The removal of direct presidential elections is an unforgivable betrayal of the liberation struggle

The current discourse surrounding the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill has focused heavily on the provision to extend the presidential term.

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

While that is a significant concern, we have failed to adequately address an even more dangerous regression contained within this proposed legislation.

This is the removal of the direct election of the president by the people.

This move represents a systematic dismantling of the principle of “one man, one vote,” a right that thousands of Zimbabweans paid for with their lives.

We are witnessing an attempt to reverse the very foundation of our independence and return to a system where the masses are sidelined in the selection of their national leader.

To understand the gravity of this betrayal, we must look at the history of the struggle for the franchise in this country.

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) by Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith on November 11, 1965, was not merely a diplomatic spat with the United Kingdom.

It was a direct and violent response to the demand for majority rule.

At the time, the British government had adopted a policy known as “no independence before majority rule” (NIBMR).

Britain had already granted independence to several of its colonies, including India in 1947, Ghana in 1957, and Nigeria in 1960.

The shift toward decolonization was an acknowledgment that the era of minority rule was over.

However, the Smith regime saw this global movement as a direct threat to white minority privileges.

They chose to sever ties with the colonial master and face United Nations economic sanctions rather than grant the indigenous population the right to vote.

The UDI was a calculated measure to deny the people of Zimbabwe their fundamental right to participate in the governance of their own land.

​This refusal to grant “one man, one vote” was the primary catalyst that transformed a once peaceful nationalist movement into an armed liberation struggle.

For years, nationalists had petitioned and protested through non-violent means, only to be met with state-sponsored brutality and legislative walls.

When it became clear that the ballot was being permanently withheld, the decision was made to take up arms.

This resulted in a protracted and grueling war that lasted 15 years.

It was a period defined by immense sacrifice.

Thousands of young boys and girls abandoned their education to join the struggle in the bush.

They left behind their families and any hope of a normal life, knowing full well that they might never return.

They did not do this for a specific political party or a particular individual.

They did it for the principle of self-determination.

They fought so that every Zimbabwean, regardless of race or status, would have an equal say in who leads the country.

​The cost of this struggle was felt in every corner of the nation.

In urban centers, activists faced constant surveillance, harassment, and economic sabotage.

My own father provides a clear example of the personal toll this took on those who stood up for justice.

Even though he was a qualified teacher, he was blacklisted by the colonial regime because of his political activities.

For the first seven years of my life, from 1973 to 1980, he was largely unemployed.

The regime sought to break his spirit by stripping away his ability to fend for his family.

He was only reinstated to his profession at independence in 1980.

This was the reality for many who mobilized the masses on the ground.

They risked their careers and their freedom to ensure that future generations would not have to live under a system that ignored their voices.

​In the rural areas, the suffering was even more acute.

Villagers were caught in the crossfire of a brutal war.

Many lost their lives after being accused, sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence, of providing intelligence, shelter, or food to the freedom fighters.

The colonial regime implemented the “Keep” system, forcing people into restricted areas known as Protected Villages.

These were essentially detention camps designed to isolate the rural population from the liberation forces.

People were beaten, their livestock was seized, and their homes were destroyed.

These villagers endured this state of terror because they believed in the cause of a free Zimbabwe.

They believed that by supporting the struggle, they were securing a future where they would finally be treated as full citizens with the right to vote.

The question we must ask now is whether all those thousands of Zimbabweans died for nothing.

If we allow the direct election of the president to be removed, we are effectively telling those boys and girls who spent years in the bush that their sacrifice was in vain.

We are telling the parents who lost their careers and their ability to support their children that their struggle was pointless.

We are telling the villagers who were tortured and killed in the “Keep” system that the right they died for is negotiable.

There is no moral or legal justification for taking away the right to “one man, one vote.”

It is an inalienable right that was bought with blood.

It is not a gift from the government that can be retracted at will.

Who believes they have the authority to reverse the gains of the liberation struggle?

The current attempt to shift the election of the president away from a direct public vote is a slap in the face to every person who contributed to the birth of this nation.

It suggests that a small group of people in power believes they know better than the millions of citizens who make up this country.

This is the same elitist and exclusionary logic that Ian Smith used to justify the UDI.

The only difference is the identity of the people implementing the policy.

The result remains the same.

The disenfranchisement of the majority.

We cannot allow this to happen.

To remain silent while our fundamental rights are stripped away is to betray the legacy of those who came before us.

I personally refuse to accept a future where the president is not directly accountable to the people through a universal ballot.

If I were to allow this regression, what could I possibly say to my father when I visit his grave in Redcliff?

Could I look at the resting place of a man who suffered 15 years of professional and personal hardship for the sake of a free Zimbabwe and tell him that we decided to give it all back?

Could I tell him that we decided his sacrifice was no longer relevant?

I could never do that.

The debt we owe to the fallen and the marginalized is too great to ignore.

The principle of “one man, one vote” is the only guarantee of accountability in a democracy.

When leaders are chosen by a small group or through indirect methods, they become beholden to that group rather than the general population.

This leads to corruption, the abuse of power, and the neglect of the needs of the ordinary citizen.

The liberation struggle was fought to end exactly that kind of governance.

The proposed Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill is a move toward autocracy and away from the democratic ideals that defined our path to independence.

We must stand firm in our demand for the retention of direct presidential elections.

Anything less is a reversal of history and a desecration of the memory of those who fought for a Zimbabwe where every voice matters.

• 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