So a president simply needs to declare a “vision” and he becomes eligible for a term extension!

 

Yesterday, I listened with a mixture of astonishment and concern as Daniel Garwe, Zimbabwe’s Minister of Local Government and ZANU-PF Mashonaland East provincial chairman, addressed ZANU-PF members during an inter-district meeting at Hurungwe Primary School in Murewa.

His emotionally charged statements revealed a dangerous and troubling direction for Zimbabwe’s democracy.

Garwe passionately declared: “We are saying Vision 2030 is unstoppable and will be fulfilled with President Mnangagwa in office. No one will stop it.”

He went further, claiming that Vision 2030 “was not given to anyone else but to President Mnangagwa,” and therefore, Mnangagwa should remain in power to see it through.

I understand it might seem repetitive to discuss the same issue daily, but this is a matter of critical importance, as the very fate of our country and its democracy hangs in the balance.

If addressing this issue repeatedly is what it takes to halt this madness, then so be it.

This reasoning—that a president’s declaration of a national vision somehow entitles him to a term extension—is deeply disturbing.

It sets a dangerous precedent for how Zimbabwe could be governed in the future.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08 

Is Garwe, and those who share his sentiment, telling us that a president can simply announce a “vision” and the date of its fulfillment, and that automatically qualifies him for a term extension to “see through his vision”?

What happens if a new president comes into power in, say, 2030 and declares a “Vision 2050”?

Does that mean he should remain in office for 20 years to fulfill his vision?

Is this the new standard by which Zimbabwe will be governed?

If this reasoning does not disturb you, then I honestly do not know what will.

Garwe further justified this envisioned term extension by citing Mnangagwa’s alleged hard work and dedication to duty, which he claimed had brought “a lot of development across Zimbabwe.”

He insisted that the president’s hard work justified the people’s call for him to remain in office until at least 2030, adding, “We have witnessed a lot of development across Zimbabwe.

There is peace everywhere. This is why we say the President should stay in office.”

But does this rationale hold any water?

Is it enough to amend a country’s constitution simply because a leader is deemed hardworking or has overseen “a lot of development”?

Surely, this cannot be a justification.

Around the world, numerous leaders in countries with presidential term limits have presided over phenomenal development, yet this has never justified amending their constitutions to extend their tenures.

Take, for instance, Nelson Mandela, a symbol of hope and reconciliation, stepped down after one term in South Africa, setting a democratic precedent.

Barack Obama, who, during his presidency, led the United States through a major economic recovery.

His policies, including the Affordable Care Act, transformed the lives of millions of Americans.

Yet, despite his immense achievements, Obama respected the constitutional two-term limit and handed over power.

Similarly, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf presided over Liberia’s post-war reconstruction, working tirelessly to rebuild her nation.

However, she also stepped down after serving her constitutionally allowed two terms.

What, then, makes President Mnangagwa so special that his so-called hard work and alleged development warrant an extension of his tenure?

There are good reasons why term limits exist in most democratic states.

Term limits prevent the monopolization of power, encourage the infusion of new ideas and leadership, and guard against authoritarianism.

They ensure that power remains in the hands of the people and is not concentrated in one individual or a small elite.

In a well-functioning democracy with effective systems of governance, mechanisms are in place to ensure the continuity of national programs.

National visions and development plans are institutionalized so that they can outlast the tenure of any single leader.

For Garwe to claim that Vision 2030 “was not given to anyone else but to President Mnangagwa” is not only troubling but also reveals the fundamental weakness of Zimbabwe’s governance systems.

What happens to Vision 2030 if Mnangagwa were to die today?

Does that mark the end of the vision?

This line of reasoning exposes the reality that Zimbabwe is not governed by functional institutions but by an authoritarian system where power is centralized in a single leader.

Even when compared to developments in the United States, this push to extend Mnangagwa’s term is laughable.

Recently, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to allow Donald Trump to serve a third term.

However, such a proposal is unlikely to succeed because of the rigorous process required to amend the U.S. Constitution, which involves a supermajority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

With the Republican Party holding only a narrow majority in the House and no such advantage in the Senate, this is nothing more than political theater.

As far as I am concerned, these calls, which President Mnangagwa’s supporters have embraced with enthusiasm, are nothing more than the usual bluster and controversy-seeking antics we have come to associate with President Trump.

This is the same Donald Trump who has suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” taking back the Panama Canal from Panama, and even annexing Canada into the United States.

For ZANU-PF to equate their calls for a constitutional amendment to extend Mnangagwa’s tenure with these antics is absurd.

Unlike the United States, Zimbabwe lacks independent institutions that ensure diverse perspectives are heard.

Moreover, as I pointed out yesterday, even if these calls in the US were to gain traction, the country’s strong, independent institutions would ensure that the voices of all Americans are heard.

What the people of America truly want is what they will get.

If they demand an amendment to the Constitution to allow a third presidential term, then that will be the result.

Such a change will not be imposed from the top down.

This contrasts sharply with Zimbabwe, where there is a lack of balanced debate, especially within state institutions.

Even the state-controlled media amplifies only one narrative, effectively silencing dissenting voices.

Even if Mnangagwa’s supporters were to succeed in pushing for a constitutional amendment, they must define the criteria for such an extension.

What exactly constitutes “a lot of development”?

How is it measured?

Are we saying that reducing citizens to dependence on food aid and agricultural inputs qualifies as development?

Is the construction of a few dams, the rehabilitation of several roads, and the expansion of an airport and power plant sufficient to justify a term extension?

How has the addition of just two units to Hwange Power Station improved our standard of living when we still face up to 18 hours of power outages almost daily?

Does plunging over 70% of the population into extreme poverty and 90% into unemployment really qualify as “a lot of development across Zimbabwe”?

Under Mnangagwa’s leadership, Zimbabwe has seen the plundering of its resources by foreign investors, particularly Chinese miners.

These miners have displaced communities, plundered our minerals, and even resorted to shooting our people.

Is this what we call development?

This madness by President Mnangagwa’s backers must not be tolerated.

It poses a direct threat to our democracy, our constitutionalism, and our future as a nation.

The people of Zimbabwe must reject this dangerous precedent.

We must stand firm in defense of our democracy and constitutionalism, and demand accountability from our leaders.

This fight is not about opposing an individual; it is about preserving the principles that underpin our democracy.

If we allow this to happen, we risk losing the very essence of what it means to be a democratic nation.

Zimbabwe’s future depends on the courage and resolve of its people to say, “Enough is enough!”

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/