Moyo Blasts Generals Over ‘Ignorant’ Claims on One Man, One Vote

HARARE — Former cabinet minister and constitutional scholar Jonathan Moyo has strongly criticised retired Air Marshal Henry Muchena, accusing him of misrepresenting the meaning of universal adult suffrage in an attempt to oppose proposed constitutional reforms.

In a lengthy statement posted on X on March 15, Prof. Moyo argued that Muchena’s claims defending Zimbabwe’s current system of directly electing the president were historically and constitutionally incorrect.

Liberation struggle principles debated

According to Moyo, Muchena and several unnamed co-authors—described as retired generals and former senior civil servants—correctly noted that Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle was anchored on two key principles: land redistribution and universal adult suffrage, often expressed as “one man, one vote”.

However, Moyo insisted that these principles never implied the direct election of the head of state.

“Universal adult suffrage simply means every adult citizen has the right to vote without discrimination based on race, gender or property,” Moyo wrote. “It concerns who is entitled to vote, not the specific voting system used to elect leaders.”

He argued that during the early years of independence, neither the president nor the prime minister was directly elected by voters.

Indirect leadership elections after independence

Moyo said that after Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, the country implemented universal suffrage but maintained an indirect system of executive leadership selection.

Under the constitutional framework at the time, the ceremonial president, Canaan Banana, was elected by Parliament acting as an electoral college, while Robert Mugabe became prime minister as leader of the parliamentary majority.

According to Moyo, this arrangement remained in place during the 1980 and 1985 elections.

He further argued that many established democracies maintain similar systems in which citizens elect legislators rather than the executive directly.

Examples cited included the parliamentary systems of the United Kingdom and India, where prime ministers are selected by parliamentary majorities rather than through direct national votes.

Even in the United States, Moyo noted, the president is formally elected through the Electoral College rather than by a direct popular vote.

Origins of Zimbabwe’s executive presidency

Moyo traced the introduction of Zimbabwe’s directly elected executive presidency to constitutional changes following the Unity Accord between ZANU-PF and PF-ZAPU.

He said the 1987 agreement, signed by Mugabe and nationalist leader Joshua Nkomo, aimed to consolidate political power within a unified party and establish a socialist political framework.

Following the accord, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 7) Act of 1987 abolished the prime minister’s office and created the executive presidency, combining the roles of head of state, head of government and commander-in-chief.

Mugabe was subsequently installed as Zimbabwe’s first executive president on December 30, 1987, after being elected by Parliament.

Moyo argued that the later introduction of direct presidential elections in 1990 was designed to reinforce a system that anticipated the dominance of a single ruling party.

Collapse of the one-party state project

According to Moyo, several developments undermined the anticipated transition to a formal one-party state.

These included the formation of the Zimbabwe Unity Movement by former ruling party member Edgar Tekere in 1989, which provided the first significant electoral challenge to ZANU-PF.

Moyo also cited broader global changes, including the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which weakened ideological support for socialist one-party systems worldwide.

Economic reforms introduced under the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme in the early 1990s further accelerated the shift toward a multiparty political environment, he said.

Dispute over referendum call

Moyo also rejected Muchena’s call for a national referendum on the proposed Constitution Amendment No. 3 Bill.

He argued that the constitution only requires referendums for amendments affecting specific protected provisions, including the Declaration of Rights and agricultural land clauses.

“All other constitutional amendments require only a two-thirds majority in Parliament,” Moyo wrote, citing Section 328 of the constitution.

He therefore described the referendum demand as legally unfounded.

Support for proposed reforms

Moyo said the Amendment No. 3 Bill would address what he described as a longstanding constitutional imbalance created by the 1987 executive presidency.

The proposal includes shifting presidential selection to Parliament, extending the electoral cycle from five to seven years, and introducing electoral reforms, he said.

Moyo also welcomed plans to allow Zimbabweans living abroad to vote through changes to the Electoral Act.

He concluded by saying the reforms would strengthen political stability while preserving universal suffrage.

“The Bill reforms the electoral system, not individuals,” he wrote. “Individuals can only be reformed by God.”