Opinion / Columnist
The push for Mnangagwa's term extension is a threat to national unity and development
16 hrs ago | Views
In recent years, President Emmerson Mnangagwa has repeatedly called for unity among Zimbabweans.
On paper, this is a noble and constructive appeal.
A united nation, working collectively towards national development, has a greater chance of overcoming its challenges and achieving prosperity.
A divided country, however, is like a house built on sand - vulnerable to collapse at the slightest disturbance.
For a nation like Zimbabwe, currently enduring deep economic distress, unity is more critical than ever.
High inflation has rendered incomes worthless, companies are shutting down, unemployment is at unsustainable levels, and infrastructure is deteriorating at an alarming rate.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
This is a time when Zimbabweans should be pulling together, setting aside their differences, and focusing on the urgent task of rebuilding their country.
Yet, instead of rallying around a common cause, the country appears more divided than ever, with people constantly at odds.
At the heart of this division is a controversial and increasingly aggressive push by a faction within the ruling ZANU-PF party to extend President Mnangagwa's tenure beyond the constitutionally mandated two five-year terms, which end in 2028.
This campaign has triggered fierce opposition, not only from the usual voices in the opposition and civil society but also from within ZANU-PF itself, where some members insist that the president must honor the Constitution and step down at the end of his term.
The battle lines have been drawn, and the resulting conflict has plunged Zimbabwe into a state of political and social turmoil.
Although Mnangagwa has, on occasion, declared himself a constitutionalist with no intention of clinging to power, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Both those advocating for his extended stay, and those against, have become increasingly vocal and organized, even hijacking national events to push their rival agendas.
In response, the president has remained conspicuously silent, refusing to rebuke or distance himself from the "ED 2030" faction.
If he were truly committed to constitutionalism, would he not have taken decisive action to quash these efforts?
His failure to do so raises troubling questions.
Why is he not openly rejecting the calls for an extended presidency?
Why is he not reining in those who are actively undermining the Constitution?
Could it be that he secretly harbors ambitions of staying in power beyond his mandate and is actually behind these calls?
If that is the case, then the consequences for Zimbabwe could be dire.
Instead of concentrating on the pressing economic crisis - marked by the closure of major retailers, a collapsing health system, skyrocketing inflation, and soaring unemployment - the entire nation is now consumed by a desperate fight to defend democracy.
Even those who typically focus on social justice issues, like myself, find themselves unable to discuss anything else.
The country is burning, yet the conversation has been hijacked by a self-serving political battle that should not even exist in the first place.
Defending the Constitution and upholding democracy should not be the responsibility of ordinary citizens alone.
It is, first and foremost, the duty of the head of state.
A leader's primary obligation is to safeguard national stability, ensure constitutional order, and promote unity.
If Mnangagwa truly has Zimbabwe's best interests at heart, he would move swiftly and decisively to shut down any efforts to extend his tenure.
He would make it clear, beyond any doubt, that he will step down in 2028, as mandated by the Constitution.
His refusal to do so suggests that his personal interests have taken precedence over the well-being of the nation.
Even if those advocating for his extended term are merely exercising their democratic right, Mnangagwa, as a statesman, must recognize that their actions are harming Zimbabwe.
A true patriot would put aside personal ambition in favor of national stability.
Leadership, at its core, is about making sacrifices for the greater good.
If a particular ambition, no matter how personally appealing, is causing division and unrest, should it not be abandoned?
Why, then, is Mnangagwa unwilling to put the country ahead of his own interests?
Should unity and stability not be his top priorities?
Should the well-being of Zimbabweans not come before the personal aspirations of those within ZANU-PF?
For a leader who is already in his second term, it would seem logical for him to be preparing for his exit.
A two-term limit is not merely an arbitrary rule—it serves a crucial democratic function.
Regular changes in leadership inject fresh ideas into governance, prevent the consolidation of power, and allow for innovation in policy-making.
The rotation of leaders ensures that no individual or party develops an unchallenged stranglehold on the state.
It also fosters accountability, as leaders know they will eventually have to answer for their actions once out of office.
Zimbabwe, like any other democratic nation, stands to benefit immensely from these principles.
The dangers of unchecked power are well documented.
When leaders overstay their welcome, they erode institutions, suppress opposition, and dismantle democratic norms.
History is littered with examples of leaders who, in their quest to retain power, plunged their countries into chaos.
