Tendai Ruben Mbofana
In 2013, millions of Zimbabweans stood in long queues to vote for a new charter, one that was intended to be the ultimate shield against the “strongman” politics that had characterized our first three decades of independence.
If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com
At the heart of that hope was a clear, unambiguous commitment to term limits.
We believed we had finally chained the beast of the life presidency.
However, with the current trajectory of the Constitutional Amendment (No 3) Bill, those chains are being melted down to forge a new crown.
The message from the government is as clear as it is chilling – if a leader thinks he is performing well or simply needs more time to finish his programs, the law is no longer an obstacle; it is a suggestion.
The primary justification being peddled by the architects of this amendment is that the country needs stability and continuity to complete specific developmental visions.
We are told that the current five-year cycle is too short and that the disturbance of frequent electioneering hinders the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects.
This is a profound fallacy that treats the office of the presidency like a personal construction contract rather than a democratic mandate.
In a functional democracy, the government is a relay race.
One leader runs their leg of the journey, sets the foundation, and then hands the baton to the next person chosen by the people.
The idea that a specific individual must remain in power to see a project through to its conclusion suggests that Zimbabwe is devoid of talent beyond a single individual.
It is an insult to the collective intelligence of the nation and a regression into the personality cults of the past.
By proposing to extend presidential and parliamentary terms, the government is engaging in what can only be described as a constitutional coup.
The semantic gymnastics used by party officials to justify this are almost comical.
We hear arguments that this is not an extension but an “elongation” of the electoral cycle.
This is a distinction without a difference.
Whether you call it an extension, an elongation, or a recalibration, the end result remains the same – the incumbent stays in power longer than the law allowed when they were elected.
When a leader changes the rules of the game while the match is still in progress, the integrity of the entire competition is lost.
The danger here is not just about the immediate two-year extension that would push the next election cycle further down the road.
The real peril lies in the precedent this sets for the future.
If we accept the logic that “performing well” is a valid reason to alter the constitution, we have essentially abolished the rule of law.
Who defines “performing well”?
In the eyes of a ruling party, their leader is always performing excellently, regardless of poverty rates, the state of the hospitals, or the level of unemployment.
By tethering constitutional limits to subjective performance, we create a loophole large enough to drive a motorcade through.
If it is acceptable to add two years today because of “unfinished projects,” what prevents a future leader from adding five years tomorrow?
What prevents another from claiming that their specific vision for the next fifty years requires them to stay in power for those entire fifty years?
Are we then to expect the electoral cycle or the length of a term to be stretched to fifty years simply to accommodate a leader’s personal timeline?
Once the principle of a fixed term is broken, the floodgates are open.
We are moving toward a reality where the constitution is adjusted to fit the lifespan of the leader, rather than the leader being required to fit their ambitions within the timeline of the constitution.
If the electoral cycle can be stretched by two years on a whim, there is no logical or legal basis to prevent it from being extended by decades.
The short-term focus of some citizens is also deeply worrying.
Some may feel that two extra years is a small price to pay for perceived stability.
However stability built on the ruins of the constitution is an illusion.
True stability comes from the predictable and peaceful transfer of power.
When a leader refuses to leave at the appointed time they create a pressure cooker environment where the only way to effect change is through extra-constitutional means.
By closing the democratic door to change the government is inviting the very instability it claims to be avoiding.
Zimbabweans should not look at these proposals merely in the short-term as just a two-year extension but as an act that opens the gate wide open for future presidents to use the same reasons to extend their terms in office to even twenty or fifty years.
Zimbabweans must realize that this is not a partisan issue.
It is not about whether you like the current president or his policies.
It is about whether you believe in a Zimbabwe where the law is supreme or a Zimbabwe where the leader is supreme.
If we allow this amendment to pass we are effectively telling every future aspirant for the presidency that they do not need to worry about term limits.
We are telling them that they can simply manufacture a crisis announce a new vision and then use their majority to stay in power indefinitely.
They will simply argue that since we did the same in 2026 there is no reason they cannot do it today.
The gazetting of Amendment No 3 represents a crossroads for our nation.
One path leads to a modern democratic state where leaders come and go but institutions remain firm.
The other path leads back to the era of life presidents where the constitution is merely a piece of paper used to legitimize the entrenchment of power.
The 2013 Constitution was our collective promise to ourselves and to future generations that we would never go back to the days of one-man rule.
It is a promise we must now find the courage to keep.
We must reject the seductive lies of stability and continuity when they come at the expense of our fundamental rights.
The precedent being set today is a death warrant for Zimbabwean democracy.
If the law can be changed to suit the man then the man is no longer a servant of the people; he is their master.
We must remind those in power that unfinished business is the natural state of every government and performance is a requirement of the job and not a justification for a tenure without end.
If we do not stand up to protect the two-term limit now we may find ourselves decades from now still waiting for a vision to be completed while the same voices tell us they just need a little more time.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
COMMENTS