The Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill: A Test of Democratic Integrity
As the discussion around the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, or CAB3, intensifies, the nation stands at a pivotal moment. This proposal to extend the presidential term from five to seven years has sparked intense debate, raising critical questions about the balance between democratic principles and the concentration of power.
The proponents of CAB3 argue that this change is essential for achieving national development and fulfilling the Vision 2030 agenda. However, this narrative often overlooks a significant legal challenge: Section 328 of the Constitution. This section serves as a crucial safeguard, designed to prevent leaders from altering the rules to extend their tenure. It acts as a democratic tripwire, ensuring that no individual can rewrite the game for personal gain.
If those advocating for this amendment are genuinely committed to the state’s interest rather than individual benefit, there is a straightforward and constitutionally sound solution. They could simply make the extension effective for the next president following the 2028 elections. This approach would bypass the need for a national referendum, which essentially asks the people to waive a protection meant to prevent the very scenario we now face.
The Constitution clearly states that any amendment extending the length of time a person may hold office cannot benefit the incumbent. To circumvent this, a national referendum is required. This raises serious concerns about the integrity of the process and the potential erosion of democratic values.
Vision 2030 and the Illusion of Continuity
The narrative of “Vision 2030” is often used as a shield against criticism of term extensions. Proponents claim that programs like road rehabilitation, traffic interchanges, and dam construction require a continuity of leadership that only the current president can provide. This argument is flawed and undermines the competence of the government machinery.
Development is not the result of a single leader’s efforts but the outcome of institutional planning, technocratic expertise, and the hard work of citizens. If Vision 2030 is a genuine national program, its success should not be tied to one individual. The roads will still be paved, the dams will still hold water, and the interchanges will still facilitate trade, provided the institutions function effectively.
Moreover, it is essential to question what “development” truly means in the context of the “Second Republic” that came to power in 2017. While high-profile infrastructure projects may look impressive, they have done little to address the pressing issues faced by ordinary Zimbabweans. Hyperinflation, a crumbling healthcare system, and a job market offering little hope for the youth remain significant challenges.
The Cost of Stability
When a regime requests more time to “complete its programs,” citizens have every right to question why these programs have resulted in diminished purchasing power and increased social precarity. If the push for CAB3 continues with the insistence that President Mnangagwa must benefit, the facade of “national interest” will likely slip, revealing a more troubling truth.
This legislative maneuver appears to serve self-serving ambitions rather than the greater good. It reflects a small circle of individuals who have enriched themselves at the expense of the nation, fearing the loss of patronage that a transition of power might bring. They are not protecting a vision for the nation; they are protecting their access to the national trough.
Zimbabweans are tired of being told that their rights and Constitution must be sacrificed on the altar of a “stability” that benefits the elite. If the term extension is indeed a brilliant idea for the country’s future, it should be a legacy left for the next leader. By removing the incumbent from the equation, the government would eliminate the suspicion of greed and the necessity of a referendum.
However, the reluctance to take this simple, logical path speaks volumes. It suggests that the drive for more time has nothing to do with completing dams or paving roads, and everything to do with consolidating an eternal presidency. In the end, the ordinary citizen gains nothing from two extra years of the status quo, and the nation loses the very soul of its constitutional democracy.
