Opinion / Columnist
Botswana's Boko is right: any president who wants to remain in power for more than 10 years has failed
5 hrs ago | Views
The truth, although unpalatable at times, shall set us free.
When Botswana's President Duma Boko recently declared that any president who desires to hold on to power beyond ten years is "instantly a failure," he wasn't merely making a political statement.
He was issuing a clarion call to all lovers of democracy to awaken to the creeping authoritarianism taking root in many parts of the world under the convenient guise of economic development or political stability.
His statement was as bold as it was truthful, coming from a leader of a country that has, since 1997, adhered strictly to a constitutional presidential term limit of two five-year terms.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Botswana's consistent observance of this democratic principle stands as a rare example on a continent - and in a world - where leaders routinely seek to extend their grip on power through constitutional amendments, judicial manipulation, and outright repression.
Boko's assertion is rooted in both logic and democratic principle.
His argument is simple: if a president truly understands and takes seriously the immense demands and responsibilities of their office, they would know that it is neither sustainable nor desirable to cling to power beyond ten years.
The presidency is not meant to be a lifelong occupation or a platform for unchecked authority.
Rather, it is a stewardship - a temporary trust bestowed by the people for the express purpose of improving their lives, defending their rights, and strengthening institutions.
That trust is time-bound, and rightfully so.
The logic behind presidential term limits is clear.
At its core, it is about the rotation of leadership to prevent the entrenchment of power.
No individual should monopolize leadership in a democratic society.
Limiting terms ensures that no one man or woman can override the people's will indefinitely, thus safeguarding against authoritarian drift.
It keeps institutions accountable, protects civil liberties, and nurtures leadership renewal.
In democracies where term limits are respected, leaders are forced to focus on leaving a legacy, rather than consolidating power.
It is this understanding that Boko has embraced - and which so many others have forsaken.
Yet there are those, like Zimbabwe's exiled former cabinet minister Professor Jonathan Moyo, who have scoffed at President Boko's remarks.
In a social media post, Moyo dismissed the idea that extending a leader's time in office is inherently a sign of failure.
He cited examples like Xi Jinping of China, Singapore's founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, and Rwanda's Paul Kagame, arguing that these leaders oversaw massive economic growth and rising living standards for their citizens, all while holding onto power well beyond a decade.
By this logic, longevity equates to success - as long as it delivers economic dividends.
However, Professor Moyo's argument is shallow and ultimately dangerous.
It reduces leadership to economic performance alone, disregarding the broader responsibilities a president bears - chief among them, upholding the constitution, defending democratic norms, and protecting citizens' rights.
This is where even high-performing autocrats fail.
A thriving GDP cannot excuse the erosion of civil liberties, the persecution of dissent, or the weakening of independent institutions.
A truly successful leader must lead a country that is not only economically sound but also politically just and socially free.
Take the example of Xi Jinping.
Under his leadership, China has undeniably experienced remarkable economic growth and technological advancement.
But this has come at an enormous cost to democracy and human rights.
The Chinese state, under Xi's watch, has committed severe human rights violations, most notoriously in the Xinjiang region, where Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have faced mass internment, surveillance, forced labor, and systemic cultural erasure.
Renowned scholar Rahile Dawut, like thousands of others, has been imprisoned for peaceful scholarly work.
In Hong Kong, the promise of "one country, two systems" has been shattered, with pro-democracy activists arrested and free speech all but extinguished.
The consolidation of Xi's power has also come with a crackdown on political opponents, a tightening of censorship, and a growing cult of personality.
He has rewritten the constitution to eliminate term limits, purged rivals under the banner of anti-corruption, and restructured the Chinese Communist Party to answer solely to him.
Key figures such as Admiral Miao Hua, Deputy Commander You Haitao, former Foreign Minister Qin Gang, and former Defense Minister Li Shangfu have all been removed or silenced, demonstrating a purge culture reminiscent of authoritarian regimes of the past.
We can also look at Paul Kagame.
Rwanda has seen significant economic growth and stability under President Kagame, but his prolonged rule has come at the expense of democratic freedoms.
In power since 2000 - first as vice president and de facto leader, then as president - Kagame has extended his tenure through constitutional amendments, winning elections by overwhelming margins amid accusations of repression.
His government has been criticized for suppressing dissent, eliminating political opposition, and tightly controlling the media, with reports of harassment, imprisonment, and even disappearances of critics.
While Rwanda's development gains are often highlighted, Kagame's consolidation of power has weakened democratic institutions, raising concerns about authoritarian governance masquerading as progress.
Can anyone seriously argue that such a pattern represents successful leadership?
If success comes at the price of human dignity, democratic governance, and institutional independence, then it is a hollow and dangerous kind of success indeed.
This is not just a Chinese phenomenon.
In Zimbabwe, there is growing concern over reports that President Emmerson Mnangagwa may be seeking to extend his time in office beyond the constitutional two five-term limit.
Already, the signs of leadership failure are clear.
Internal dissent within the ruling ZANU-PF has been met with purges and expulsions, including war veterans and senior members like Blessed Geza, Gifford Gomwe, Kudakwashe Gopo, and Benjamin Ganyiwa - all removed for daring to oppose the president's ambition.
