On Tuesday last week, the speaker of Zimbabwe's National Assembly, Jacob Mudenda, looked out at a half-empty chamber and said what everyone already knew.
The numbers were not what they ought to be. He asked the chief whips, politely, to sort it out.
What he did not say, but what every Zimbabwean watching from the outside understands perfectly well, is that the same MPs who cannot find their seats on a sitting Tuesday are the same MPs quietly supporting a constitutional amendment that would keep them in those seats for two extra years.
Let us be clear about what is on the table. Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 proposes extending parliamentary terms from five years to seven. MPs elected in 2023 would serve until 2030.
That is not a technical adjustment. That is nearly a decade at the public trough, with two extra years handed to people who are already struggling to justify the five they were given.
And what a trough it is. Each MP is entitled to a vehicle allowance that has been budgeted at up to US$60,000, with previous parliaments receiving loans of US$40,000 on top of that.
There are duty-free import privileges, housing allowances, fuel, telephone bills, staff costs and salaries trending towards a target of US$2 000 per month.
MPs have previously demanded Land Cruisers, complained that their vehicle budgets were insufficient, and asked whether cash would be paid for any shortfall in the value of their allocated cars.
These are not the grievances of people who feel they are being asked to sacrifice.
Meanwhile, a nurse at a rural clinic earns a fraction of that and still shows up. A teacher in a crumbling school shows up.
The civil servant who has not had a meaningful salary increase in years shows up.
Zimbabwe's public sector workers manage to turn up despite being told by their own government that inflation is not severe enough to warrant relief.
Yet MPs, who sit at the very top of a system built on public funds, are bunking sessions when there are no committees scheduled and the public hearings are done.
The argument for CAB3, as it is being sold, is stability. Longer terms mean fewer elections and less disruption. But stability for whom? Not for the voter who loses two more years of the right to choose.
Not for the taxpayer who will fund the full package of benefits for an additional 24 months. Stability, in this framing, is just another word for incumbency.
There is a simple test for whether someone deserves more time in a role. You look at what they have done with the time they already have.
By that measure, an institution whose members cannot reliably fill their seats during ordinary sitting weeks has not made the case for an extension. It has made the case for the opposite.
Seven years is a long time to be absent.