Tendai Ruben Mbofana
Yesterday, the nation was treated to a familiar performance of political theatre as ZANU-PF Central Committee member and prominent tenderpreneur Kudakwashe Tagwirei addressed a gathering of ZANU-PF supporters.
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
His message was as predictable as it was patronizing.
He claimed that the decision to extend the presidential term from five to seven years—a period he curiously referred to as election cycles—was a calculated move to strip away the toxicity and counter-developmental nature of a five-year term.
According to Tagwirei, the current constitutional framework keeps the nation in a perpetual state of election mode, preventing any meaningful focus on national development.
This narrative is not a solitary outburst.
It has become the primary justification propagated by loyalists of President Emmerson Mnangagwa to support the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill.
However, when one peels back the layers of this rhetoric, a glaring vacuum of logic and evidence is revealed.
The first and most fundamental question that remains unanswered by the proponents of this amendment is simple.
What scientific or provable evidence exists to support the claim that a seven-year election cycle is inherently less toxic than a five-year one?
In every other facet of organized society, significant age or time-based benchmarks are derived from rigorous research and empirical data.
When the world generally agrees that 18 years is the appropriate age for a person to vote, marry, or consume alcohol, that conclusion is not plucked from the sky.
It is rooted in decades of psychological studies, biological research, and sociological observations regarding human maturity and cognitive development.
While some nations may set this age at 21, they do so based on their own sound scientific and psychological justifications.
In contrast, the sudden discovery that seven years is the magic number for national stability in Zimbabwe appears to be based on nothing more than political convenience.
Where are the peer-reviewed studies?
Where is the comparative analysis of regional governance that proves an extra two years in office magically transforms a partisan environment into a developmental one?
There is no such evidence because the claim is a fallacy.
The fact that a paltry thirteen countries in the entire world have a seven-year presidential term limit, with most being ceremonial roles, speaks volumes.
The number seven has not been reached through a desire for efficiency but through a desire for longevity.
To suggest that a calendar change can fix a cultural and political crisis is to treat a deep-seated infection with a change of clothes.
The reality that those in power refuse to acknowledge is that the toxicity and perpetual election mode witnessed in Zimbabwe are never functions of a short election cycle.
If five years were the problem, then the most developed and stable democracies in the world would be in a state of constant collapse, as many of them operate on four or five-year mandates.
The toxicity in Zimbabwe is a direct consequence of the political immaturity of those who occupy the seats of power.
It stems from a mindset that views anyone with a differing opinion not as a fellow citizen with a competing vision, but as an enemy of the state who must be hated, attacked, and crushed.
Opponents of the regime are frequently treated with a level of brutality that belongs in a dark chapter of history rather than a modern republic.
They are physically assaulted, persecuted through the strategic use of the legal system, and barred from engaging in the very civic activities that a constitution is supposed to protect.
It is those in power, consumed by the fear of losing their grip on the levers of the state, who generate the very toxicity they now claim to be legislating against.
They are the architects of the perpetual election mode.
By ensuring that voices of dissent are stifled and that every national conversation is filtered through the lens of party loyalty, they ensure that the nation never moves beyond the tension of a campaign.
A glaring example of this hypocrisy is currently unfolding before our eyes.
Zimbabwe held an election in 2023.
Under any normal administration focused on national development, the subsequent years would be dedicated to policy implementation, infrastructure building, and economic stabilization.
Instead, almost from the moment the 2023 results were announced, the ruling elite became obsessed with the “2030 ED anenge achiripo” campaign.
For the past nearly three years, the machinery of the state and the ruling party has been preoccupied with extending the president’s term.
If we look at the timeline, over half of the current presidential term has been spent campaigning for the incumbent to remain in office for two more years after his current term expires in 2028.
This is the definition of a perpetual election mode, and it was not created by the five-year constitutional provision.
It was created by a leadership that refuses to govern without simultaneously campaigning for its own permanence.
So, who is truly to blame for the lack of focus on development?
It is not the constitution that has failed the people, but the politicians who treat the constitution as a flexible barrier to their personal ambitions.
The suppression of debate regarding these very amendments further illustrates the point.
Instead of allowing the nation to maturely discuss changes that affect every citizen, the regime has intensified its campaign of persecution.
Just a few days ago, the arrest of leading lawyer and opposition activist Tendai Biti in Mutare served as a chilling reminder of the state’s intolerance.
Biti and members of the Constitution Defenders Forum were doing nothing more than mobilizing citizens to discuss the implications of the Amendment Bill.
Yet, he was detained and only released on bail under stringent conditions that specifically bar him from convening similar gatherings.
This occurred in the wake of the savage attack on Professor Lovemore Madhuku at his National Constitutional Assembly offices.
That such a prominent legal mind and political leader could be attacked during a private meeting speaks volumes about the environment the regime has cultivated.
Furthermore, various meetings meant to provide a platform for public debate on these constitutional amendments have been systematically barred by the police.
When the state uses its monopoly on force to prevent the people from talking about the laws that govern them, it is the state that is generating toxicity.
How can anyone honestly believe that this environment will change simply because elections are moved to a seven-year cycle?
The duration of the term is irrelevant if the underlying culture of intolerance remains.
If elections were held every ten years or every twenty years, the ruling elite would spend that entire duration crashing and decimating any opposing voices.
The toxicity would not evaporate; it would simply be given more time to settle and harden.
A longer term only provides a longer window for the unchecked consolidation of power and the further entrenchment of a system that serves the few at the expense of the many.
Ultimately, the push for extending the terms of the president and parliament has absolutely nothing to do with national development or the welfare of the Zimbabwean people.
It is a project of power greed.
It is about a ruling clique that wants to ensure its hold on national resources remains undisputed for as long as possible.
While millions of Zimbabweans sink deeper into poverty, struggling to find clean water, reliable electricity, or affordable food, the elite are busy rearranging the legal furniture to suit their comfort.
They speak of development while they practice extraction.
They speak of peace while they unleash violence on those who ask questions.
No amount of rhetorical gymnastics or baseless claims about election cycles can hide the truth that this amendment is an act of political self-preservation, not a service to the 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