How can an undemocratic party be expected to lead a democratic nation?

The recent expulsion of several ZANU-PF members from the ruling party raises serious concerns about the state of democracy in Zimbabwe.

Among those dismissed was Blessed Geza, a war veteran and former Central Committee member, whose only crime appears to have been his vocal opposition to attempts by some within ZANU-PF to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term beyond the constitutionally mandated two five-year limit.

Not only did he oppose the extension, but he also called for Mnangagwa to step down, citing his failure to fulfill promises, tackle corruption, and improve the livelihoods of ordinary Zimbabweans.

Predictably, his stance did not sit well with the powerful faction controlling the party, leading to his expulsion under the charge of “undermining the party and disloyalty.”

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08

He was not alone.

Others, including Gifford Gomwe, Calisto Bangu, and Kudakwashe Gopo, faced similar fates, allegedly for forming WhatsApp groups critical of the president.

ZANU-PF’s Secretary for Legal Affairs, Patrick Chinamasa, justified these expulsions by citing Section 594 of the party’s constitution.

Unfortunately, obtaining a copy of this constitution to verify the provision’s exact wording has proven difficult.

Regardless, the core issue remains unchanged: the ruling party deems it a punishable offense to criticize its leader.

Such a policy is not only undemocratic but fundamentally at odds with the principles that should guide any nation claiming to uphold democracy.

The ability to critique leaders, hold them accountable, and challenge their decisions is central to any democratic society.

This principle is not an abstract ideal but a fundamental human right.

Democracy itself was born out of resistance to authoritarian monarchies, where rulers were considered divinely appointed and beyond reproach.

In such systems, questioning the king or queen was not only treasonous but also a sin against God.

The rejection of this doctrine led to the establishment of governance systems that placed power in the hands of the people.

Leaders became servants of the electorate, answerable to the very people who put them in office.

In a genuine democracy, citizens are the ultimate authority.

They elect leaders to serve on their behalf and retain the right to question, criticize, and, if necessary, remove them from power.

A president is, in essence, a public servant, paid with taxpayers’ money and entrusted with the responsibility of governing in the best interest of the nation.

It is, therefore, absurd to suggest that citizens should be prohibited from criticizing their own employee.

How can the employer be barred from holding an employee accountable?

Yet, in Zimbabwe, laws exist that criminalize “insulting the president” or “undermining the authority of the president.”

These laws, more befitting of an autocratic monarchy than a democratic republic, should have no place in a country that claims to be governed by the people.

It is deeply troubling that ZANU-PF, the party that has ruled Zimbabwe for over four decades, operates under a system that punishes internal dissent.

If the party itself is so intolerant of criticism, how can it be expected to foster democracy at the national level?

The same oppressive tactics used to silence internal opposition within the party inevitably spill over into the governance of the country.

This explains why Zimbabwe remains a nation where expressing dissent can result in imprisonment, harassment, or worse.

The democratic space is stifled because the ruling party does not believe in democracy even within its own structures.

Leaders who fear criticism should not be in politics.

Public office, by its very nature, comes with scrutiny, debate, and, at times, harsh judgment.

No one is forced to run for political office; those who do so must be prepared to accept accountability.

Some African leaders attempt to justify their intolerance of criticism by invoking cultural arguments about “respect for elders” or “honoring leadership.”

However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

African leaders voluntarily embraced Western-style democracy, complete with elections, parliaments, and presidencies.

If they truly believed these systems were incompatible with African traditions, they should have rejected them at independence and reverted to pre-colonial governance structures, where kings, chiefs, and traditional councils ruled.

If democracy is indeed so alien, why not dismantle the presidency and hand over power to traditional leaders such as chiefs?

Zimbabwe already has an established institution of chiefs, complete with a Chiefs’ Council.

So why not entrust them with governing the country?

The truth is that these leaders have no genuine interest in African traditions; they are simply addicted to power and unwilling to be held accountable.

This obsession with power is at the root of their intolerance toward criticism.

It has nothing to do with culture or foreign influence.

Those who resist accountability do so because they view power not as a temporary mandate from the people but as a lifelong entitlement.

That is why democratic principles such as freedom of speech, political pluralism, and independent institutions are constantly under attack in Zimbabwe.

Leaders who genuinely believe in democracy do not fear public scrutiny; they welcome it.

In mature democracies, criticism is not seen as an act of rebellion but as an essential mechanism for improving governance.

Open debate fosters transparency, responsiveness, and, ultimately, better leadership.

That is why it is alarming that the ruling party in Zimbabwe explicitly prohibits criticism of its leader.

A party that cannot tolerate internal dissent will never tolerate opposition from the broader citizenry.

This is why Zimbabwe continues to witness arrests for trivial offenses such as “insulting the president.”

The very idea that a citizen can be jailed for criticizing their leader is an indictment of the country’s democratic credentials.

The president is not a monarch.

He is not a deity.

He is an elected official, and the people who put him in office have every right to hold him accountable.

There is an urgent need for widespread civic education in Zimbabwe.

Citizens must understand their rights and the true nature of democracy.

A healthy democracy is one in which people feel safe to express their opinions, challenge authority, and demand better governance without fear of persecution.

Without this, Zimbabwe will remain trapped in a cycle of repression, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and dissent is met with punishment.

The ruling party’s intolerance for criticism is not just an internal party matter; it is a reflection of a broader problem within the nation.

A party that does not respect democracy within its own structures cannot be expected to uphold democracy at the national level.

The persecution of those who speak out against the president is a direct assault on democratic principles.

As long as ZANU-PF continues to criminalize dissent, Zimbabwe will never be a true democracy.

It is not enough to hold elections every five years; democracy is about more than just voting.

It is about ensuring that citizens have the freedom to speak, question, and demand accountability from those in power.

Until that happens, Zimbabwe will remain a country ruled by fear rather than by the will of the people.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/