The opposition has fared no better, with prominent figures like Job Sikhala, Jacob Ngarivhume, and Jameson Timba thrown in jail under questionable charges.
Even journalists have not been spared.
Blessed Mhlanga, a respected journalist, was recently arrested and denied bail simply for doing his job - an ominous sign of what happens in a country where power becomes concentrated in one individual.
Such a political environment, where the media is silenced, the opposition persecuted, and ruling party dissent crushed, cannot produce democratic progress.
It is a clear failure, even before any formal extension of power is achieved.
The case of Zimbabwe under President Mnangagwa presents an even more damning indictment of prolonged rule - one where authoritarian endurance is coupled with catastrophic governance.
Unlike Rwanda's Paul Kagame, who has at least maintained economic growth and infrastructure, Zimbabwe's rulers have overseen the near-total collapse of the economy, hospitals lacking basic medicines, and schools struggling to function.
Over 80% of the population now lives in poverty, unemployment is rampant, and once-vibrant industries lie in ruins.
Yet, despite this glaring failure, there are those pushing for President Mnangagwa to remain in power past his two five-year terms.
The tragedy in Zimbabwe's case is not just the erosion of democracy, but the fact that its leaders have prolonged their rule while delivering nothing but decay - proving that the real failure isn't just staying in power too long, but doing so while driving a nation into the ground.
When presidents seek to stay beyond their constitutionally mandated terms, they expose a deeper failure: the failure to build systems that can thrive beyond their tenure.
True leadership is about creating strong institutions, not strongmen.
It is about preparing the next generation, not clinging desperately to relevance.
The idea that only one individual can "save" or "develop" a country is not only delusional - it is profoundly undemocratic.
President Boko understands this.
His statement is a rebuke to those who have failed to grasp that term limits are not obstacles but safeguards.
Those who introduced two-term limits understood that a capable, visionary leader should be able to accomplish their goals within ten years.
Anything beyond that signals not continuity, but stagnation and control.
It indicates a refusal to relinquish power and a lack of confidence in one's own legacy or successors.
Botswana's model proves that democracy can work when leaders respect its boundaries.
The country has transitioned through multiple administrations without upheaval, and its institutions, while not perfect, remain largely intact because of a political culture that values constitutionalism.
That is real success.
In the end, President Boko is not just right - he is courageous.
In a time when many leaders are tearing down democratic guardrails, his words remind us that leadership is not about permanence, but purpose.
The desire to stay in power indefinitely reveals not strength, but insecurity. And in that, there is no greater sign of failure.
● 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/
When Botswana's President Duma Boko recently declared that any president who desires to hold on to power beyond ten years is "instantly a failure," he wasn't merely making a political statement.
He was issuing a clarion call to all lovers of democracy to awaken to the creeping authoritarianism taking root in many parts of the world under the convenient guise of economic development or political stability.
His statement was as bold as it was truthful, coming from a leader of a country that has, since 1997, adhered strictly to a constitutional presidential term limit of two five-year terms.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Botswana's consistent observance of this democratic principle stands as a rare example on a continent - and in a world - where leaders routinely seek to extend their grip on power through constitutional amendments, judicial manipulation, and outright repression.
Boko's assertion is rooted in both logic and democratic principle.
His argument is simple: if a president truly understands and takes seriously the immense demands and responsibilities of their office, they would know that it is neither sustainable nor desirable to cling to power beyond ten years.
The presidency is not meant to be a lifelong occupation or a platform for unchecked authority.
Rather, it is a stewardship - a temporary trust bestowed by the people for the express purpose of improving their lives, defending their rights, and strengthening institutions.
That trust is time-bound, and rightfully so.
The logic behind presidential term limits is clear.
At its core, it is about the rotation of leadership to prevent the entrenchment of power.
No individual should monopolize leadership in a democratic society.
Limiting terms ensures that no one man or woman can override the people's will indefinitely, thus safeguarding against authoritarian drift.
It keeps institutions accountable, protects civil liberties, and nurtures leadership renewal.
In democracies where term limits are respected, leaders are forced to focus on leaving a legacy, rather than consolidating power.
It is this understanding that Boko has embraced - and which so many others have forsaken.
Yet there are those, like Zimbabwe's exiled former cabinet minister Professor Jonathan Moyo, who have scoffed at President Boko's remarks.
In a social media post, Moyo dismissed the idea that extending a leader's time in office is inherently a sign of failure.
He cited examples like Xi Jinping of China, Singapore's founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, and Rwanda's Paul Kagame, arguing that these leaders oversaw massive economic growth and rising living standards for their citizens, all while holding onto power well beyond a decade.
By this logic, longevity equates to success - as long as it delivers economic dividends.
However, Professor Moyo's argument is shallow and ultimately dangerous.
It reduces leadership to economic performance alone, disregarding the broader responsibilities a president bears - chief among them, upholding the constitution, defending democratic norms, and protecting citizens' rights.
This is where even high-performing autocrats fail.
