It will not be tidy, and it will not be simple. But it is the conversation that Zimbabwe's people — forty-six years after independence — have more than earned the right to have.
zexit.org — Beyond CAB is a discussion platform for ideas on constitutional alternatives to Zimbabwe's current governance model. Articles represent the views of contributors and the broader diaspora democratic conversation.