Tendai Ruben Mbofana
It is hardly surprising that ZANU-PF Politburo member Ziyambi Ziyambi has once again emerged to defend the push to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term beyond 2028.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Speaking on Sunday at a ZANU-PF Mashonaland West Provincial Coordinating Committee meeting in Karoi, Ziyambi predictably justified the party’s 2030 agenda under the guise of stability and continuity.
This defence is not only reckless; it is a desperate attempt to normalise the erosion of constitutionalism.
It reflects open contempt for democratic principles and for the very citizens whose lives the ruling party claims it wants to improve.
Cloaked in soothing language about “stability,” “continuity,” and being “tired of elections,” Ziyambi’s argument collapses the moment it is subjected to constitutional logic, historical evidence, and the lived reality of Zimbabweans under prolonged ZANU-PF rule.
To begin with, the claim that Zimbabwe is in “perpetual election mode” is deliberately misleading.
Zimbabwe holds harmonised elections every five years, in line with its Constitution.
Five years is not perpetual; it is standard democratic practice across the world.
South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and most functioning democracies operate on fixed electoral cycles, yet none argue that elections paralyse governance.
On the contrary, elections are the primary mechanism through which governments are held accountable for their promises.
If ZANU-PF feels exhausted by elections, what it is really tired of is accountability.
Ziyambi argues that elections divert energy and resources away from service delivery and long-term planning.
This is a remarkable admission.
If a government cannot plan and deliver while knowing elections are five years apart, then the problem is not the Constitution—it is incompetence.
Elections do not prevent development; poor leadership does.
Rwanda, often cited by ZANU-PF sympathisers, rebuilt after genocide while holding elections.
Ghana has alternated power peacefully while expanding its economy.
Botswana developed from one of the poorest countries at independence into an upper-middle-income economy under regular elections.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe has suffered economic collapse, deindustrialisation, infrastructure decay, and mass emigration—all under a party that has effectively ruled uninterrupted since 1980.
Continuity is not Zimbabwe’s problem; failure is.
The notion that extending Mnangagwa’s term would “create policy certainty” is equally dishonest.
Zimbabwe’s policy uncertainty does not stem from electoral cycles but from erratic governance, corruption, elite capture, and the absence of rule of law.
Investors are not deterred by elections; they are deterred by arbitrary property seizures, currency manipulation, selective application of the law, and a political environment where constitutional rules can be rewritten whenever they inconvenience those in power.
Amending the Constitution to suit one man’s ambitions is the very definition of policy uncertainty.
Ziyambi also suggests that the term extension would benefit “all elected political leaders,” betraying the real motivation behind the 2030 agenda: self-preservation.
This is not about the nation; it is about political elites protecting their positions, perks, and access to state resources.
Councillors, MPs, and senators who have failed their constituencies are eager to avoid facing voters again.
A leadership confident in its performance would welcome elections, not fear them.
The push to extend terms is a pre-emptive escape route from public judgment.
Most troubling is the casual disregard for the 2013 Constitution, which was endorsed by an overwhelming 94.5% of Zimbabwean voters.
That Constitution was not imposed by outsiders; it was a hard-won social contract born out of national consultations and compromise after years of political crisis.
It explicitly provides for five-year terms and regular elections precisely because Zimbabweans understood the dangers of concentrated, unchecked power.
To amend such a foundational document without a referendum—especially on an issue as fundamental as presidential tenure—is not just legally dubious; it is morally indefensible.
ZANU-PF’s apparent fear of a referendum speaks volumes.
If the 2030 agenda truly enjoys popular support, why not submit it to the people?
The reluctance suggests that the party knows Zimbabweans are not “tired of elections” but tired of poverty, joblessness, corruption, collapsing public services, and broken promises.
It knows that given a genuine choice, citizens would reaffirm term limits as a safeguard against authoritarian drift.
History offers sobering lessons.
Across Africa, leaders who extended their terms in the name of “stability” left behind instability, economic ruin, and weakened institutions.
Uganda’s removal of term and age limits has entrenched personal rule without delivering prosperity.
Cameroon’s decades-long continuity has produced stagnation and youth despair.
Zimbabwe itself is a case study: Robert Mugabe’s extended rule did not bring stability; it culminated in economic meltdown and a military coup d’etat.
To argue that more of the same will somehow produce different results is intellectual dishonesty.
The irony is that ZANU-PF already enjoys extraordinary continuity.
President Mnangagwa assumed power in 2017 without an election, then won disputed polls in 2018 and 2023.
The party dominates Parliament, controls local authorities, particularly in rural areas, and faces a fragmented opposition.
If this level of dominance has not delivered improved lives for ordinary Zimbabweans, what exactly will two extra years achieve?
Roads will not suddenly repair themselves, hospitals will not gain drugs, schools will not pay teachers, and industries will not reopen simply because elections are postponed.
At its core, democracy is inconvenient to those who misuse power.
Elections force leaders to listen, to justify their record, and to confront dissent.
That inconvenience is precisely their value.
To be “tired of elections” is to be tired of the people.
It is to say citizens are a nuisance rather than the source of authority.
That mindset is fundamentally anti-constitutional.
Zimbabwe does not need fewer elections; it needs credible ones.
It does not need longer presidencies; it needs stronger institutions.
It does not need constitutional shortcuts; it needs leaders who respect limits.
Stability does not come from suspending democracy but from deepening it.
Continuity is meaningless if it is continuity of suffering.
Ziyambi Ziyambi’s statements should alarm every Zimbabwean, regardless of political affiliation.
Today it is a term extension; tomorrow it could be the erosion of other rights deemed inconvenient.
The Constitution is not a ZANU-PF policy document to be amended at will; it is the people’s shield against abuse of power.
To defend its violation in the name of stability is to defend the unjustifiable.
Zimbabweans did not vote in 2013 to end elections when leaders feel tired.
They voted to ensure that no one, however powerful, would ever be bigger than the law.
Any agenda that undermines that principle is not about development or stability—it is about entrenching power at the expense of the nation.
- 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/
The post Mr Ziyambi, postponing elections does not preserve stability—it promotes instability and attacks the Constitution appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.