Zimbabwe, having already suffered through years of political and economic turmoil, cannot afford to go down that path again.
What is unfolding in Zimbabwe is not just a political contest - it is a national security threat.
Power struggles, particularly those involving a president and his deputy, have historically led to instability and even armed conflict in other nations.
South Sudan, for instance, provides a stark warning.
The country descended into a brutal civil war after tensions between President Salva Kiir and his then-deputy Riek Machar escalated into violent conflict.
The war, which began in 2013, claimed thousands of lives, displaced millions, and left the country in ruins.
The parallels to Zimbabwe's current situation are unsettling.
Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, widely believed to be opposed to Mnangagwa's term extension, enjoys strong backing from the military and veterans of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle.
His faction within ZANU-PF is locked in a bitter power struggle with those advocating for Mnangagwa's prolonged rule.
The risk of this conflict spiraling into something more dangerous is very real.
Political tensions, if left unchecked, can escalate into full-blown instability, with devastating consequences.
Zimbabwe's history is already marred by episodes of political violence.
The current crisis has the potential to reignite those dark chapters.
This is why Mnangagwa must rise above personal ambition and act as a statesman.
He must prioritize national unity over the demands of those seeking to extend his rule.
He must make it clear that he respects the Constitution and that he will not entertain any attempts to amend it for his benefit.
The onus is on him to ensure that Zimbabwe remains stable and that its democratic institutions are preserved.
Preserving unity should not be the responsibility of ordinary citizens alone - it must start with those in power.
When Mnangagwa speaks about unity and economic progress under "Vision 2030," it should not be a veiled demand for blind loyalty.
Real unity is not about forcing people to support an individual's political ambitions.
It is about building a system where all Zimbabweans, regardless of political affiliation, can stand behind a shared vision for the future.
As tensions continue to rise, Mnangagwa must ask himself whether he is willing to risk the country's stability for the sake of remaining in office.
Can he truly sleep at night knowing that his refusal to act is fueling division and potential chaos?
If Zimbabwe were to descend into conflict, would he be able to live with the consequences?
Leadership is not about self-preservation - it is about service.
Mnangagwa has a choice: he can either cement his legacy as a leader who respected the Constitution and left power with dignity, or he can go down in history as yet another African leader who sacrificed his country for personal gain.
The decision he makes in the coming months will determine Zimbabwe's future for years to come.
© 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/
On paper, this is a noble and constructive appeal.
A united nation, working collectively towards national development, has a greater chance of overcoming its challenges and achieving prosperity.
A divided country, however, is like a house built on sand - vulnerable to collapse at the slightest disturbance.
For a nation like Zimbabwe, currently enduring deep economic distress, unity is more critical than ever.
High inflation has rendered incomes worthless, companies are shutting down, unemployment is at unsustainable levels, and infrastructure is deteriorating at an alarming rate.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
This is a time when Zimbabweans should be pulling together, setting aside their differences, and focusing on the urgent task of rebuilding their country.
Yet, instead of rallying around a common cause, the country appears more divided than ever, with people constantly at odds.
At the heart of this division is a controversial and increasingly aggressive push by a faction within the ruling ZANU-PF party to extend President Mnangagwa's tenure beyond the constitutionally mandated two five-year terms, which end in 2028.
This campaign has triggered fierce opposition, not only from the usual voices in the opposition and civil society but also from within ZANU-PF itself, where some members insist that the president must honor the Constitution and step down at the end of his term.
The battle lines have been drawn, and the resulting conflict has plunged Zimbabwe into a state of political and social turmoil.
Although Mnangagwa has, on occasion, declared himself a constitutionalist with no intention of clinging to power, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Both those advocating for his extended stay, and those against, have become increasingly vocal and organized, even hijacking national events to push their rival agendas.
In response, the president has remained conspicuously silent, refusing to rebuke or distance himself from the "ED 2030" faction.
If he were truly committed to constitutionalism, would he not have taken decisive action to quash these efforts?
His failure to do so raises troubling questions.
Why is he not openly rejecting the calls for an extended presidency?
Why is he not reining in those who are actively undermining the Constitution?
Could it be that he secretly harbors ambitions of staying in power beyond his mandate and is actually behind these calls?
If that is the case, then the consequences for Zimbabwe could be dire.
Instead of concentrating on the pressing economic crisis - marked by the closure of major retailers, a collapsing health system, skyrocketing inflation, and soaring unemployment - the entire nation is now consumed by a desperate fight to defend democracy.
