Zimbabwe opposition fears of 'ZANU-fication'

A motion to establish a legal framework for a National Ideology in Zimbabwe has sparked heated debate in Parliament, exposing deep divisions between the ruling ZANU-PF party and opposition legislators. While proponents argue the move will strengthen patriotism and national identity, opposition MPs warn it risks suppressing democratic freedoms and entrenching party dominance.

The motion was tabled by ZANU-PF Member of Parliament Joseph Mapiki, who called for a national ideology to be adopted across Zimbabwean society. Mapiki described the initiative as a way to embed patriotism and Zimbabwean identity into the fabric of the nation.

However, opposition lawmakers swiftly condemned the proposal as a veiled attempt to enforce ideological conformity aligned with ZANU-PF interests, a process they have labelled the "ZANU-fication" of the state.

Speaking during the debate, Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) MP Lynnette Karenyi-Kore argued that the proposed law threatens constitutional freedoms. "Our Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, opinion, and expression," Karenyi-Kore said. "To enforce patriotism legally would infringe upon these basic rights, Madam Speaker. Creating a legal framework compelling ideological loyalty undermines democracy and pluralism, which thrive on diversity of opinion."

She further cautioned against the dangers of institutionalising ideology. "History has shown that when states begin controlling ideology, it often leads to abuse, censorship, and suppression of dissent," Karenyi-Kore added, warning of the risk of the law being weaponised against critics of the government.

The ruling party is seeking to formalise the ideological school system it has long maintained internally. ZANU-PF has previously proposed enrolling civil servants in the Herbert Chitepo School of Ideology, and under the new motion, the national ideology would also be integrated into the education curriculum, with patriotism emphasized from primary through tertiary levels.

Opposition CCC legislator Gladys Hlatywayo echoed concerns that the motion would serve party interests rather than the nation's. "Terms such as ‘national interest' are often euphemisms for advancing the ruling party's agenda or protecting the ruling elite," she said. "Legislating patriotism risks legislating the ZANU-fication of the state."

Hlatywayo warned that the motion could erode essential civil liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly, and association, all enshrined in Zimbabwe's Bill of Rights. "These freedoms must be protected, not eroded by opaque and divisive laws passed under the guise of patriotism," she said.

She also highlighted the chilling effect the motion might have on public discourse. "Open and honest debate is crucial to democratic development, yet this proposal could discourage it out of fear," Hlatywayo said.

The motion's progression remains uncertain amid the starkly contrasting views within Parliament, reflecting broader national tensions over governance, political freedoms, and the role of patriotism in Zimbabwe's future.