Tendai Ruben Mbofana
However, we as the people of Zimbabwe should remain just as resolute in our objection to the flagrant mutilation of our country’s supreme law.
The citizens of Zimbabwe, who overwhelmingly voted for this sacrosanct document in 2013, are the custodians and guardians of our Constitution.
We should jealously safeguard it from those seeking to bastardize the foundation and democratic principles on which we all agreed our country should be based.
During the constitution-making consultation process, one of the main issues we all insisted upon was presidential term limits, specifically restricted to two five-year terms.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
This was and still is an undebatable tenet on which we should never compromise.
We all need to remember why countries have presidential term limits.
Heads of state are not forced to step down at the end of their constitutional limits because they failed to deliver on their mandate.
Presidents are not compelled to leave office after their second and fial term because they were bad leaders. No.
A leader regarded as having failed in his role is normally pushed ou of office through the electoral process.
In other words, elections are the process in which a bad leader is forced to step down.
That is their primary function—to allow the people to assess leadership and make a decision based on performance, competence, and policy direction.
Constitutional term limits serve a totally different purpose.
They are not there to determine who was a good or bad leader.
They are there to guarantee and safeguard democracy.
One of the fundamental principles behind presidential term limits is the prevention of the excessive accumulation of power.
In most cases, long-serving leaders use their prolonged stay in office to consolidate authority, erode institutional independence, and weaken democratic structures, thereby entrenching themselves as de facto autocrats.
Even in situations where a leader starts off as benevolent, the temptation of absolute power often leads to a system where democracy exists only in name while real power remains in the hands of a single individual and their inner circle.
Another key reason for term limits is the promotion of fresh leadership, innovation, and new ideas.
No matter how good a leader is, allowing them to stay indefinitely discourages new political actors from emerging, limits the diversity of governance approaches, and stifles democratic competition.
Term limits ensure that political spaces remain open and that citizens are not held hostage by one leader who, through a combination of state resources, political patronage, and coercion, becomes impossible to remove.
Furthermore, term limits protect a country from the dangers of personalization of power, where a nation’s progress is tied to one individual rather than a system of governance.
This is the fallacy that Mnangagwa’s supporters are trying to peddle—that Zimbabwe cannot function without him.
This is the same justification used by long-serving dictators like Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and Cameroon’s Paul Biya, who have spent decades in office, not necessarily because they are indispensable, but because they have created a political environment where any opposition is crushed, and democratic institutions are weakened.
As such, whether a president was the best to have ever walked the earth or the worst human being ever created, constitutional term limits have absolutely nothing to do with that.
As already mentioned, that is the role of elections.
In so doing, even if Mnangagwa had been the greatest president in Africa, this would still not justify extending his term beyond the constitutional two five-year limits.
Even if Mnangagwa had turned every Zimbabwean into a millionaire due to his supposed exceptional leadership, he still would have had to leave office in 2028.
That is why even some of the world’s most revered leaders in countries with presidential term limits have faithfully adhered to these regulations, irrespective of their popularity with their people.
For instance, former U.S. President Barack Obama was arguably one of the most charismatic and popular leaders of his time.
However, despite calls from some of his supporters to consider an extension beyond his two terms, he upheld the U.S. Constitution and stepped down in 2017.
Similarly, Nelson Mandela, despite his overwhelming global admiration, chose to serve only one term as South Africa’s president, setting a powerful example of leadership that values institutional stability over personal ambition.
Even when a leader is widely regarded as competent and visionary, the law remains the law.
This is what ensures a country does not fall into the trap of individual rule, where leadership becomes synonymous with one person rather than a governing system.
This is all about protecting and promoting democracy.
Term limits are not a measure of a president’s performance.
That is why it would never make sense for Zimbabwe to push for the reduction of the presidential term limit—maybe to a three-year term—simply because we wanted Mnangagwa out on account of the unimaginable poverty his regime has inflicted upon ordinary Zimbabweans.
Despite Mnangagwa presiding over a rabidly corrupt administration that has overseen the looting of national resources and plunged over 70% of the population into poverty, no one has called for the presidential term to be reduced so that he leaves power in 2026.
The Constitution cannot be tinkered with for the purpose of either promoting or demoting a specific leader.
That is not the role of the supreme law of the land.
If we allow this, then we will have not only failed the nation but also set a very bad precedent.
From then onwards, the Constitution will be changed to suit future presidents in Zimbabwe.
I once gave an example.
If we allow this “ED 2030 campaign” to succeed, what will happen if the next president, say in 2030, declares his own “Vision 2050”?
Are we then to further amend the Constitution to allow him to serve for the next 20 years so that he “sees through his vision”?
It just wouldn’t make any sense at all.
The people of Zimbabwe have to resist and reject this push to manipulate our sacrosanct supreme law, especially to serve the power ambitions of only one man.
This should never be allowed to happen.
If we allow this to succeed, then we would have failed not just democracy but future generations who will have to deal with a country where the Constitution can be changed to suit a leader’s selfish desires.
Those who love Mnangagwa and believe he is doing a fantastic job have already shown their support for him during the 2018 and 2023 elections.
What more do they want?
The Constitution is not an instrument of personal ambition.
It is not a tool to be modified to accommodate the political interests of the moment.
It is a long-term framework meant to protect Zimbabwe from the excesses of those in power.
If Mnangagwa truly cares about Zimbabwe, he should be the first to defend constitutionalism rather than entertain those pushing for an undemocratic extension of his rule.
He should follow the examples of leaders who upheld democracy rather than those who manipulated the system to cling to power.
History will judge this moment.
Will Zimbabwe stand firm in defense of its Constitution, or will it succumb to the selfish desires of a few power-hungry individuals?
The answer lies with us, the people.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +26715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/