By Nick Ndavaningi Mangwana
There is a peculiar irony in the current wave of opposition to Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 (CAB3). Critics argue that shifting the election of the President to Parliament—creating what is essentially an electoral college—is an attack on democratic principles.
Yet, a clear-eyed look at how modern governance actually functions reveals that democracy has never been about direct popular choice for every office. In fact, representative democracy, by its very nature, is built upon a series of electoral colleges.
Those opposing CAB3 are getting entangled in their own mangled arguments, ignoring that the Constitution they claim to defend already embraces the principle of indirect election. If they are consistent, they must first explain why they have never demanded a public vote for judges.
The Judicial Contradiction: Section 180
The most glaring hole in the argument against electoral colleges lies in the appointment of our judges. The Constitution explicitly states that the people are the ultimate source of authority, yet it establishes a rigorous system of indirect selection for the judiciary.
Section 180 of the Constitution outlines the appointment process for judges. It stipulates that while the President formally appoints judges, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) must advertise positions, conduct public interviews, and submit a list of nominees.
I ask the critics: Have you ever gone to a polling station to vote for a judge?
Of course not. The entire recruitment of the bench—from the High Court to the Constitutional Court—is done by representatives. The JSC is, in effect, an electoral college. It is a body of experts (including the Chief Justice, Attorney-General, and legal practitioners) who deliberate and select on behalf of the citizenry.
If the critics of CAB3 truly believe that every public office must be filled by a direct, mass popular vote, why are they silent on Section 180? Why do they accept that a small commission chooses the guardians of the Constitution, but reject the idea that Members of Parliament (MPs)—the people’s elected representatives—should choose the President?
The Principle of Authority: Sections 88, 117, and 162
Critics often cite the Constitution to argue that “the people” must directly choose their leaders. They point to Sections 88(1), 117(1), and 162.
Let us look at the text of Section 162, which deals with judicial authority:
“Judicial authority derives from the people of Zimbabwe and is vested in the courts…”
Similarly, Section 88(1) states that executive authority “derives from the people,” and Section 117(1) states the same for legislative authority.
The critics use these sections to argue that direct election is the only legitimate form of democracy. However, they conveniently ignore that authority deriving from the people does not require direct voting. The people delegate their authority to representatives. The Constitution itself defines how that authority is exercised. In the case of judges, Section 180 defines the how (the JSC). For the Presidency, CAB3 simply redefines the how (Parliament).
More Examples of Electoral Colleges in Zimbabwe
Electoral colleges are not an aberration in Zimbabwean democracy; they are the standard method for filling key positions. We already live in a system where indirect election determines leadership.
1. The Election of Chiefs (The Council of Chiefs)
You have never voted for a Chief in a general election. Why? Because the Constitution establishes an electoral college for traditional leaders.
According to Section 283 of the Constitution, the appointment and removal of Chiefs is done by the President. However, this is not a Presidential decree. The Constitution explicitly states that this must be done “on the recommendation of the provincial assembly of Chiefs through the National Council of Chiefs.”
Furthermore, Section 285(5) states that provincial assemblies of Chiefs elect representatives to the Senate. These are electoral colleges of traditional leaders choosing who represents them in higher office. The principle of indirect representation is baked into the highest law of the land regarding our traditional institutions.
2. The Election of Mayors (The Council as College)
Perhaps the most direct analogy to CAB3 is how we choose our mayors. Have you ever voted directly for the Mayor of your city or town?
In most cases, the answer is no. Section 277(2) of the Constitution states that elections of mayors “must be held at the first sitting of the councils concerned following a general election.”
In other words, you vote for your local councillor. Those councillors then sit together as a council (an electoral college) and vote to select the Mayor from among themselves. The Mayor is not directly elected by the entire city population in a separate mayoral race (in the standard model). A small body of representatives—just like Parliament—chooses the executive mayor.
If it is democratic for 30 or 50 councillors to choose a Mayor for a city of millions, why is it undemocratic for 270 or 350 MPs to choose a President for the whole nation?
The American Precedent: The Most Famous Electoral College
International critics of CAB3 often hold up the United States as a model democracy. Yet, they conveniently ignore that the United States has never, in its over 200-year history, elected a President by a direct popular vote.
The US uses the Electoral College, where citizens vote for “electors” who then cast the binding votes for President. A candidate can win the popular vote but lose the election—as happened in 2000 (Al Gore vs. George W. Bush) and again in 2016 (Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump).
The American system was specifically designed to prevent direct “mob rule” and to ensure that the President is chosen by a deliberative body of representatives. If the world’s oldest continuous democracy functions perfectly well with an electoral college for its highest office, why should Zimbabwe be any different?
Conclusion
The opposition to CAB3 collapses under its own weight. They claim to defend the “will of the people,” but ignore that the people have already spoken by electing the MPs who will sit in this electoral college. They cite Sections 88, 117, and 162 to claim that “the people” must decide, but they ignore Sections 180, 277, and 283, which explicitly place the actual selection of leaders in the hands of representative bodies like the JSC, the Council of Chiefs, and Local Government Councils.
You cannot argue that an electoral college destroys democracy while simultaneously accepting that judges are chosen by a commission, Chiefs are chosen by assemblies, Mayors are chosen by councils, and the American President is chosen by electors. Consistency demands that we either scrap the entire Constitution regarding appointments—including Section 180—or we accept that representative selection is the natural, mature evolution of democracy.
The critics aren’t defending democracy; they are simply afraid of losing the ability to dispute election results. It is time to stop the mangled logic and embrace the electoral college as the constitutional, democratic mechanism it was always meant to be.