Factional Fire: The Hidden Succession Battle Behind the Mnangagwa Protests
Harare – The streets of Zimbabwe’s capital are once again a theatre of tension, with heavily armed police blocking thoroughfares and stifling anti-government protests before they can even gather momentum. Yet, beneath the familiar clouds of tear gas and the ominous presence of police batons, a far more intricate and clandestine narrative is unfolding. This is not merely about quelling student activism; it is a profound exposure of the deep-seated factional infighting within the ruling ZANU-PF party, a battle for succession that threatens to redefine the nation’s political future.
Investigative insiders suggest that the extreme measures employed by the state are not solely aimed at silencing public dissent. Rather, they serve as a stark and unequivocal warning to internal rivals within the party, particularly those who might be contemplating a leadership change. The current unrest, therefore, inadvertently illuminates a fierce succession battle that is tearing through the corridors of power, a struggle with implications far beyond the immediate protests.
At the heart of this political maelstrom is President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s audacious bid to extend his term of office. His current tenure is constitutionally mandated to conclude in 2028, after which he would be ineligible to run again, having served for ten years. However, the President, it appears, harbours ambitions of serving for a total of twelve years, potentially seeking to remain in office until 2030, and perhaps even beyond. This move is encapsulated in the controversial Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3), a legislative proposal that has ignited a firestorm of opposition and exposed the deep fissures within the country’s political establishment.
For such a significant constitutional alteration to possess any semblance of legitimacy, it would, by democratic principles, necessitate a direct appeal to the populace through a referendum. Citizens ought to be afforded the opportunity to openly debate its merits in public forums and through submissions to Parliament. Those advocating for the extension of the presidential term, the removal of direct presidential elections in favour of parliamentary selection, and the myriad other changes embedded within CAB3, should be free to campaign and articulate their arguments. However, the tragic reality on the ground is that those who oppose these amendments are systematically being silenced.
The government, leveraging the power of the police force, is actively suppressing dissent. A recent notice banning the Constitutional Defence Forum (CDF) from convening in Mutare serves as a potent example of this uneven playing field. Tendai Biti, a prominent leader and convenor of the CDF, was arrested in Mutare just weeks prior to this ban and is currently out on bail for engaging in activities that ZANU-PF is permitted to undertake without hindrance every single day. This blatant disparity undermines the very foundation of a fair political process.
President Mnangagwa must recognise the perilous implications of such actions. The moment opposing voices are stifled, the legitimacy of the entire process is irrevocably compromised, rendering the law discredited. Any outcome derived from such a flawed process becomes inherently contestable and illegitimate. Had the President permitted those against his proposed amendments to engage freely, much like his supporters are doing, he could at least lay claim to fairness. As it stands, the conduct of his supporters and state security institutions in barring opposition has rendered the entire process contentious, not only among external critics but also within the ranks of ZANU-PF itself, where internal dissent simmers.
The second critical issue revolves around the constitutional prescription of a referendum for such significant changes. The President, it is widely understood, wishes to circumvent this requirement, despite the Constitution explicitly mandating it. This matter is currently before the courts, which are expected to deliver a ruling. Yet, the fundamental principle remains clear: one cannot unilaterally rewrite the rules of the game while simultaneously preventing the opposing side from speaking, nor can one bend the constitution by arbitrarily removing the necessity of a referendum.
More alarmingly, by systematically shutting down dissent, the government is inadvertently creating a pretext, a plausible justification for potential future interventions. Should elements within the military decide to intervene, they would possess a compelling argument: that they stepped in because the constitutional process was being manipulated, because citizens were denied their fundamental right to participate, because open debate was suppressed, and because a crucial referendum was blocked. In essence, the President is, by his own actions, opening the door to such a scenario.
An uncomfortable, yet undeniable, truth must be articulated and confronted: Mnangagwa is determined to push these amendments through by any means necessary. The opposition, in its current state, is largely weak, fragmented, and in many instances, compromised. It lacks the cohesive strength to effectively halt his agenda. The only individual within the system who possesses genuine leverage is Vice President General Constantine Chiwenga. If Chiwenga chooses not to act, then these amendments are, to all intents and purposes, a foregone conclusion. The military remains the sole institution with the capacity to intervene and halt this process. If it remains passive, the outcome is predetermined.
There is no utility in sugarcoating this reality. The truth must be told, so that when history is eventually written, it accurately reflects what transpired, how it occurred, and the underlying reasons. Even if Chiwenga were to successfully thwart Mnangagwa’s ambitions, Zimbabwe would, in all likelihood, remain under the dominion of ZANU-PF. It would merely represent a shift from one faction to another – from Mnangagwa’s camp to Chiwenga’s. The absence of a credible opposition alternative at present leaves citizens with a stark choice: to align with whichever ZANU-PF faction they deem more palatable.