A thriving GDP cannot excuse the erosion of civil liberties, the persecution of dissent, or the weakening of independent institutions.
A truly successful leader must lead a country that is not only economically sound but also politically just and socially free.
Take the example of Xi Jinping.
Under his leadership, China has undeniably experienced remarkable economic growth and technological advancement.
But this has come at an enormous cost to democracy and human rights.
The Chinese state, under Xi's watch, has committed severe human rights violations, most notoriously in the Xinjiang region, where Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have faced mass internment, surveillance, forced labor, and systemic cultural erasure.
Renowned scholar Rahile Dawut, like thousands of others, has been imprisoned for peaceful scholarly work.
In Hong Kong, the promise of "one country, two systems" has been shattered, with pro-democracy activists arrested and free speech all but extinguished.
The consolidation of Xi's power has also come with a crackdown on political opponents, a tightening of censorship, and a growing cult of personality.
He has rewritten the constitution to eliminate term limits, purged rivals under the banner of anti-corruption, and restructured the Chinese Communist Party to answer solely to him.
Key figures such as Admiral Miao Hua, Deputy Commander You Haitao, former Foreign Minister Qin Gang, and former Defense Minister Li Shangfu have all been removed or silenced, demonstrating a purge culture reminiscent of authoritarian regimes of the past.
We can also look at Paul Kagame.
Rwanda has seen significant economic growth and stability under President Kagame, but his prolonged rule has come at the expense of democratic freedoms.
In power since 2000 - first as vice president and de facto leader, then as president - Kagame has extended his tenure through constitutional amendments, winning elections by overwhelming margins amid accusations of repression.
His government has been criticized for suppressing dissent, eliminating political opposition, and tightly controlling the media, with reports of harassment, imprisonment, and even disappearances of critics.
While Rwanda's development gains are often highlighted, Kagame's consolidation of power has weakened democratic institutions, raising concerns about authoritarian governance masquerading as progress.
Can anyone seriously argue that such a pattern represents successful leadership?
If success comes at the price of human dignity, democratic governance, and institutional independence, then it is a hollow and dangerous kind of success indeed.
This is not just a Chinese phenomenon.
In Zimbabwe, there is growing concern over reports that President Emmerson Mnangagwa may be seeking to extend his time in office beyond the constitutional two five-term limit.
Already, the signs of leadership failure are clear.
Internal dissent within the ruling ZANU-PF has been met with purges and expulsions, including war veterans and senior members like Blessed Geza, Gifford Gomwe, Kudakwashe Gopo, and Benjamin Ganyiwa - all removed for daring to oppose the president's ambition.
The opposition has fared no better, with prominent figures like Job Sikhala, Jacob Ngarivhume, and Jameson Timba thrown in jail under questionable charges.
Even journalists have not been spared.
Blessed Mhlanga, a respected journalist, was recently arrested and denied bail simply for doing his job - an ominous sign of what happens in a country where power becomes concentrated in one individual.
Such a political environment, where the media is silenced, the opposition persecuted, and ruling party dissent crushed, cannot produce democratic progress.
It is a clear failure, even before any formal extension of power is achieved.
The case of Zimbabwe under President Mnangagwa presents an even more damning indictment of prolonged rule - one where authoritarian endurance is coupled with catastrophic governance.
Unlike Rwanda's Paul Kagame, who has at least maintained economic growth and infrastructure, Zimbabwe's rulers have overseen the near-total collapse of the economy, hospitals lacking basic medicines, and schools struggling to function.
Over 80% of the population now lives in poverty, unemployment is rampant, and once-vibrant industries lie in ruins.
Yet, despite this glaring failure, there are those pushing for President Mnangagwa to remain in power past his two five-year terms.
The tragedy in Zimbabwe's case is not just the erosion of democracy, but the fact that its leaders have prolonged their rule while delivering nothing but decay - proving that the real failure isn't just staying in power too long, but doing so while driving a nation into the ground.
When presidents seek to stay beyond their constitutionally mandated terms, they expose a deeper failure: the failure to build systems that can thrive beyond their tenure.
True leadership is about creating strong institutions, not strongmen.
It is about preparing the next generation, not clinging desperately to relevance.
The idea that only one individual can "save" or "develop" a country is not only delusional - it is profoundly undemocratic.
President Boko understands this.
His statement is a rebuke to those who have failed to grasp that term limits are not obstacles but safeguards.
Those who introduced two-term limits understood that a capable, visionary leader should be able to accomplish their goals within ten years.
Anything beyond that signals not continuity, but stagnation and control.
It indicates a refusal to relinquish power and a lack of confidence in one's own legacy or successors.
Botswana's model proves that democracy can work when leaders respect its boundaries.
The country has transitioned through multiple administrations without upheaval, and its institutions, while not perfect, remain largely intact because of a political culture that values constitutionalism.
That is real success.
In the end, President Boko is not just right - he is courageous.
In a time when many leaders are tearing down democratic guardrails, his words remind us that leadership is not about permanence, but purpose.
The desire to stay in power indefinitely reveals not strength, but insecurity. And in that, there is no greater sign of failure.
● 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.
