Charles Munkuli

[Harare Opinion @HarareOpinion]

Who Should Vote?

https://t.co/DKqEyRYGBk

By Charles Munkuli

There is an old saying, often attributed to Winston Churchill, that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. Whether Churchill meant it as praise or reluctant acceptance is almost beside the point. What matters is that democracy is not beyond criticism. At times, it has produced governments that have left nations poorer, weaker and more divided than before.

After every election, the same conversation begins. We blame politicians for economic decline, corruption, unemployment and failing institutions. It is a vicious cycle. Yet there is another question we seldom ask. Could part of the problem lie in the way democracies choose those politicians?

Research on democratic backsliding has shown that countries can continue holding elections while accountability weakens, institutions lose their independence and public confidence steadily declines. We all know that elections alone do not guarantee competent government. In many African countries, electoral outcomes are often determined by large numbers of voters who have limited access to reliable information or who vote primarily on the basis of identity, historical loyalties or personalities rather than public policy.

Africa offers more than enough examples. Several countries have held regular elections while battling economic decline, institutional decay, corruption and growing public frustration. The ballot box has not always produced governments capable of delivering sustained prosperity or strong institutions.
I am not arguing against democracy. I am arguing that democracy, like every other human institution, should remain open to examination and improvement. The usual response is that voters simply need more education. Some have suggested restricting the vote to people with certain academic qualifications.

I do not find that convincing. Not at all. History gives us little reason to believe that university degrees produce better political judgement. Lawyers, economists, professors, accountants and engineers are just as capable of voting out of loyalty, ideology, resentment or personality worship as anyone else. Education broadens knowledge. It does not eliminate emotion, tribal loyalty or political bias.

I believe we have been asking the wrong question.

Instead of asking who is educated enough to vote, perhaps we should ask who bears the greatest immediate consequences of political decisions. Every citizen wants a country that works. The villager, the pensioner, the street vendor, the graduate looking for work and the company executive all have an interest in good government. The difference lies in how they experience bad government. For some, poor governance is frustrating. For others, it becomes an immediate financial reality.

When interest rates rise, borrowing costs increase overnight. When investor confidence falls, customers disappear. Inflation erodes working capital. Electricity shortages halt production. Policy uncertainty delays investment, contracts are cancelled and businesses begin shedding jobs. For those carrying the risk, these consequences are felt almost immediately. They are daily realities reflected in bank accounts, payrolls, management accounts and loan repayments.

The people I have in mind are not defined by academic qualifications, social status or job titles. They are defined by one characteristic. Their own capital is exposed to the health of the economy. Every major political decision has the potential to increase or destroy the value of what they have built. Inflation erodes their capital. Rising interest rates increase the cost of borrowing. Policy uncertainty drives away customers and investment. Failing infrastructure raises operating costs. Weak property rights place their assets at risk.

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@Chriseldalewis Sorry my reply was meant for Limukani not you, I see it went under your post by mistake. I don't think the insult was necessary.

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@matinyarare If government contracted ZASM and owes millions, please produce the contract, or any official agreement showing the engagement and the amount due. That would settle the issue far more effectively than audios and screenshots.

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@bla_bidza Ndebele and Tonga are two different languages. Mudenda is not Ndebele

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@gatshXolani @bla_bidza No such thing as a Ndebele speaking Tonga. You may just as well call all Shona speaking people in Matebeleland "Ndebele speaking Shonas"

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@matinyarare Well done for the apology and also for sticking to the requirements of law in respect of CAB3. Seems gifts have not blinded you. Indeed we need a united country!

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@MunikwaGodfrey @matinyarare The constitution has not been violated yet. Follow civilian order.

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@matinyarare I read. I am saying, military solutions are not sustainable. They have taken Africa light years backwards. You had one in 2017, and did that solve your problems?

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@matinyarare Best approach!

[Prof Jonathan Moyo @ProfJNMoyo]

WHEN NUMBERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TELL IT LIKE IT IS: No rocket science is required to explain why roughly 99 percent of the physical written submissions to Parliament on the Constitution (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026, overwhelmingly backed the Bill. It is plain common sense: Zanu PF simply did what any serious political organisation does; it mobilised its physical grassroots structures, and those structures responded in massive, disciplined numbers.

By sharp contrast, Nelson Chamisa—the very politician opposition media have spent years branding as Zimbabwe’s most popular leader—chose not to mobilise his supporters at all. Instead, he actively dissuaded and demobilised them by declaring that Zimbabwe had “no constitution to talk about.” His elitist allies, meanwhile, relied on precisely the wrong tools: viral posts from big social-media accounts of celebrated influencers that racked up hundreds of thousands of views but never translated into a single physical written submission; outdated technology of emails; headline-chasing press conferences; and divisive pastoral letters.

All of these generated noise, but zero ground presence at Parliament.

So, those who are now pretending shock or clumsily alleging that the figures were “cooked”; should answer an unavoidable and simple question: exactly where did they imagine the mountain of opposing physical written submissions was supposed to come from? Social-media impressions do not walk into Parliament. Old-fashioned emails do not queue at the clerks’ offices. Hashtags do not sign written forms.

