Mnangagwa regime's intolerance to demonstrations is what threatens peace and stability in Zimbabwe

Democracy in Zimbabwe is now in the intensive care unit!

In any genuine democracy, demonstrations are a normal and indispensable part of life.

They are a visible, collective, and powerful expression of the people's voice - often the only way to communicate dissatisfaction or rally support for a cause.

Across democratic societies, street protests, marches, and rallies are recognized not as threats to peace but as signs of a healthy and functioning democracy.

Take the United Kingdom, for example.

On average, around 2,500 demonstrations are held each year, ranging from small-scale protests to large, city-wide events.

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

In France, the numbers are even more staggering, with more than 10,000 protests annually, many of them organized by labor unions, civil society, and political movements.

While it is true that some of these protests can occasionally turn violent - such as the "Yellow Vest" protests in France or anti-lockdown demonstrations in the UK - these instances are exceptions rather than the norm.

The overwhelming majority of these demonstrations proceed peacefully, with the active involvement of law enforcement to ensure order and protect both demonstrators and non-participants alike.

These democratic societies understand that the right to demonstrate is safeguarded by their constitutions.

It is a pillar of freedom of expression and association.

Citizens come together to march, chant, sing, and display placards - not because they are anarchists or enemies of the state, but because they are participating in the democratic process.

Some demonstrate to voice grievances over poor governance or economic hardships, while others march in solidarity for social justice, climate action, or minority rights.

Regardless of the cause, this act of public assembly is not only tolerated but also protected - as it should be in any democratic nation.

This is where Zimbabwe's situation becomes deeply troubling.

The country's 2013 Constitution, under Section 59, guarantees every citizen the right to demonstrate and petition peacefully.

Yet in practice, this right has been reduced to ink on paper - observed more in its breach than in its application.

Since President Emmerson Mnangagwa assumed power in the 2017 military coup d'état that ousted Robert Mugabe, not a single anti-government demonstration has been sanctioned.

Every attempt by citizens to express discontent through peaceful protest has been met with prohibition, threats, and brute force.

The Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), armed with the draconian Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA), routinely blocks protest notifications from civil society organizations, trade unions, opposition parties, and concerned citizens.

These bans are often issued without evidence, citing vague threats to national security, public order, or peace.

Each time, the narrative is the same: that those planning demonstrations are "troublemakers" plotting chaos and anarchy.

Yet never is concrete proof provided to justify these claims.

The mere intention to protest is now equated with criminality in Zimbabwe.

So, one must ask: why even retain Section 59 in the Constitution if, in practice, the government has outlawed demonstrations?

Why not be honest with the world and officially criminalize all protests, instead of this farcical pretense of democracy?

Is this duplicity simply designed to mislead the international community into believing that Zimbabwe respects human rights and the rule of law?

A true democracy does not fear protests - it facilitates them.

When demonstrators notify the police of an upcoming event, the role of law enforcement should be to coordinate logistics, manage traffic, and ensure the safety of all citizens.

Their job is not to intimidate protestors, deny them their constitutional rights, or act as enforcers of ruling party interests.

But in Zimbabwe, the opposite has become the norm.

As we approach March 31st, calls for mass demonstrations led by war veteran Blessed Geza have been met with growing threats from the Mnangagwa regime.

Instead of engaging with the grievances raised by citizens - centered on economic hardships, poor service delivery, and corruption - the state has mobilized heavily armed police units in cities like Harare, not to protect but to intimidate.

Already, citizens are being warned against participation, with the chilling presence of riot police patrolling neighborhoods and strategic locations.

Were Zimbabwe a true democracy, this would have been a moment for the government to reassure its citizens that their rights were protected.

Instead of deploying force, it should be educating the public on how to demonstrate peacefully, encouraging responsible civic participation, and urging respect for those who choose not to protest.

But that would require a government that is confident in its legitimacy and unafraid of dissent.

Even more alarming are the recent declarations by overzealous ZANU-PF youth leaders who have pledged to "prevent" the planned demonstrations.

This begs the question: how exactly do they intend to prevent them?

Should peaceful Zimbabweans choose to march in protest, will these youths confront them physically?

Is the ruling party now outsourcing state violence to its supporters?

Such threats, if acted upon, would only serve to ignite violence - and in such a scenario, the blame would lie squarely on those who obstructed a lawful and peaceful protest.

In any rational society, these youth leaders would already have been summoned by law enforcement and cautioned against interfering with the constitutional rights of citizens.

Their rhetoric is not only dangerous but itself a threat to public peace and stability.

In truth, the risk of violence during demonstrations in Zimbabwe does not stem from the protestors.

It emanates from the state and its proxies, who refuse to allow the people to freely air their grievances.

This is both shortsighted and dangerous.

When people are denied peaceful avenues to express discontent, frustrations inevitably build up - until one day, they erupt in ways that are far more difficult to contain.

It is a mark of wisdom, not weakness, for a government to allow citizens to "blow off steam."

Peaceful demonstrations offer precisely this opportunity.

They are safety valves in a pressure cooker society.

The longer people are forced into silence, the greater the risk that peace will eventually give way to chaos.

Ironically, by banning demonstrations under the guise of maintaining peace, the Mnangagwa regime is sowing the very seeds of instability.

The real threat to Zimbabwe's peace is not the protestor chanting in the street - but the government official who sends police trucks to crush that chant.

Ultimately, only a government that is insecure, illegitimate, or out of touch with its people fears demonstrations.

In Zimbabwe, the state's intolerance of protests reveals far more about its own fragility than It does about any supposed threat from protestors.

Until this changes, the path to genuine peace and stability will remain obstructed - not by those seeking to march for their rights, but by those who are determined to silence them.

The world must not be fooled.

Democracy cannot be declared - it must be demonstrated.

And in Zimbabwe today, the loudest voices are those being silenced.

©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/