Roaring Paper Tigers: CAB3 debate exposes opposition’s failure to turn words into action

Over the past several weeks, Zimbabwe’s Parliament has been engaged in a far-reaching process towards the passage of the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3).

I will not belabour its provisions; they are now a matter of public record. Suffice it to say that the Bill seeks to further entrench President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s personalistic rule.

If enacted, it would deepen the concentration of power in the executive, weaken constitutional safeguards, and move Zimbabwe closer to a system where institutions bend to the whims and caprices of one man rather than the rule of law.

Since debate on CAB3 commenced, broadcast live on Parliament’s social media platforms, the proceedings have attracted considerable public interest.

Zimbabweans, starved of meaningful democratic engagement, have watched closely as legislators have laid bare their positions.

Those supporting the Bill have, in many instances, offered arguments so flimsy and self-serving that they have bordered on the absurd and diabolic. They have not merely defended the indefensible; they have done so with a proselytizing zeal.

It has been a spectacle of political loyalty performed at its most theatrical, a case of singing for supper dressed up as constitutional deliberation.

On the other hand, opponents of CAB3 have delivered eloquent and persuasive speeches. Several have gone viral, catapulting their authors into social media stardom and earning admiration from citizens desperate for political leadership.

Yet somewhere between the crude and often banal pro-CAB3 submissions and the beautifully crafted rhetoric of those opposing it, a more fundamental issue is being lost.

My argument is simple. Many of those opposing CAB3 are fiddling while the Constitution burns, and, dare I say, while the country burns with it.

First, opponents of the Bill have largely failed to engage in the procedural battles that could meaningfully slow, challenge, or complicate its passage. As parliamentarians who will soon vote on the Bill, they have not seriously contested the proposed voting procedures.

A constitutional amendment of such magnitude demands a secret ballot, yet there has been no sustained effort to seek judicial intervention to compel one.

The logic is straightforward. Given the sensitivity of the vote and the immense pressure that MPs may face from party structures and state actors, a secret ballot would provide legislators with the freedom to vote according to conscience rather than coercion.

Yet those who thunder against CAB3 in parliamentary debate have shown little urgency in pursuing this avenue.

Second, there is the question of who presides over the process. The Speaker of Parliament is hardly a neutral actor in a matter of such profound political consequence.

Reasonable arguments can be made that he is an interested party and that alternative arrangements should be considered. At the very least, the issue warrants legal scrutiny.

Zimbabwe possesses some of the sharpest constitutional lawyers on the continent, yet there has been no visible effort to mount a serious legal challenge on procedural grounds.

To date, those opposed to CAB3 have largely confined their resistance to speeches.

More damning, however, is the fact that their eloquence has not been matched by politics.

Many opponents of CAB3 appear to have become addicted to the instant gratification of social media applause. They seem increasingly content with trending online while neglecting the harder and less glamorous work of political organising.

Their speeches generate likes, shares, and glowing commentary, but politics is not won through algorithms.

Most MPs opposed to the Bill represent urban and peri-urban constituencies where dissatisfaction with the ruling establishment is widespread.

They command significant constituencies and enjoy access to networks of residents’ associations, trade unions, churches, students, and civic organisations. Yet there has been little evidence of attempts to mobilise these constituencies into sustained, peaceful political action.

Where are the petitions? Where are the constituency consultations? Where are the organised demonstrations, public meetings, and coordinated acts of civic resistance? Where is the visible effort to transform public outrage into political pressure?

It is disingenuous to deliver passionate speeches against CAB3 in Parliament while making little effort to mobilise the very citizens one claims to represent.

Parliamentary debate is important, but it is not a substitute for political struggle. If anything, speeches should be the beginning of resistance, not its end.

Let me be clear. I am not arguing that MPs should stop speaking out. Far from it. Parliamentary debate matters. Publicly exposing the dangers of CAB3 matters. What I am arguing is that speeches without organising amount to little more than political theatre.

It is inconceivable that legislators who received tens of thousands of votes cannot organise even a single significant demonstration in defence of the Constitution.

It is difficult to understand how politicians who claim that CAB3 represents an existential threat to democracy can simultaneously treat resistance as a social media content strategy.

One is therefore left with uncomfortable questions. Are these MPs genuinely opposed to CAB3, or have they become convenient paper tigers, roaring loudly enough to sanitise a fundamentally illegitimate process while ensuring that nothing materially changes?

Have they unwittingly become the weak-willed opposition that CAB3 and President Mnangagwa desperately need? If not, what concrete evidence exists beyond eloquent speeches and viral clips?

Politics is not performance. Politics is organisation. Politics is mobilisation. Politics is building power.

In the final analysis, MPs are not merely debaters. They are political operatives entrusted with the responsibility of advancing the interests of those who elected them.

If they genuinely believe CAB3 threatens Zimbabwe’s constitutional order, then they must organise a real fight against it.

The current celebrity-politics approach, one that appears designed to optimise social media engagement rather than build meaningful resistance, is not an alternative to the politics of CAB3. It is merely its mirror image.

Indeed, it may be more dangerous. Whereas supporters of the Bill openly seek constitutional regression, the politics of performative opposition creates the illusion of resistance while diffusing the energy necessary to build it.

A beautiful speech may win applause. It may trend on social media. It may even secure a politician’s place in tomorrow’s headlines. But without action, it remains what it has always been: a speech.

And constitutions are not saved by speeches alone.

Pride Mkono is a political analyst. He writes here in his own capacity and can be contacted at [email protected].