The central aims of this article are three-fold: first to debate whether or not Zimbabwe elections can still be held in March next year; second to challenge the idea that elections should be conducted under the current Constitution and third to suggest the way forward regarding the issue of elections.

For the past two years the Zimbabwean people were bombarded with calls for a general election to be held, first in 2011, then in 2012; all of which fell through. ZANU-PF politicians, the national public media and some misguided analysts continuously advocated for elections to be held during the aforementioned periods. However, this writer and others of similar minds argued that it was premature to go to the polls when there were insufficient conditions to do so. Events have since proved that the journey to a new Zimbabwe brought about through a new constitution is likely to be a long one. In retrospect therefore this writer feels vindicated by the events such as the current constitutional crisis, which is bubbling like stew in high places.

This article argues that it is not feasible to hold Zimbabwe general elections in March next year. Conventional wisdom is that elections are likely to be held in June 2013. It is contended that the new constitution-making has been characterised by polarised and incommensurable positions taken by the negotiating political parties.

The constitution-making negotiations have highlighted the difficulties in creating a monolithic view about the way forward for Zimbabwe's political development. Yet the production of the Parliamentary Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) new draft constitution was a hard-won achievement based on infusing public discourse with constitutional expertise.

A more in-depth examination of the debates surrounding the COPAC draft clearly reveals a growing fear on the part of the erstwhile ruling party that power is steadily and gradually dissipating from them. This explains why a number of conservative forces from both inside and outside ZANU-PF are resisting the advancement and development of democratic rights as enshrined in the COPAC draft. The new constitution was negotiated in an effort to create a Zimbabwe in which all people would be free to deliberate and develop values that will help them live more equitable lives. Rather than remain stuck in history the new constitution is embracing and allowing for some diversity and discretion in how its provisions are interpreted and implemented in different social and political contexts.

So, what are the issues at stake?

There are growing contradictions between quantitative and qualitative provisions of the COPAC draft constitution and more generally between ZANU-PF and the two MDC formations. ZANU-PF is still insisting that the party's amendments should be included in the COPAC draft. On the other hand the MDC formations have endorsed the draft without ZANU-PF amendments and will be urging the Zimbabwe electorate to vote 'Yes' during the forthcoming referendum.

The deliberations by the Second All Stakeholders' Conference seemed to have been inconclusive, preferring to refer the COPAC draft to Parliament with whatever updates that were made by conference delegates. It should be made clear that the principals to the Global Political Agreement (GPA) have neither the power nor the authority to tamper with the contents of the updated COPAC draft. Contrary to some wishful thinking of ZANU-PF leaders, the GPA articles do not provide any role for the principals to amend the COPAC draft.

Given that political parties are stalling the constitution-making process, it is highly unlikely that the harmonised elections will be held in March next year. This is largely due to the fact that political parties are constantly playing "constitutional yo-yo" at the expense of advancing the cause of democracy. The constitutional crisis is being created by politicians with sectarian discourses designed to protect their positions and is not due to any constitutional disagreements. There are some who would be politically homeless in the event of the COPAC draft being endorsed, without ZANU-PF amendments by the majority in the forthcoming referendum.

Judging by the slow pace of the constitution-making process, March next year is likely to be the month during which the referendum will be held. This is largely due to the fact that the constitutional arguments are likely to prove to be a protracted struggle of ideas.

There are some analysts who are suggesting that Zimbabwe should hold elections using the current constitution if parties in government cannot agree on the COPAC draft. Such a suggestion is as preposterous as it is based on wishful thinking. The Lancaster House Constitution has outlived its purpose and should therefore belong to the dustbin of history. The Lancaster House Constitution is characterised by patronage-related politics and has only been suitable for self-serving politicians who will have no room in a new Zimbabwe.

Another reason why the elections are unlikely to be held in March next year has to do with a possible third-party intervention should there be no agreement between parties in government over the COPAC draft. A possible President Jacob Zuma mediation over the constitutional crisis is likely to be delayed because Zuma shall be preoccupied with the leadership contest of the African National Congress which is due to hold its conference in December. Any expected mediation is likely to take place in the new year.

It is against the above background that the March elections shall be a non-event. The absence of critical reflection by analysts has led to farcical predictions about election dates. Rather than remain wedded in a world of wishful thinking and subjectivity, political observers and analysts need to be more far-sighted and objective in their assessment of political situations.

There are numerous obstacles to be overcome before elections are held in Zimbabwe. The drama of the current constitutional crisis is being driven by three parallel narratives namely the ZANU-PF, the two MDC formations and the Zuma mediation. The argument will be won eventually by the Zimbabwe electorate in the forthcoming referendum, followed by general elections beyond March next year.

Austin Chakaodza is a political scientist and is Professor at Regents College, London, UK.