Even those who typically focus on social justice issues, like myself, find themselves unable to discuss anything else.
The country is burning, yet the conversation has been hijacked by a self-serving political battle that should not even exist in the first place.
Defending the Constitution and upholding democracy should not be the responsibility of ordinary citizens alone.
It is, first and foremost, the duty of the head of state.
A leader's primary obligation is to safeguard national stability, ensure constitutional order, and promote unity.
If Mnangagwa truly has Zimbabwe's best interests at heart, he would move swiftly and decisively to shut down any efforts to extend his tenure.
He would make it clear, beyond any doubt, that he will step down in 2028, as mandated by the Constitution.
His refusal to do so suggests that his personal interests have taken precedence over the well-being of the nation.
Even if those advocating for his extended term are merely exercising their democratic right, Mnangagwa, as a statesman, must recognize that their actions are harming Zimbabwe.
A true patriot would put aside personal ambition in favor of national stability.
Leadership, at its core, is about making sacrifices for the greater good.
If a particular ambition, no matter how personally appealing, is causing division and unrest, should it not be abandoned?
Why, then, is Mnangagwa unwilling to put the country ahead of his own interests?
Should unity and stability not be his top priorities?
Should the well-being of Zimbabweans not come before the personal aspirations of those within ZANU-PF?
A two-term limit is not merely an arbitrary rule—it serves a crucial democratic function.
Regular changes in leadership inject fresh ideas into governance, prevent the consolidation of power, and allow for innovation in policy-making.
The rotation of leaders ensures that no individual or party develops an unchallenged stranglehold on the state.
It also fosters accountability, as leaders know they will eventually have to answer for their actions once out of office.
Zimbabwe, like any other democratic nation, stands to benefit immensely from these principles.
The dangers of unchecked power are well documented.
When leaders overstay their welcome, they erode institutions, suppress opposition, and dismantle democratic norms.
History is littered with examples of leaders who, in their quest to retain power, plunged their countries into chaos.
Zimbabwe, having already suffered through years of political and economic turmoil, cannot afford to go down that path again.
What is unfolding in Zimbabwe is not just a political contest - it is a national security threat.
Power struggles, particularly those involving a president and his deputy, have historically led to instability and even armed conflict in other nations.
South Sudan, for instance, provides a stark warning.
The country descended into a brutal civil war after tensions between President Salva Kiir and his then-deputy Riek Machar escalated into violent conflict.
The war, which began in 2013, claimed thousands of lives, displaced millions, and left the country in ruins.
The parallels to Zimbabwe's current situation are unsettling.
Vice President Constantino Chiwenga, widely believed to be opposed to Mnangagwa's term extension, enjoys strong backing from the military and veterans of Zimbabwe's liberation struggle.
His faction within ZANU-PF is locked in a bitter power struggle with those advocating for Mnangagwa's prolonged rule.
The risk of this conflict spiraling into something more dangerous is very real.
Political tensions, if left unchecked, can escalate into full-blown instability, with devastating consequences.
Zimbabwe's history is already marred by episodes of political violence.
The current crisis has the potential to reignite those dark chapters.
This is why Mnangagwa must rise above personal ambition and act as a statesman.
He must prioritize national unity over the demands of those seeking to extend his rule.
He must make it clear that he respects the Constitution and that he will not entertain any attempts to amend it for his benefit.
The onus is on him to ensure that Zimbabwe remains stable and that its democratic institutions are preserved.
Preserving unity should not be the responsibility of ordinary citizens alone - it must start with those in power.
When Mnangagwa speaks about unity and economic progress under "Vision 2030," it should not be a veiled demand for blind loyalty.
Real unity is not about forcing people to support an individual's political ambitions.
It is about building a system where all Zimbabweans, regardless of political affiliation, can stand behind a shared vision for the future.
As tensions continue to rise, Mnangagwa must ask himself whether he is willing to risk the country's stability for the sake of remaining in office.
Can he truly sleep at night knowing that his refusal to act is fueling division and potential chaos?
If Zimbabwe were to descend into conflict, would he be able to live with the consequences?
Leadership is not about self-preservation - it is about service.
Mnangagwa has a choice: he can either cement his legacy as a leader who respected the Constitution and left power with dignity, or he can go down in history as yet another African leader who sacrificed his country for personal gain.
The decision he makes in the coming months will determine Zimbabwe's future for years to come.
© 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/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
