Zimbabwe's Presidential Term Debate: A Social Media Reflection on Public Sentiment and Constitutionalism

Gilbert Tinashe Zvaita & Tigere Paidamoyo Muringa

Afrika Spectrum2026https://doi.org/10.1177/00020397261430358article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

This study investigates discourse on X (formerly Twitter) surrounding President Mnangagwa's potential term extension in Zimbabwe. Using qualitative thematic analysis of 500 posts (2023–2025) and Digital Democracy Theory, it examines how competing narratives are mediated. Findings reveal predominantly oppositional discourse anchored in constitutional legality, with citizens invoking Section 91(2) as a primary tool of resistance, a form of “performative constitutionalism” driven by deep historical mistrust. Pro-extension narratives centred on developmental continuity exhibited internal contradictions, exposing intra-elite fractures and poor coordination within Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front, in contrast to the unified state propaganda observed elsewhere in Africa. Critics further contextualised the term-limit debate within broader socio-economic failures, reinforcing opposition beyond legal arguments. The study demonstrates that X embodies Digital Democracy Theory's duality: a contested arena where citizen-led constitutional defence co-exists with state-aligned narrative management, while publicly exposing critical fractures within ruling power structures.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00020397261430358

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{gilbert2026,
  title        = {{Zimbabwe's Presidential Term Debate: A Social Media Reflection on Public Sentiment and Constitutionalism}},
  author       = {Gilbert Tinashe Zvaita & Tigere Paidamoyo Muringa},
  journal      = {Afrika Spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00020397261430358},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Zimbabwe's Presidential Term Debate: A Social Media Reflection on Public Sentiment and Constitutionalism

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.