Politics is not a popularity contest judged by headlines, social media views or retweets; it is a contest of structures and ground organisation. Zanu PF has plentiful of those structures and used them with clinical effectiveness; as the numbers now prove beyond rational dispute. Everything else is mere psychodrama. Numbers, after all, do not lie!

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@Samkelo491848 @ZizinjaAbelungu @Julius_S_Malema They did not leave with Mzilikazi. They were brought in by Cecil John Rhodes around 1900.

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

Prof, I follow the argument if this were only about amending section 95 from 5 to 7 years. But the moment the Bill says “notwithstanding section 328(7)” so incumbents can benefit despite an express constitutional safeguard, isn’t the issue no longer just term extension, but whether section 328(7) itself must effectively be changed or neutralised? If so, doesn’t section 328(9) become difficult to avoid?

[Harare Opinion @HarareOpinion]

Getting Title Deed Reform Right

https://t.co/DKqEyRYGBk

By Charles Munkuli

The modernisation of Zimbabwe’s title deed system may be necessary, but how reform is implemented matters just as much as the reform itself. Statutory Instrument 76 of 2025 raises important questions that deserve careful public discussion.

Zimbabweans are not opposed to the concept of modernisation. A large segment of the population recognises that the country cannot indefinitely depend on outdated paper systems, particularly when it comes to something as important as property ownership. In fact, many citizens would welcome a more streamlined, safer and reliable system for issuing title deeds. The reality of property fraud is difficult to ignore. Incidents of double sales have been reported over the years, and disputes involving forged title deeds are not uncommon. Individuals who have engaged in disputed property transactions understand that weaknesses in record-keeping create opportunities for malpractice. In this context, the rationale behind the new regulations relating to title deeds becomes easier to appreciate.

However, the primary concern is not whether reform is necessary. The concern lies in how it is implemented and how the burden of implementation is distributed. According to Statutory Instrument 76 of 2025, government introduced new Deeds Registries Regulations providing for the validation of existing paper title deeds before the issuance of what are termed “securitised” title deeds. These new deeds are intended to be digitally backed and incorporated into a modernised system. The stated objective is to strengthen the integrity of ownership records and reduce fraud within the property registration system.

The idea, at face value, appears sensible. The discomfort begins when one considers the practical implications for ordinary citizens. In a country where property ownership often involves detailed administrative processes and where many citizens have, over time, encountered practical challenges relating to records, documentation and compliance requirements, government has introduced a framework requiring citizens to participate in a process to validate documents that were originally issued through state processes. This has naturally caused many people to pause and ask difficult, yet entirely legitimate, questions.

If government issued title deeds in the first place, why should the burden of revalidation now rest so heavily on citizens? That question should not be dismissed as resistance to reform. It is, at its core, a governance question.
The Deeds Registry was established to maintain the integrity and accuracy of property records. Citizens purchased homes, inherited properties, paid municipal rates, settled taxes and relied on documents issued under the authority of the state. It is, therefore, understandable that many now feel they are being drawn into an administrative clean-up exercise for problems that were not of their making.

To be fair, government may reasonably argue that systems evolve. Paper records deteriorate over time, while fraud becomes increasingly sophisticated. Digitisation is therefore necessary. There is merit in that argument. Many countries have transitioned to electronic land registries for similar reasons. Zimbabwe cannot realistically remain dependent on legacy systems while much of the world moves towards secure digital registries.Even so, public policy is ultimately experienced through people’s lived realities.Consider the pensioner in Dzivaresekwa or Mufakose who has lived in the same house for more than forty years and has little familiarity with online systems. Consider scattered families attempting to regularise a deceased parent’s estate after important documents have gone missing over time. Consider Zimbabweans living abroad who already face practical difficulties relating to paperwork, powers of attorney and travelling home to resolve administrative matters.

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@NgarivhumeJ Your post is in bad taste.

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

@DrLimukaniMathe His post is in bad taste

[Charles Munkuli @CharlesMunkuli]

This is unfair to citizens. If government issued title deeds and had a Deeds Registry all these years, why must ordinary Zimbabweans suddenly rush to validate what government itself should already have records for? Why the short deadlines, costs and bureaucracy for citizens who didn’t create the backlog?

[𝑲𝒖𝒅𝒛𝒂𝒊 𝑴𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒊 @KMutisi]

All the OPPOSITION folks grumbling about Amendment No. 3 should watch this video.

@begottensun, THIS👇🏽 is the day ZANU PF got a FREE TICKET to amend the Constitution. Chamisa made it clear that Parliament is not the CCC’s priority… ZANU PF made it a priority & won the right to amend the constitution… It will VERY FOOLISH for ZANU PF to not utilise that victory they worked hard for…..

The opposition can cry all they want for a referendum, but ZANU PF owes them NOTHING…. If u lose the political game, u won’t use the back door at a later stage….

@BitiTendai stood there and said NOTHING, but today he is pretending to “defend” the Constitution… he lost that right the day he agreed to Chamisa’s strategy

[Harare Opinion @HarareOpinion]

Too many Leaders, No Opposition

https://t.co/dJY07zLIEU

By Charles Munkuli

Why must there be CDF ,DCP and NCA all at once, each with it's own leading men, it's own public identity and it's own political orbit"