Tendai Ruben Mbofana
In an interview scheduled to air on state media, President Emmerson Mnangagwa, when asked if signing the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No. 3 Act, 2026, was one of his most difficult decisions, retreated to a classic defense.
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
Every decision is difficult, he claimed, but his actions were guided solely by what is “best for the country and my people.”
It is a well-worn narrative, but in the wake of a constitutional amendment that effectively prolongs his stay in office, one must look past the carefully staged sincerity.
Does the president genuinely believe that extending his own tenure is a selfless act of national service?
To the skeptical observer, this looks less like a painful sacrifice for the common good and more like a textbook power grab, beautifully packaged in the colorful paper of democratic benevolence.
History shows us that “the nation” and “the people” are arguably the most abused concepts in human civilization.
From antiquity to the modern era, every leader seeking to entrench their power has done so under the guise of collective necessity.
Even the twentieth century’s most ruthless dictators justified aggression and domestic suppression by claiming to protect their populace.
Adolf Hitler himself orchestrated egregious genocide and imperial invasions under the exact same pretext of preserving the Aryan people and acting for the best of the Reich.
While the contexts differ, the underlying mechanism remains identical: personal ambition is rebranded as a historic duty.
In Zimbabwe, this disingenuous narrative has reached its zenith.
By extending the terms of both the presidency and parliament by an additional two years, those in power have sent a clear message.
They seemingly view themselves as the alpha and omega of the nation’s destiny, operating under the arrogant assumption that true development cannot happen without them.
It is the height of hubris to imply that an entire nation of millions would lose its way if a specific group of politicians is not permitted to bypass established democratic boundaries.
If this prolonged tenure is truly what is “best for the country,” we must look at the actual legacy of the self-styled Second Republic over the past nine years.
The economic reality on the ground tells a story entirely detached from state media talking points.
In 2017, extreme poverty—defined as those surviving on less than $2.15 a day—stood at a distressing 30 percent.
Today, that figure has climbed to a shocking 40 percent of the population.
Similarly, lower-middle poverty, measured at the $3.65-a-day threshold, has spiked from 53.5 percent in 2017 to a staggering 64.5 percent today.
Upper-middle poverty, at the $6.85-a-day mark, now hovers at a near-total 85 percent.
When nearly two-thirds of a population is trapped below the poverty line, claims of governance being “best for the people” ring hollow.
The state often points to macroeconomic growth rates or weaponizes basic infrastructure fixes, masquerading resurfaced highways and newly drilled boreholes as major developmental milestones.
Yet, these cosmetic developments do little to alter the material reality of ordinary citizens who have been pushed into street vending and precarious backyard survival strategies.
A country cannot be said to be thriving when its citizens are demonstrably poorer than they were nearly a decade ago.
What makes the “best for the people” argument even more insulting is that the people themselves were never given a direct voice on this extension.
The Constitution contains specific safeguards precisely to prevent sitting officials from amending the supreme law to benefit their own tenure through any amendment that “extends the length of time” they occupy office.
If those in power wanted to legitimately alter these timelines, the democratic path demanded a national referendum, offering citizens the privacy and protection of the secret ballot box.
Instead, the state relied on parliamentary majorities and public hearings—mechanisms easily controlled, managed, and fast-tracked.
The deliberate avoidance of a national referendum is telling.
It reveals a fundamental anxiety within the ruling establishment.
If these constitutional amendments were truly designed for the benefit of the Zimbabwean people, there would be no reason to fear their direct vote.
The reluctance to hold a referendum exposes the truth.
The amendment was never about what the people wanted, but what those in power refused to give up.
- Advertise your business, products, or services on my WhatsApp Channel with over 10k followers. For bookings, contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com