By Staff Reporter /Agencies
Former Finance Minister Tendai Biti has launched a blistering attack on author and philosopher Joshua Maponga’s proposal to turn Zimbabwe into a monarchy, describing it as an assault on the republic driven by an “insatiable desire for power and loot”.
Maponga has called for what he terms Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 4, or CAB4, which he says should replace Zimbabwe’s democratic republic with an indigenous monarchy and install President Emmerson Mnangagwa as the country’s first king.
No formal CAB4 has been introduced in Parliament. The name is Maponga’s proposal for a future constitutional amendment following the controversial Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3.
Biti says proposal represents death of the republic
Responding on X, Biti accused the government and its allies of preparing the public for the creation of a modern “Munhumutapa Empire”.
“The regime and its odious crew of unpalatable cymbals is readying itself for CAB4 and the creation of a Munhumutapa Empire,” Biti wrote.
He described the proposal as the “highest expression of the moral vacuousness” of the Second Republic and evidence of its desire to retain political power and access to state resources.
“It signifies the death of ZANU-PF, the death of common sense and the death of the Republic,” Biti said.
“The biggest fight now on our hands is defence of the Republic. Nothing more. Nothing less.” New members who wish to receive reliable daily news updates from Ignite Media Zimbabwe should “follow” our channel on the link below:
His reference to Frantz Fanon’s The Pitfalls of National Consciousness invoked the anti-colonial thinker’s warning that post-independence elites could replace colonial rulers while using nationalism to accumulate wealth and preserve their own authority.
Maponga says democracy is unsuitable for Africa
Maponga argues that Zimbabwe should abandon liberal democracy, which he regards as an imported Western system unsuited to African societies.
His proposed model would draw authority from indigenous institutions, traditional leadership and pre-colonial systems of government. He has previously described Zimbabwe as being trapped between democracy, dictatorship and monarchy and advocated an “Indigenous Consultative Royal Democracy”.
Critics, however, say installing a sitting president as king would remove electoral accountability, institutionalise personal rule and potentially create hereditary power.
The proposal has attracted heightened attention following the government’s designation of September 15—Mnangagwa’s birthday—as Munhumutapa Day through Statutory Instrument 148 of 2026.
Although the government presents the holiday as a celebration of pre-colonial sovereignty and African heritage, opponents regard the shared date and royal language as part of a developing personality cult.
Thabani Mpofu rejects ‘symbolic imposition’
Prominent Harare lawyer Thabani Mpofu argued that celebrating the Mutapa Empire as a national identity marginalises Zimbabweans whose ancestral histories lie outside that political tradition.
“If the state recognises a Munhumutapa Day, then it must also recognise, for instance, a Mzilikazi Day and also honour the histories of all the communities that make up Zimbabwe,” Mpofu said.
He questioned what holding such celebrations in an area like Nkayi would communicate to communities that were never part of the Mutapa Empire.
“This is not national unity. It is the symbolic imposition of one historical identity on an entire country,” he said.
“Zimbabwe belongs to all its peoples, not to one ethnic group, dynasty or historical narrative. Respect for one tradition must not come at the expense of others.”
Mpofu concluded: “Your king is not my king.”
Debate exposes competing views of Zimbabwean history
An analysis by The NewsHawks argued that Zimbabwe’s different ethnic groups emerged from varied historical states and retain distinct cultural heritages.
Unlike countries such as Lesotho and Eswatini, Zimbabwe does not have one universally recognised pre-colonial monarchy around which its modern national identity is organised.
The publication said elevating the Mutapa state above other historical traditions risked constructing an ethnocentric national narrative inconsistent with Zimbabwe’s multi-ethnic character and constitutional commitment to diversity.
It argued that associating Mnangagwa’s birthday with Munhumutapa imagery blurred the boundary between a constitutional republic and a monarchy, while using revered history to strengthen contemporary political authority.
Social commentator Tendai Ruben Mbofana similarly questioned why the Mutapa Empire had been singled out for official revival when it collapsed centuries before colonisation and represents only one part of Zimbabwe’s past.
He argued that a modern republic should honour citizens through shared constitutional principles rather than resurrecting an ancient court and attaching it to a serving president.
Pro-regime supporters call holiday an act of decolonisation
Not all reactions have been hostile. Pro-government youth organisations and cultural nationalists have defended Munhumutapa Day as an expression of black emancipation and a rejection of colonial interpretations of Zimbabwean history.
Supporters say colonialism disrupted African political institutions and taught Africans to regard European governance models as inherently superior. From this perspective, recognising the Mutapa legacy restores pride in African statecraft and sovereignty.
Maponga’s intervention advances that argument further by proposing that indigenous monarchy should become a functioning system of government rather than merely a source of cultural symbolism.
His opponents counter that recovering African history does not require abolishing citizens’ right to elect and remove their leaders. They also warn that no single ancient kingdom can legitimately represent every community within present-day Zimbabwe.
The dispute has consequently moved beyond one proposed amendment. It now centres on whether Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial heritage is being reclaimed inclusively—or selectively deployed to legitimise increasingly concentrated political power.
