THE security of Zimbabwe as a nation concerns the safety of Zimbabweans from outside and inside threats.
When Africans say, “Zimbabweans,” they mean vana vevhu or Madzimbahwe.
That means children of the soil whose ancestry is in Zimbabwe and whose heritage is Zimbabwe.
Vana vevhu are not citizens of Zimbabwe. They belong to Zimbabwe.
They have their roots firmly anchored and deep in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe belongs to them. They are the ones who called Zimbabwe, “Zimbabwe.”
They are the ones who called themselves Madzimbahwe and named Zimbabwe after themselves as children and heirs of the soil and land of Zimbabwe.
There can never be Zimbabwe without them. Zimbabwe cannot be Zimbabwe without them. It was called Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland when vana vevhu or Zimbabweans were dispossessed of it by Rhodesians through colonialism.
Rhodesians were not and are not vana vevhu or Zimbabweans.
They are not Madzimbahwe or heirs of Zimbabwe.
If they were, they would have retained the name Zimbabwe and not changed it to Rhodesia after Rhodes who colonised it whose ancestry and heritage is rightfully in Britain. If whites or Rhodesians were vana vevhu or Madzimbahwe or Zimbabweans, they would not have named the farms, towns, streets, schools, suburbs and townships they built on the soils of Zimbabwe: Little England, Salisbury, Hartley, Norton, Fort Victoria, Marlborough, Borrowdale, Lord Malvern, Sir Godfrey Huggins, Hampshire Estates and Prince Edward.
If whites or Rhodesians were indeed vana vevhu or Madzimbahwe or Zimbabweans, they would not have baptised vana vevhu or Madzimbahwe with names of white ancestors as if we were children of Europe and America.
They would not have destroyed the religions, civilisations and cultures and values of vana vevhu or Madzimbahwe or Zimbabweans and replaced them with the civilisations, religions and cultures and values of white people in Europe and America.   
Vana vevhu or Zimbabweans have their roots firmly anchored in the soils of Zimbabwe. They live their lives rooted in Zimbabwe. They die in defense of Zimbabwe, for Zimbabwe and in Zimbabwe as heirs of Zimbabwe. They cannot be anything else, but Zimbabweans. They have nowhere else to go and cannot run away from the soils of Zimbabwe when there is war or hunger or sanctions imposed in Zimbabwe, against Zimbabweans as vana vevhu and vene vevhu.
But the Constitution of Zimbabwe says a person can be an American and Zimbabwean at the same time; or an Australian and Zimbabwean at the same time; or a British and Zimbabwean at the same time.
This means that a person can be an heir of another country or have an ancestry of another country and also be an heir of the wealth and heritage of Zimbabwe.
And when there is a war or famine or sanctions in Zimbabwe such a person has elsewhere to go and does not have to die in Zimbabwe, for Zimbabwe.
When countries where such persons have their roots and ancestry wage wars or impose illegal economic sanctions against Zimbabweans for repossessing their land from whites and carrying out the Land Reform Programme, there is nothing in the Zimbabwean Constitution that can stop such people or whites to join the countries of their origin and fight against Zimbabwe and still retain their citizenships as Zimbabweans.
And yet again the Zimbabwean Constitution says such persons should also be included in the Defence Forces of Zimbabwe and entrusted with the security of Zimbabwe as a nation.
For instance, Section 207 (3) of the Zimbabwean Constitution categorically says “Membership of the security services must reflect the diversity of the people of Zimbabwe” where “diversity” and “people of Zimbabwe” include those who are citizens of Zimbabwe and also of other countries in Europe, America or anywhere in the world.
The questions to ask the authors of the Zimbabwean Constitution on behalf of vana vevhu as vene vevhu and heirs of the land of Zimbabwe is: What exactly is the intention of requiring people with dual citizenship into the Zimbabwean Defence Forces and entrust them with the security of our nation when they have other nations to belong to and that demand their loyalties and services which may be against the interests of our own nation?
What good is there in dual citizenship for vana vevhu as vene vevhu? These questions are rhetorical. The purpose for asking them is to show vana vevhu as vene vevhu how their Constitution opens the door wide for their enemies to come in and destabilise us and conquer us from within and, most importantly, live among us and make nonsense of the gains and sacrifices of our liberation struggles from them and against them.
The need to overhaul the Zimbabwe Constitution is serious and urgent or we shall perish as Zimbabweans and vene vevhu.