THE most dangerous word uttered at Zanu PF’s recent “Thank You” rallies was not “amendment”. It was “forever”.
Calls for President Emmerson Mnangagwa to rule “forever” should concern every Zimbabwean, regardless of political affiliation. They strike at the heart of constitutional democracy, where no individual is meant to wield power indefinitely.
Democracy rests on the simple principle that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, expressed through regular, free and credible elections. Leaders come and go. Institutions endure.
That is why Zimbabwe adopted the 2013 Constitution after years of negotiation, compromise, and a national referendum. It was designed to limit executive power, strengthen accountability, and guarantee the peaceful transfer of authority. It was never intended to be rewritten whenever political expediency demands.The Constitution Amendment (No. 3) Act has introduced some of the most significant changes since the Constitution's adoption, including extending terms of office, postponing elections, and altering key aspects of the country's governance framework.
While the courts will determine the Act's legality, legitimacy is a broader political and moral question that ultimately belongs to Zimbabweans.
Even more troubling is the rhetoric surrounding the new legislation.
Keep Reading
- ED’s influence will take generations to erase
- ‘Govt spineless on wetland land barons’
- Govt under attack over banks lending ban
- Zim Constitution must be amended
Rather than winning public support through persuasion and performance, some ruling party officials have threatened citizens contemplating peaceful demonstrations. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right, while maintaining public order is a legitimate duty of the State. In a democracy, these principles are complementary, not contradictory.
Governments confident of public support do not fear criticism. They respond with accountability, evidence, and better governance — not intimidation.
Equally troubling are repeated claims that Zimbabwe has "one centre of power" and that its leader should rule "forever." In a constitutional republic, the ultimate source of authority is neither the President nor a political party. It is the Constitution, through the sovereign will of the people.
History offers a clear warning. Across Africa and beyond, leaders who sought to personalise power seldom delivered lasting stability or prosperity. More often, they weakened institutions, deepened divisions, and left their countries more fragile.
Strong nations are built on strong institutions, not indispensable leaders.
If the ruling party believes its record speaks for itself, it should welcome elections. Elections are not an obstacle to governance; they are the foundation of democratic legitimacy. Public support is earned at the ballot box, not declared from political platforms.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe faces urgent challenges that deserve the nation's full attention. Citizens are far more concerned about jobs, healthcare, education, and economic opportunity than extending political mandates. Every effort spent prolonging power is effort diverted from solving the country's real problems.
A leader's greatest legacy is not the number of years spent in office but the strength of the institutions left behind and the respect shown for constitutional limits.
No president is bigger than the Constitution. No political party is bigger than the Republic. And no democracy can embrace the idea that any leader should rule "forever."
"Forever" belongs to monarchies and dictatorships, outside the remit of a constitutional democracy.