Even if Zimbabwe has elections after 10 years as long as institutions are weak and compromised there will never be stability and peace

The current discourse surrounding the proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill in Zimbabwe is as revealing as it is deeply troubling.

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

At the heart of this legislative push is a narrative being carefully crafted and peddled by proponents of the bill—a narrative that suggests the primary obstacles to our national stability, peace, and national development are the frequency of our elections and the brevity of the presidential term.

They argue that by lengthening the electoral cycle from five to seven years and extending the presidential mandate accordingly, the nation will be spared the supposedly disruptive nature of constant campaigning and political friction.

However, this argument is not only logically flawed but fundamentally dishonest.

It is a hollow premise built on the shifting sands of political expediency, designed to distract the citizenry from the real rot eating away at the core of our nation.

The simple truth is that Zimbabwe does not suffer from a constitutional crisis regarding the timing of its elections.

We suffer from a profound and systemic governance crisis rooted in weak and compromised state institutions.

To understand why this amendment is a red herring, one must look at the nature of a state through the lens of architectural integrity.

State institutions are the foundation of a national building.

One can design the most breathtaking and dazzling structure imaginable—as we did with the hard-won 2013 Constitution—but as long as the foundation is weak, that building will not stand.

It does not matter how many times you redesign the roof or how much you extend the walls.

If the ground beneath is soft and the concrete is crumbling, the structure will eventually collapse under the weight of its own existence.

In our context, the 2013 Constitution is a magnificent blueprint that outlines the rights of citizens and the limits of power.

Yet, a constitution is only as strong as the institutions tasked with keeping it afloat.

It makes no sense to constantly rebuild the upper floors of the state while ignoring the fact that the foundation—the judiciary, law enforcement, the electoral commission, and parliament—is fractured and compromised.

As long as the foundation remains weak, any reconstructed structure will still fail, regardless of whether a president serves five years, seven years, or ten.

The events unfolding in Zimbabwe over the past month alone provide a chilling and perfect example of this institutional decay.

We are told that we are a democracy where constitutional amendments should be debated openly so that we may agree on what is best for our collective future.

This is a constitutional imperative and should, in a healthy republic, be a relatively simple and peaceful process.

Yet, the reality on the ground tells a story of brutal intolerance and the systematic crushing of dissent.

Those who have dared to voice opposition to these amendments have seen their meetings barred or violently disrupted.

We have witnessed leaders being physically attacked and heard harrowing allegations of abductions.

One must ask what the end result of such state-sanctioned or state-tolerated action is.

Does this not widen the chasm of polarization and animosity in our country?

Does it not breed a deep-seated resentment for the state and its machinery?

This is the true source of instability.

It is not the “short” five-year term that creates chaos; it is the violent refusal to allow for a difference of opinion.

When the image of Zimbabwe is tarnished because we cannot even discuss a piece of paper without resorting to violence, the blame cannot be laid at the feet of sections 95 or 143 of the Constitution.

It is impossible to fault the law when the problem lies with those sworn to uphold it but who instead choose to weaponize it.

The instability we see is a direct consequence of an environment where opposing views are treated as criminal acts.

So, who really is to blame?

We must point our fingers squarely at state institutions that are clearly weak and compromised.

These are institutions that are either failing to restore order and protect those with alternative opinions or are actively accused of being directly complicit in the brutal repression of dissenting voices.

When the police do not protect the peaceful assembly of citizens, and when the courts are perceived as a shield for the powerful rather than a sword for the oppressed, the constitution becomes a dead letter.

The claim that extending a presidential term to seven years will bring stability is a fantasy.

We could delay elections for a decade, or even move to twenty-year cycles, and nothing would change as long as the underlying governance remains predatory.

Instability in Zimbabwe is fueled by the knowledge that the state will continue to repress dissent regardless of the calendar.

It is fueled by the constant threat of the Patriotic Act, a piece of legislation that hangs like a sword over the heads of anyone who dares to speak out against the prevailing order.

It is fueled by the tragic reality that our elections are always disputed—not because they happen too often, but because the institutions running them are seen as biased and captured.

Changing the date of the next election does not fix the lack of trust in the ballot box.

It only ensures that the frustration of the people simmers for a longer period before it inevitably boils over.

Furthermore, we must address the role of a Parliament that has largely been reduced to a captured entity.

A functional democracy requires a legislature that holds the Executive to account, scrutinizes policy, and represents the diverse interests of the people.

In Zimbabwe, we see a body that often appears to merely rubberstamp the whims of the Executive, failing in its primary duty to act as a check on power.

This institutional capture ensures that even the most egregious policies are ushered into law with little resistance, further eroding the stability of the nation.

Stability is not the absence of elections; it is the presence of accountability.

When a government can act with impunity because the institutions meant to restrain it have been hollowed out, the result is a state of perpetual tension and national decline.

If the government were truly genuine in its stated desire for stability, peace, and national development, it would not be looking to change the Constitution.

It would be looking to fix the institutions.

True development is allowed to proceed without impediment only when there are strong, independent, and unbiased bodies that religiously adhere to their constitutional mandates.

In a country with such institutions, elections could be held every five years, or even more frequently, and the nation would remain stable because the transition of power and the administration of justice would be predictable and fair.

The current push for Amendment No. 3 is an admission of failure—an admission that the government prefers to change the rules of the game rather than fix the broken machinery of the state.

We must conclude that what Zimbabwe is facing is not a constitutional crisis but a crisis of leadership and governance.

The foundation of our country is being allowed to crumble while we argue about the color of the paint on the walls.

No matter how many times we amend the constitution or redesign the structure, there will always be instability and division as long as the state continues to prioritize the retention of power over the protection of its citizens’ rights.

The path to a peaceful and prosperous Zimbabwe does not lie in seven-year terms or the silencing of dissent.

It lies in the urgent and uncompromising restoration of our state institutions.

We must demand a judiciary that is truly independent, law enforcement that serves the people rather than a party, and a parliament that remembers its duty to the electorate.

Only then, on a firm and honest foundation, can we build a building that will finally stand.

• 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