Tendai Ruben Mbofana
The recent attempt by George Charamba, the Deputy Chief Secretary in the Office of the President and Cabinet, to dismiss the BBC’s characterization of Zimbabwe’s proposed Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill as a “power grab” is a masterclass in political sophistry.
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
By attempting to draw a false equivalence between the Zimbabwean executive presidency and the parliamentary systems of the United Kingdom or other democratic nations, Charamba seeks to mask a deeply concerning erosion of citizen agency.
The core of the issue is not whether a parliamentary system is inherently democratic, but rather the clandestine and unconstitutional manner in which these changes are being pursued in Zimbabwe to benefit an incumbent leadership.
To suggest that Zimbabwe is simply “aligning” itself with international democratic norms is disingenuous at best.
Charamba points to the British system where voters elect Members of Parliament who then determine the Prime Minister.
However, he conveniently ignores the historical and structural chasm between these two worlds.
The British parliamentary system was not an overnight imposition by a ruling elite looking to secure their tenure.
It was the result of centuries of bloody struggle, from the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
These events were driven by the need to strip absolute power from the monarch and vest it in a representative body.
This system was established through the “power of the purse,” which made the monarch financially dependent on Parliament.
After 1689, the King could no longer raise taxes or fund a military without the annual consent of the legislature, forcing the Crown to appoint a Prime Minister who could command a parliamentary majority just to keep the state functioning.
Ultimately, because the monarch could not govern without money, the power to choose the head of government effectively shifted from the throne to the floor of Parliament.
This ensured that the Prime Minister served at the pleasure of the elected majority rather than the whim of the King, as only a leader supported by Parliament could secure the funds necessary to run the country.
This evolution represents a historic transfer of authority from an absolute executive to the people’s representatives, which is the total opposite of a sitting government using its parliamentary majority to subtract existing direct voting rights from the citizens in order to shield the executive from the electorate.
In contrast, the current maneuvers in Harare represent the opposite—a systematic attempt to strip power from the voting public and vest it back into a centralized, untouchable executive authority.
This undermines the fundamental rights won through the liberation struggle and reaffirmed when over 94 percent of the population voted for the 2013 Constitution, which explicitly guarantees a head of state directly elected by the people.
By securing the “one man, one vote” principle, Zimbabweans established that the ultimate authority to choose the nation’s leader resides with the masses, not with a select legislative or political elite.
Furthermore, the comparison falls apart when one examines the nature of the offices involved.
While other countries may have seven-year presidential terms or parliamentary systems for electing a leader, these were never imposed on the people.
Whereas in Zimbabwe, the current move to bypass a national referendum is a clear attempt to force through an unconstitutional extension of executive power.
Zimbabwe’s system remains an executive presidency, where the Head of State wields immense power over the military, the judiciary, and the economy.
To extend such a term to seven years while removing the right of the people to vote for that office directly is not a democratic evolution.
It is a regression into autocracy.
When a leadership seeks to change the rules of the game while the game is still in play, specifically to ensure they remain on the field longer than originally agreed, it cannot be described as anything other than a power grab.
The ultimate litmus test for any constitutional reform is its adherence to the existing supreme law.
The Zimbabwean Constitution of 2013, which was overwhelmingly approved by the people in a national referendum, is very clear on these matters.
Section 328 (7) explicitly states that an amendment that extends the length of time that a person may hold or occupy a public office does not apply to a person who held or occupied that office at any time before the amendment.
This is a fundamental safeguard designed to prevent leaders from tailoring the law to suit their personal ambitions.
If the government wishes to change these foundational rules, the Constitution dictates that such amendments must be taken back to the people through a national referendum.
By attempting to bypass the citizenry and use a parliamentary majority to push through these changes, the authorities are engaging in a form of constitutional chicanery that undermines the very concept of the rule of law.
That is, by definition, a classic power grab.
This brings us to the glaring hypocrisy that defines the current administration’s engagement with the international community.
There is a curious selective hearing in the corridors of power in Zimbabwe.
When Forbes Magazine recently named Zimbabwe the world’s best destination to visit, the state machinery went into an absolute frenzy of self-congratulation.
We were reminded of this accolade at every turn, cited as proof of the country’s “re-engagement” success and its status as a rising global star.
The government is more than happy to accept international applause when it serves their narrative of a “new dispensation.”
However, the moment that same international lens focuses on human rights abuses, democratic backsliding, or constitutional violations, the rhetoric shifts to “interference,” “misinformation,” and “sovereignty.”
One cannot have it both ways.
If the opinions of international media and global publications are valid when they offer praise, they must be equally valid when they offer criticism.
To welcome the bouquets but cry foul at the brickbats is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
A government that is confident in its democratic credentials should not fear the scrutiny of a BBC report or the dissent of its own legal experts.
Instead, the defensive and often aggressive reaction to such reports suggests a leadership that knows it is on shaky moral and legal ground.
Furthermore, the attempt by the government to justify these changes by pointing to the South African model is a masterclass in half-truths.
South Africa utilizes a system of Proportional Representation, which ensures that the Parliament electing the President is a true mathematical reflection of the national vote, making the executive a product of the people’s collective will.
In contrast, Zimbabwe maintains a “first-past-the-post” system, which allows a party to secure a lopsided parliamentary stranglehold even when they lack a popular majority.
By moving the presidential election into such a skewed legislature, the authorities are not “aligning” with our neighbors; they are engaging in a tactical retreat into a controlled environment where the presidency is insulated from the electorate.
When a leadership cherry-picks foreign systems specifically to bypass the direct mandate of the individual voter, it is not an evolution of governance.
Charamba’s defense of these reforms ignores the most basic tenet of democratic governance—consent of the governed.
The 2013 Constitution was a social contract between the state and the people.
To alter the fundamental pillars of that contract without asking the people is a breach of trust of the highest order.
The “power grab” label is not a result of “BBC framing” but a reflection of the reality on the ground.
When you change the rules mid-game to extend your stay, when you bypass the referendum process required by law, and when you silence the voices of those you are supposed to represent, you are not building a democracy.
You are building a fortress for yourself.
The citizens of Zimbabwe deserve better than a government that tries to gaslight them with irrelevant comparisons to foreign systems.
The British people fought for their parliament to check the power of the Crown.
In Zimbabwe, the current administration is using its parliament to shield the executive from the people.
This is the fundamental difference that no amount of clever social media commentary can erase.
If the government truly believes that these reforms are in the best interest of the nation, they should have the courage to put them to a national vote.
Anything less is a confirmation that they fear the very people they claim to lead.
Ultimately, the strength of a nation lies in the integrity of its institutions and the sanctity of its constitution.
When those in power begin to view the constitution as a mere suggestion or a hurdle to be bypassed, the foundation of the state begins to crumble.
The international community, the media, and most importantly, the people of Zimbabwe, are right to be alarmed.
A power grab by any other name is still a power grab.
Whether it is wrapped in the language of “parliamentary reform” or hidden behind the shadow of changing an electoral cycle, the intent remains the same—the consolidation of authority at the expense of the people’s will.
It is time for the authorities to stop the defensive posturing and start respecting the supreme law they swore to uphold.
- 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
The post Mr. Charamba, let’s not deny the truth: unconstitutionally extending one’s term in office is a power grab appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.