Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The recent claims made by ZANU-PF Treasurer General Patrick Chinamasa regarding the necessity of a one-party state for economic prosperity are not only intellectually dishonest but also profoundly dangerous for the future of Zimbabwe.
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
By suggesting that Africa’s underdevelopment stems from frequent changes of government and regular elections, Chinamasa is attempting to sell a fallacious narrative that stability is synonymous with the death of democracy.
His support for the Constitutional Amendment Number 3 Bill (2026), which seeks to extend presidential terms to seven years and remove universal suffrage in favor of parliamentary election of the President, is a transparent attempt to find justification for extending the current administration’s grip on power.
To use China as a paragon for this proposed authoritarian shift is a gross misreading of history and an insult to the intelligence of the Zimbabwean people.
The fundamental premise that regular elections have plunged Zimbabweans into poverty is a convenient scapegoat for a ruling elite that has failed the nation.
For decades, the narrative from the corridors of power has shifted from one external enemy to another, and now the very exercise of democratic choice is being blamed for economic stagnation.
This is patently false.
Economic prosperity is not hindered by the ballot box but by the lack of accountability that often follows when the ballot box is ignored or manipulated.
It is not the frequency of elections that creates a stop-start development path but rather the lack of institutional integrity and the presence of a political culture that prioritizes party survival over national progress.
Mr. Chinamasa’s obsession with the Chinese model conveniently ignores the timeline of China’s own development.
The People’s Republic of China introduced its one-party system in 1949, yet for over four decades, that very system did not transform the country into an economic powerhouse.
In fact, under a rigid and centrally planned one-party state, China struggled for years as a backward, agrarian, and often isolated economy.
The country faced massive humanitarian and economic disasters during the mid-twentieth century that were direct results of the absence of democratic feedback and policy flexibility.
It was only after the pragmatic policy shifts of the late 1970s and early 1980s—long after the one-party state was established—that the Chinese economy finally took off.
It is telling that China only overtook Japan as the second largest economy in the world approximately 15 years ago.
This meteoric rise was not a product of the one-party structure itself but of specific, disciplined governance reforms that the current Zimbabwean government seems determined to avoid.
If a one-party state were a magic wand for wealth, then the world would be filled with authoritarian utopias.
The reality is quite the opposite.
We can look at countries like Nicaragua, Eritrea, and Cuba, where the absence of regular, competitive elections and the concentration of power in a single party or leader have not resulted in economic miracles.
Instead, these nations often struggle with stagnation, high poverty levels, and the suppression of the very innovation required for modern growth.
Even the Soviet Union, a superpower in its time, failed to prosper and eventually collapsed under the weight of its own economic inefficiencies and lack of transparency.
These examples prove that a one-party system is not a panacea for prosperity; more often, it is a recipe for institutional decay.
What truly sets China apart from other nations is not its lack of opposition parties but a combination of pragmatic policy shifts, strategic timing, and massive scale.
These factors have been characterized by high levels of governance, a strong anti-corruption drive with severe penalties, and the efficient management of state-owned enterprises.
When the Chinese government identifies corruption, they do not offer the perpetrators promotion or protection; they apply the full and often terminal force of the law.
This zero-tolerance approach ensures that national resources are directed toward development rather than personal enrichment.
In stark contrast, the Zimbabwean government’s current trajectory is the exact opposite of the Chinese blueprint.
While China demands efficiency from its state-owned enterprises, Zimbabwe’s parastatals are largely on their knees or dead.
Ziscosteel, once a giant of regional industry, stands as a skeletal monument to mismanagement and neglect.
Where China punishes looters, Zimbabwe often appears to reward them.
The rampant and unchecked corruption within our borders has seen billions of dollars in national resources vanished through illicit financial flows and the looting of minerals.
Our key sectors, from health to education, remain chronically underfunded while a tiny elite thrives on the proceeds of state capture.
Mr. Chinamasa’s argument that electing a President via Parliament would enhance stability and avoid a “lame duck” leader is equally flimsy.
This proposal is nothing more than an attempt to insulate the presidency from the will of the people and ensure that the ruling party can maintain control without the messy requirement of winning a popular mandate.
True stability does not come from removing the people’s voice; it comes from building institutions that are stronger than the individuals who lead them.
A President should be accountable to the millions of citizens who vote, not just a caucus of parliamentarians who can be easily whipped into submission.
If the Zimbabwe government were genuine about emulating China’s growth, they would focus on the real reasons behind that success.
They would start by implementing a genuine zero-tolerance policy toward corruption that reaches into the highest offices.
They would prioritize the meritocratic management of state assets and ensure that every cent of our mineral wealth is accounted for and reinvested into vital infrastructure.
They would foster a policy environment that encourages long-term investment by respecting the rule of law rather than changing the Constitution whenever it becomes inconvenient for the incumbent.
The attempt to use the “Chinese model” as a shield for extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term is a cynical political maneuver.
It ignores the fact that China’s success was built on discipline, accountability, and a ruthless focus on national interest—qualities that are currently in short supply within the leadership of ZANU-PF.
Zimbabwe does not need a one-party state or longer terms for politicians who have already had years to prove their mettle.
We need a system where leadership is earned through performance and where the law applies equally to the powerful and the powerless.
Prosperity is a product of good governance, not the suppression of political competition.
The Zimbabwean people are not poor because they have the right to vote every five years; they are poor because their resources are stolen and their institutions are weakened by those who fear accountability.
If regular elections bred economic decay, the US, UK, Germany, and France would be basket cases.
Instead, they flourish.
Mr. Chinamasa should stop looking for excuses in the Chinese political system and start looking for solutions in the principles of integrity and transparency.
Anything less is just a desperate attempt to cling to power at the expense of a suffering nation.
- 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