EVENTS in South Africa and the United Kingdom (UK) this week once again prove that leaders elected indirectly by Parliament are not a foolproof mechanism for bringing political or electoral stability.
In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is on the ropes, fighting for political survival. Members of his party are revolting against his leadership following a heavy defeat in the local government elections held last weekend.
Across the Limpopo, South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa is facing impeachment — the first leader in independent South Africa to confront such a possibility.
The two examples cited above are countries where leaders are elected indirectly.
This is the same principle the Zimbabwean government — in its wisdom, or lack of it — is proposing through the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill (CAB3), arguing that it will bring political stability and give the country a chance at rapid economic and social development.
Let us examine the UK example more closely. Since David Cameron, no UK Prime Minister has served a full term. Each was removed by their political party for one reason or another. Theresa May served three years, Boris Johnson served three years and two months, Liz Truss lasted a miserable seven weeks (49 days), and Rishi Sunak served one year and nine months. These were all Conservatives. Now, under the Labour Party, Starmer finds himself in choppy waters just one year and 10 months into his tenure. It is not that the system lacks stability entirely. Some previous leaders served two or more terms. Among them are Margaret Thatcher and Cameron (both Conservatives), and Tony Blair of Labour.
Keep Reading
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
For the uninitiated, the UK has no term limits for the prime minister.
Across the Limpopo, no South African president has served two full terms since Nelson Mandela. Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma were both forced out by their party, the African National Congress (ANC), with only months left in their second terms. Ramaphosa now faces a similar ordeal.
The examples of the UK and South Africa are relevant because of Zimbabwe’s historical and political ties with those countries. In other jurisdictions, such as Israel and Italy, governments have often failed to complete their terms, leaving those countries in a near-constant election cycle. Yet, this has not significantly hindered their development.
Germany has been an exception, with Angela Merkel serving for 16 years while managing coalition governments led by the Social Democrats.
From Thatcher, Cameron, Blair, and Merkel, we learn that it is possible to maintain both economic and political stability under long-serving leaders. However, the key point is that these leaders still faced elections every four years. In other words, the longer terms proposed under CAB3 offer no clear advantage, as there are few compelling examples to support such arrangements.
Israel and Italy provide further examples. In recent years, both countries have held general elections every two to three years on average due to the instability of coalition politics.
Despite this, they have maintained a certain degree of economic stability even as governments have changed frequently.
Locally, Robert Mugabe ruled uninterrupted for 37 years, yet Zimbabwe experienced mixed outcomes in both economic and political stability. Ultimately, Mugabe was removed through a military-assisted transition followed by an impeachment process initiated by his own party, Zanu PF.
It is therefore surprising that public intellectuals such as Jonathan Moyo have been at the forefront of arguing that political and economic stability can be achieved through indirect presidential elections and by extending presidential terms from five to seven years.
Moyo appears to be acting as a dishonest public intellectual, perhaps in an attempt to curry favour with the regime in the hope of returning from self-imposed exile. Interestingly, among all the examples cited, only South Africa has a Judiciary that frequently intervenes in political matters. In most other cases, political disputes are resolved through political processes.
This brings the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe into sharp focus as it considers petitions related to CAB3.
No one can predict the outcome. Will the court deliver a unanimous judgment or a split decision? Will there be dissenting opinions? Could the president suffer a major legal defeat in his pursuit of extending his stay in office?
Whatever the outcome, Zimbabwe is likely to emerge more fractured from the process. Zanu PF, like its counterpart, the ANC in South Africa, may be remembered for abusing its parliamentary majority.
Without casting aspersions on the current Zanu PF Members of Parliament, it is fair to say that many may not fully grasp the complexities of the CAB3 debate. Their primary motivation appears to be ensuring that President Emmerson Mnangagwa remains in power until 2030 or beyond, simply because their party demands it.
It will be interesting to see whether the Zanu PF caucus splits over the issue or, as has often happened before, closes ranks under pressure.
Whatever the outcome, empirical evidence suggests that neither indirect presidential elections nor extended terms of office guarantee political or economic stability.
What truly drives economic development is not the length of a leader’s term but clear economic policies implemented efficiently by competent leaders, as demonstrated by countries such as China, the United States, and Germany over the past four decades.
CAB3 is therefore not a panacea for Zimbabwe’s challenges. What the country truly needs is ethical and competent leadership.
This reality must sink in — and quickly. Public intellectuals may be hired to sanitise the process, but the fundamental truth remains: leaders must be changed as frequently as baby nappies, and the economy will still tick. I’m out.