When cornered, a person always finds distractions from the main issue.
There is a growing tendency in our contemporary political discourse to subject the foundational slogans of our liberation to a modern day autopsy.
While the impulse to refine our language and ensure it reflects our evolving values is noble, we must be careful not to perform a lobotomy on the very history that birthed our freedom.
The recent critiques leveled against the phrase “one man, one vote” as a vessel of patriarchal disenfranchisement fall into this trap.
By framing this historic demand as a “masculine imagination” that exerts a false superiority over women, we risk misreading the past and, more dangerously, undermining the universalist triumph that the phrase actually represents.
To understand why this discourse remains a pillar of democratic thought even in 2026, we must look beyond the literalism of the word and examine its deep-rooted philosophical and historical weight.
The critique that the term is exclusionary ignores a linguistic tradition that spans millennia, where man served as the definitive marker for the entire human species.
In its original Proto-Germanic and Old English roots, the word “mann” was gender-neutral.
It referred quite simply to a human being.
In that era, specific words existed to distinguish gender—“wer” for a male and “wif” for a female—while man remained the umbrella for the soul, the intellect, and the person.
When we speak of the history of man or the ascent of man, we are not chronicling a single gender but rather the collective journey of the human spirit.
This universal application became the bedrock of the Enlightenment and the various revolutions that shaped the modern world.
When political philosophers wrote of the “Rights of Man”, they were not drafting a document for males only.
They were asserting the rights of the species against the divine right of kings and the brutality of feudalism.
This terminology was used precisely because it represented the highest possible abstraction of an individual.
It was a term of sapience and existence.
To this day, we see this universal application in science and global achievement.
We refer to our species as “Homo sapiens”, which translates to “wise man”, and when the first human stepped onto the moon, he spoke of a giant leap for mankind.
These are not slurs against women; they are acknowledgments of our shared biological and spiritual identity.
To suggest that women are excluded from these definitions is to inadvertently suggest that they exist outside the category of the human, which is a far more dangerous exclusion than any found in a slogan.
In the context of the liberation struggle, this phrase was never an attempt to establish a “boys only” club in the halls of power.
Instead, it was a radical, explosive demand for the recognition of human agency in a system that had denied it on the basis of race.
When the sons and daughters of the soil took up arms, they were fighting against a colonial machine that used “weighted votes” to ensure that the wealth and skin color of a minority outweighed the humanity of the majority.
In that specific historical window, the word “man” functioned as a synecdoche for “humanity” or “mankind.”
It was a philosophical assertion that every individual possesses a single, equal unit of political power that no state can rightfully dilute.
The critique that this framing is “misogynistic” ignores the reality that the primary target of disenfranchisement in colonial Zimbabwe was the Black body, irrespective of gender.
The colonial administration did not just deny women the right to choose leaders; it denied the entire African population the status of being rational actors.
When the liberation movements adopted the cry of “one man, one vote,” they were not looking to replace white patriarchy with Black patriarchy.
They were looking to incinerate the legal structures that made one person’s voice count for more than another’s.
To retroactively apply 21st century gender theory to a 20th century racial liberation slogan is to ignore the strategic necessity of that era.
The phrase was a unifying spear, aimed at the heart of minority rule.
Furthermore, we must be cautious about suggesting that women were “oblivious” or “excluded” by this narrative.
To claim that the “one man, one vote” discourse is patriarchally disenfranchising is to inadvertently diminish the agency of the thousands of women who fought, bled, and died for that very principle.
The daughters of the soil who participated in the armed struggle were not fighting for a “masculine imagination.”
They were fighting for a society where the inherent dignity of the individual was the supreme law.
They understood that the destruction of the colonial franchise was the essential first step toward a broader liberation.
By characterizing the slogan as a “superficial obligation” on a single gender, we risk erasing the female combatants and activists who saw themselves as part of that “one man” unit of political power.
They knew that once the principle of “one man, one vote” was established, the internal work of refining gender equality could truly begin.
There is also a significant danger in the call to “unthink the coloniality of constitutionalism” as we approach our 46th anniversary.
While it sounds intellectually stimulating to “eject” patriarchal sentiments from our political vocabulary, we must ask what we are replacing them with.
The principle of universal suffrage is the bedrock of any liberated nation.
If we start viewing our constitutional foundations as mere colonial relics, we open the door to a dangerous form of revisionism.
The “one man, one vote” principle is not a colonial invention; it is the ultimate rejection of colonial elitism.
It is the most effective shield we have against the concentration of power in the hands of a few, whether they be men or women.
As we navigate the post constitutional amendment dispensation, our focus should be on the substance of our democracy rather than just its semantics.
We are told that we must champion “unprecedented economic liberation,” and yet such liberation is impossible without a stable, predictable, and inclusive political framework.
If we become so polarized by linguistic debates that we lose sight of the core right to vote, we play into the hands of those who would prefer a “non-voting species” of any gender.
The true violence imposed on our citizens is not found in the historical phrasing of our rights, but in any contemporary attempt to make those rights difficult to exercise.
It is also worth noting that the phrase “one man, one vote” has evolved in the global consciousness to mean “one person, one vote.”
Language is fluid, but the underlying truth remains fixed.
The struggle for equality was not a zero sum game where the sons gained at the expense of the daughters.
It was a collective heave against a mountain of oppression.
To frame our democratic course as a battle against a “misogynistic narrative” of the past risks creating new divisions where we need unity.
We should be celebrating the fact that the “one man, one vote” movement successfully broke the back of a racist oligarchy, creating the very space where we can now have these sophisticated debates about gender and inclusion.
Perhaps the most compelling reason to defend this discourse is its simplicity.
In a world of complex policy, shifting alliances, and “outward looking” democratic theories, the idea that every individual has one equal vote is a grounding truth.
It is a promise that on election day, the most powerful person in the country and the most humble citizen stand on level ground.
This is not a “false superiority complex,” but a radical equality.
If we eject this from our vocabulary in an attempt to be “liberated” from our past, we may find ourselves adrift without a moral compass.
As we celebrate 46 years of independence, let us honor the “one man, one vote” legacy for what it truly was.
It was the key that unlocked the door to our house.
Once inside, we have every right to rearrange the furniture, update the decor, and ensure every room is inclusive.
But let us not kick down the door itself simply because we dislike the metal it was forged from.
The liberation of the nation is an ongoing project, and it requires us to build upon our foundations, not to treat them as errors to be corrected.
The equality of women in our politics is a lived reality and a constitutional mandate; it does not require the destruction of the slogans that made that mandate possible.
We are a nation born of a singular, powerful idea.
Every person, one vote.
That is the only imagination—masculine, feminine, or otherwise—that can truly sustain a democratic future.
● 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
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: [email protected]
