Why did we fight Smith if building roads, bridges and dams is exceptional leadership worthy of life presidency?

Trivializing a national constitution is an attack on the nation itself. 

The foundational essence of a nation is its Constitution.

 If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

It is not a mere document to be toyed with or a set of rules to be rewritten at the whim of those in power. 

It is a social contract that should be sacrosanct and enduring. 

While a Constitution is indeed a living document written by us and capable of being amended by us, the reasons for doing so must be massively significant. 

It becomes a pathetic mockery of democracy when we choose to tamper with the supreme law of the land for trivialities such as enabling a sitting president to extend his stay in office. 

The current logic being peddled in Zimbabwe—that a leader deserves more time or even a life presidency because he is supposedly doing good work, such as rehabilitating roads and bridges and building dams—is not just flawed but dangerous.

To understand the gravity of this constitutional instability, one only needs to look at the global standard. 

In its 250 years of independence, the United States of America has amended its constitution a mere 27 times. 

Crucially, those amendments were never designed to entrench a sitting president or bolster their personal power. 

Instead, they were focused on limiting authority and expanding the rights of the people. 

The 22nd Amendment, for instance, was specifically created to codify the two four-year term limit, ensuring no single individual could hold onto power indefinitely. 

The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were about protecting citizens from the state.

Yet, in Zimbabwe, we are witnessing a staggering and insane disregard for the law. 

In just ten years since the adoption of our 2013 Constitution, we have already seen 35 individual sections amended under Constitutional Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

We are currently facing the Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill, which proposes a further 22 amendments in one go. 

This is a frantic and reckless pace of change that serves the interests of the executive rather than the people. 

Most of these changes have been designed to grant the president more power and more privileges. 

The most absurd of these ongoing efforts is the attempt to extend the presidential term from five to seven years. 

The pretext is that the president is doing a good job and should be given more time to continue.

This twisted logic warrants a blunt question. 

If building infrastructure is the ultimate qualification for staying in power, then why did we fight Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith? 

If we are to be honest and look at the physical landscape of this country, we must admit that nearly every street and highway in Zimbabwe today is the original work of the Smith regime. 

The so-called Second Republic is merely patching up potholes or resurfacing roads after years of criminal neglect following independence. 

Most of the bridges that allow us to traverse our terrain were built by Smith. 

All the major referral hospitals that still stand as the backbone of our healthcare system were products of the Smith era. 

The vast majority of the dams providing water for our agriculture and cities were constructed under his administration.

If building roads, bridges, and dams is considered such exceptional leadership that it justifies amending the sacred supreme law of the land, then Smith undoubtedly did more for this country's infrastructure than both of our post-independence presidents put together. 

If the current administration's “rehabilitation” of Smith's original work is a qualification for a life presidency, then by that same logic, we should never have taken up arms against the man who actually built those structures from scratch. 

We lost thousands of brave men and women in a brutal liberation struggle to end a regime that was, by the current government's own metrics, remarkably “productive” in terms of infrastructure.

We did not fight for tar and concrete; we fought for the principle of self-determination, for the right to hold our leaders accountable, and for a system where no man is above the law. 

When we allow the Constitution to be mutilated to benefit one man, we are betraying every person who died for our freedom. 

To change the supreme law just because a president is doing the basic job he was elected to do is an insult to our national intelligence. 

Infrastructure development is a duty of government, not a gift that must be paid for with our constitutional rights.

The justifications being used to push for these term extensions are flimsy and make no sense. 

Some loyalists have even gone as far as calling for a life presidency based on these meager achievements. 

This just proves that the move to amend the Constitution is not about national development but about the preservation of power at all costs. 

We are on the verge of becoming a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. 

No respected nation treats its supreme law as a rough draft that can be edited whenever a leader wants a few more years in a palace.

Every Zimbabwean who values democracy, decency, and the future of this nation must resist this constitutional vandalism. 

We must reject the idea that our rights are secondary to the career path of a politician. 

If we do not stand firm now, we are essentially saying that the sacrifice of our liberation heroes was in vain and that we are willing to trade our hard-won democracy for a few layers of fresh asphalt on Smith's old roads. 

The Constitution belongs to the people, and it is time we started acting like it.

© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08