Tendai Ruben Mbofana
Similarly, one of the most defining features of a democratic society is the freedom of its citizens to express themselves—especially when they are dissatisfied with the way they are governed.
It is this very essence that differentiates a dictatorship from a democracy: the assurance that the voices of the people matter, and that those in leadership are held accountable by the very citizens they purport to serve.
In any functional democracy, the right to demonstrate peacefully is not only protected but also encouraged as an expression of political participation and civic engagement.
Zimbabwe’s Constitution is crystal clear on this matter.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Section 59 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe unequivocally guarantees that every person has the right to demonstrate and to present petitions, peacefully.
This is not a privilege granted by the State.
It is a right inherently possessed by every Zimbabwean citizen, enshrined in the supreme law of the land.
And yet, in practice, the government has systematically worked to erode this right through fear-mongering, threats, and heavy-handed suppression.
The Zimbabwean government’s attitude toward demonstrations—especially those perceived as anti-government—is both deeply worrying and constitutionally offensive.
Time and again, top government officials have made it their mission to demonize and criminalize peaceful protests.
Anyone daring to organize or support such actions is branded as a “mischief-maker,” a “malcontent,” or “an anarchist” working to destabilize the country.
This sort of reckless labeling is not only unfair, but is also deliberately designed to scare ordinary citizens from exercising their fundamental freedoms.
We have heard government ministers and ruling party officials refer to protest organizers as “terrorists” or “rogue elements.”
For instance, in the wake of planned citizen protests, senior ZANU PF officials have accused organizers of being part of foreign-funded conspiracies bent on “toppling a constitutionally elected government.”
These statements are usually followed by ominous threats of arrests, heavy police deployments, and blanket bans on any planned marches.
In recent weeks, the Zimbabwean government’s reaction to planned protests on March 31st illustrates a worrying pattern of preemptively labeling demonstrations as violent and unlawful.
High-ranking officials have gone as far as threatening arrest and violence against those planning to participate.
The government has labeled these protests as illegal and attempts to destabilize the country, even before they have occurred, and has used law enforcement to issue warnings that anyone participating will face punitive action.
My question is: if those in authority always deem anti-government demonstrations illegal and unsanctioned, when will we ever see one that is recognized as legal and approved?
In all my years living in Zimbabwe, I have never witnessed a single anti-government demonstration that was approved by the authorities.
This response is part of a broader effort to discourage citizens from exercising their right to protest, undermining the very democratic principles the government is supposed to uphold.
Rather than engage with protest organizers or address the grievances being raised, the government has opted to suppress dissent through intimidation and threats.
This fear-driven narrative has been echoed by the police, who rarely approve demonstrations—especially those critical of the government.
Instead of playing a neutral role in ensuring safety and order, the police routinely issue prohibition orders, citing vague “security concerns,” and threaten arrest for anyone daring to participate.
How does such conduct reflect a government that claims to respect the constitution and democratic norms?
The most troubling part of this all is the government’s deliberate preemption of every planned demonstration as violent and chaotic—long before it has even taken place.
This practice is not just unfair; it is unconstitutional and undemocratic.
Automatically branding any anti-government demonstration as an attempt to cause “anarchy” or “destabilization” is a calculated effort to shut down democratic space.
It delegitimizes citizens’ grievances and reinforces a culture of fear that stifles public engagement in national discourse.
What makes this situation even more absurd is the selective application of this logic.
Pro-government demonstrations, no matter how disruptive or provocative, are never met with the same condemnation or restrictions.
They are allowed to proceed with full police protection.
This stark double standard exposes the true intentions of the State—not to ensure peace and order, but to insulate the ruling elite from criticism and pressure.
The tragedy of it all is that instead of encouraging citizens to express themselves peacefully—as required in a democracy—the government has chosen to suppress that very freedom.
This is a gross dereliction of duty.
If the authorities were truly committed to upholding the Constitution, they would actively educate the population about their right to demonstrate and petition the State.
They would create platforms that facilitate peaceful civic action and ensure that law enforcement plays a supportive, rather than repressive, role.
Demonstrations should be promoted and taught in Zimbabwe the same way we teach other rights—such as the right to education, to shelter, to healthcare, or to vote.
Just as we champion women’s and children’s rights, we should embrace the right to protest as a vital component of a democratic society.
People should grow up understanding that engaging in a peaceful protest is not criminal or rebellious—it is responsible citizenship.
Of course, like every right, the right to demonstrate comes with responsibilities.
The cornerstone of this right is peace.
Demonstrations must never descend into violence or destruction of property.
Citizens must be taught that peaceful engagement is the most powerful and legitimate way to demand change.
At the same time, the State must acknowledge its duty to facilitate such peaceful actions, not crush them with force.
This is where responsible leadership and civic education come in.
Authorities should not wait for people to announce protests before reacting with panic, threats, or repression.
Instead, they should engage organizers in dialogue.
Meetings between protest organizers and law enforcement should be the norm—not to discourage action, but to ensure logistical arrangements, route planning, crowd control, and the overall peaceful conduct of the event.
That is what mature democracies do.
Sadly, in Zimbabwe, the first instinct is always to suppress. To ban. To arrest. To intimidate.
This reaction betrays a State that is afraid of its own people—afraid of being held accountable, and afraid of open dialogue.
But this fear-based governance is not sustainable.
The more the State tries to silence the people, the louder the discontent will grow—sometimes erupting in unintended, spontaneous, and chaotic ways, precisely because peaceful avenues were closed.
This must change.
If Zimbabwe is to become a genuine democracy—one where the Constitution is not just a ceremonial document, but a living guide—then the right to demonstrate must be respected, protected, and promoted.
The government should not discourage citizens from participating in demonstrations.
Instead, it should teach them how to do so responsibly and peacefully.
Suppressing this right does not breed peace—it breeds resentment.
Peace comes from justice, and justice demands that the voices of the people be heard.
In the end, a government that fears protest does not trust its people.
And a government that does not trust its people has no place in a democracy.
- 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/
The post Zimbabwean authorities must defend the right to demonstrate while promoting peaceful expression of dissent appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.