This scenario is not without precedent. In 2017, during the military-backed intervention that ultimately led to the removal of former President Robert Mugabe, the opposition, as a political institution, largely aligned itself with the military’s actions. Those who expressed reservations, such as Tendai Biti and the late Dr. Alex Magaisa, found themselves without a viable alternative to rally behind, as the opposition leadership itself had endorsed the military coup. Urban populations were mobilised into the streets by the official opposition, their safety implicitly guaranteed by the military, owing to a shared objective. Once that objective was achieved, the system reverted to its default, anti-democratic state.
Should Mnangagwa succeed in his current endeavour, the consequences will be profound and long-lasting. The opposition, as it has been known over the past decades, faces effective obliteration. Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3, crucially, removes the direct election of the president by the people, transferring that power to Parliament. Concurrently, it systematically weakens key institutions, including those responsible for the delimitation of constituency boundaries. The outcome is not difficult to predict: areas where ZANU-PF enjoys support will likely gain more parliamentary seats, while areas traditionally supportive of the opposition will see their influence diluted.
This is not merely a discussion about the 2028 elections. If CAB3 passes, the very notion of an election in 2028 may become obsolete. The conversation shifts to 2030 and beyond, with power effectively secured for a generation, unless an extraordinary intervention occurs. This is the stark reality of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. Any alternative interpretation is either denial, deception, or mere comfort talk.
The public has an inherent right to know the truth and to comprehend the underlying dynamics driving these events. There is an unspoken, yet pervasive, reality within this debate: an ethnic dimension. Some individuals are quietly endorsing this process, driven by the belief that it favours those from their own ethnic group. Conversely, others are vehemently opposing it, perceiving it as an ethnic project designed to consolidate power within a specific demographic.
This ethnic undercurrent transcends the traditional political divides, manifesting within both ZANU-PF and the opposition. Conversations with former opposition leaders reveal a disturbing trend: some openly declare their support for the amendment, rationalising it by Mnangagwa’s ethnic origin, believing it will keep power within their group. Others oppose it precisely because they view it as a manifestation of ethnic hegemony. These arguments, while deeply regressive and absurd in a modern context, are undeniably real and exert a significant influence. To ignore them is to fundamentally misunderstand why certain individuals remain silent, why some refrain from public campaigning, and why others are more vocal than their peers.
This unfortunate reality persists in Zimbabwe. In 2026, amidst a world defined by artificial intelligence, groundbreaking technological advancements, and high-speed transportation, the nation remains ensnared in primitive ethnic calculations. It is an embarrassing truth, but one that must be confronted without equivocation.
To be unequivocally clear: if General Constantine Chiwenga remains inactive, and if the military refrains from intervention, President Emmerson Mnangagwa will, in all probability, retain power until 2030, and potentially beyond. The opposition, as it has existed for the past two decades, will effectively cease to be a meaningful force.
Zimbabweans must grasp this profound reality, for it will inevitably shape the choices they make concerning their future. The political trajectory of the next four years will dictate how individuals position their lives, their families, and their livelihoods. Therefore, it bears repeating: if Chiwenga does not intervene, and if the military does not act, this is a done deal. Mnangagwa will push through Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. Once that occurs, meaningful opposition will vanish. What will remain are token Members of Parliament from a handful of urban areas, but no genuine opposition. Even urban councils, which have largely been under opposition control for two decades, will likely be seized.
What the nation is witnessing is Zimbabwe completing a full circle, returning to a system where outcomes are predetermined, where elections are reduced to a mere formality, and where political analysis becomes redundant because the script has already been meticulously written.
Furthermore, if General Constantine Chiwenga does not act, and if the military does not intervene, and this Constitutional Amendment Bill is successfully passed, it will mark the definitive end of Chiwenga’s path to the presidency. He will not ascend to the highest office unless he or the military actively moves to halt this bill. Their fates, in this regard, are inextricably linked; they work hand in glove. If such an intervention does not materialise, then any aspirations of a Chiwenga presidency are futile. Power will remain firmly within Mnangagwa’s camp, and after him, it will simply transition to another figure from his faction.
Mark these words: if this amendment becomes law, General Constantine Chiwenga will be relieved of his duties – a development that, in journalistic parlance, would be termed a dismissal. This would signify the conclusive end of his political career.
This is the trajectory upon which Zimbabwe is currently embarked. While some may enjoy a pleasant weekend in England or a long weekend in South Africa, those in Zimbabwe face a grim reality. The days ahead are dark, and life will be economically brutal. It is imperative for citizens to prepare themselves and their families, for the road ahead will undoubtedly be arduous.
