The proposal to amend Zimbabwe’s constitution to extend the tenure of President Emmerson Mnangagwa beyond the two-term limit sets a perilous precedent. It undermines the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded and poses a direct threat to the future of Zimbabwe’s political stability. While some may argue that Mnangagwa’s perceived success justifies such an amendment, this reasoning is deeply flawed and requires urgent scrutiny.
By Saviour Kasukuwere
The Constitution: A Pillar of Stability, Not a Tool for Manipulation
At the heart of this debate is the nature of the Constitution itself. As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is not a flexible document designed to suit the ambitions of any individual leader. Instead, it serves as a framework for governance that ensures fairness, accountability, and the protection of citizens’ rights. To suggest that a president’s “good performance” warrants an extension of their tenure is to misunderstand the purpose of term limits, which are a safeguard against the dangers of power consolidation.
If we argue that a president who is perceived to have done a “good job” deserves an extension, we open the door to potential autocracy. What would stop future leaders from similarly manipulating the constitution for their personal benefit, or worse, indefinitely prolonging their rule under the guise of success? This sets the stage for a slippery slope where the integrity of the Constitution can be eroded at will, leaving the nation vulnerable to authoritarianism.
A Constitution at the Mercy of Convenience?
Furthermore, if we are willing to amend the constitution to keep a successful leader in power, the question arises: what happens when a leader is failing? Should the Constitution be amended again to remove a poorly performing president prematurely? Such a scenario would transform the Constitution into a mere tool of convenience, reshaped to suit the needs of those in power at any given moment. This would severely undermine public trust in the legal framework meant to govern the nation, while also destabilizing the political system.
Constitutions are designed to provide continuity and stability, irrespective of the leadership in power. Their strength lies in their permanence and impartiality, not in their susceptibility to manipulation based on political expediency. Weakening this foundational document for short-term gains risks long-term consequences for Zimbabwe’s democracy.
Vision 2030: A National Goal, Not a Personal Legacy
Supporters of the constitutional amendment often argue that President Mnangagwa’s leadership is essential for the realization of Vision 2030, Zimbabwe’s aspiration to become an upper-middle-income country by 2030. However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Vision 2030 is not a personal project belonging to Mnangagwa but a collective national vision. It is the responsibility of all Zimbabwean leaders, both present and future, to uphold and pursue this shared goal.
To claim that only Mnangagwa can successfully steer the country toward Vision 2030 undermines the notion that Zimbabwe is a nation capable of producing capable leadership beyond one individual. Such thinking diminishes the spirit of collective responsibility and national ambition, suggesting instead that the country’s progress is fragile and dependent on a single figure. In truth, any competent and dedicated leader who assumes office after 2028 should be able to continue the work toward achieving Vision 2030.
The Danger of Power Consolidation
The very proposal to extend Mnangagwa’s tenure is not just misguided—it is fundamentally undemocratic. Constitutions are designed to outlast the leaders who govern under them, ensuring that no single individual can hold onto power indefinitely. Term limits exist precisely to prevent the rise of autocracy and promote the regular renewal of leadership, which is critical to the healthy functioning of any democracy.
Tampering with the Constitution for the sake of extending one person’s rule would not only contradict the purpose of term limits but would also risk concentrating power in dangerous ways. By allowing one leader to continue beyond their designated term, the path is paved for power consolidation, eroding democratic norms and principles.
Lessons from History: The Folly of Extending Presidential Terms
Across Africa, the extension of presidential terms has often led to negative consequences. In countries like Uganda and Rwanda, constitutional amendments to extend presidential terms have resulted in diminished democratic governance and the entrenchment of authoritarian regimes. Zimbabwe must learn from these examples and resist the temptation to follow a similar path.
Leaders should be judged not only by their ability to govern effectively but by their commitment to democratic principles. A leader’s success is not an excuse to bypass constitutional limits. On the contrary, adherence to term limits and the peaceful transfer of power are the hallmarks of a mature democracy.
Conclusion: A Grave Misstep for Zimbabwe’s Democracy
The proposal to amend the constitution to allow President Mnangagwa to serve beyond the two-term limit, no matter how “good” his performance may be perceived, is an affront to Zimbabwe’s democratic principles. The constitution exists to safeguard the interests of all Zimbabweans, not to serve the personal ambitions of any one individual.
Vision 2030 belongs to the people, not to Mnangagwa or any other leader. It is the collective responsibility of the nation’s leadership to ensure that this goal is achieved through adherence to the rule of law and democratic norms. Amending the constitution in this way would be a grave misstep, threatening the very fabric of Zimbabwe’s democracy and setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
As Zimbabwe looks to the future, the country must resist this path toward personal rule and reaffirm its commitment to democratic governance. A strong and resilient constitution is essential for the nation’s stability, and any attempt to weaken it for personal gain should be firmly opposed.