Opinion / Columnist
Isn't it hard being a sycophant? What if the President says these constitutional amendments are nonsensical?
5 hrs ago |
144 Views
The world of blind support can be a circus!
There is a particular kind of intellectual gymnastics required to be a professional sycophant, and lately, the performance has become truly exhausting to watch.
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
One has to wonder if it ever gets tiring being a brainless cheerleader for policies that might be pulled out from under you at any moment.
Currently, the push for Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill is in full swing, seeking to extend the presidential term from five to seven years.
We are being bombarded by noise from the usual suspects—ruling party loyalists and those captured fragments of the opposition who have found a new home in the pockets of power.
They tell us that five years is just not enough time for the president to complete his development programs.
They claim that frequent elections are too expensive and disruptive to national stability.
In all this manufactured clamor, there is one detail that should make any sensible person pause.
The very man who would benefit from this extension, President Emmerson Mnangagwa, has been eerily quiet.
Ever since the Bill was gazetted last month, the president hasn't breathed a word about it.
He hasn't justified it, he hasn't endorsed it, and he hasn't even referenced it.
Why is the man at the center of this storm staying so silent while his loyalists scream themselves hoarse?
If this amendment is truly the panacea for Zimbabwe's development, why isn't the leader of the nation leading the charge?
It is entirely possible that the president is doing something much more calculated than his followers realize.
He might simply be studying the national mood.
In politics, silence is often a scout sent out to see how much fire a particular idea will draw.
Is it really so far-fetched to assume that if these proposed changes appear too dangerous or likely to backfire, the president might decide to step out and condemn them?
Imagine a scenario where he eventually emerges, not as the beneficiary of a power grab, but as the protector of the constitution.
He could easily brand these amendments as nonsensical and foster the exact opposite narrative of what his vocal proponents are currently touting.
If that were to happen, the irony would be delicious.
The president could suddenly declare that frequent elections are actually the heartbeat of national development.
He could argue that no cost is too high for a right that thousands of Zimbabweans shed their blood to secure.
He might even lecture the nation on how Zimbabwe possesses institutions strong enough to ensure that national programs continue regardless of who sits in the high office.
He would look like a principled statesman who respects the rule of law, while his most devoted "supporters" would be left standing in the rain, looking like absolute fools.
This is the inherent danger of blind support.
When you trade your ability to think for the comfort of following, you become a puppet whose strings can be cut by the very hand you are trying to kiss.
Only last year, the president claimed several times that he would abide by the constitution and step down at the end of his current term in 2028.
Whether one believes that assertion or not is beside the point.
The point is that the president has left himself a back door, while his sycophants have locked themselves in a room that is currently on fire.
What would these people do if the president suddenly changed his tune?
We already know the answer.
They would pivot instantly.
They would start saying that the amendments were ill-thought-out and counterproductive, using the exact same arguments that social justice advocates and critical thinkers are using today.
They would pretend they were always on the side of constitutionalism, never missing a beat as they transitioned from one script to the next.
But in doing so, they would only confirm what the rest of the nation already suspects—that they have no core, no principles, and no shame.
Ultimately, this level of sycophancy makes a person look like an idiot in front of the entire nation.
It is a gamble where the stakes are your own dignity.
If you spend your days justifying the unjustifiable and defending the indefensible, you shouldn't be surprised when the person you are defending decides to save his own reputation at the expense of yours.
National development is built on the strength of laws and the integrity of institutions, not on the shifting whims of those who are too afraid to speak truth to power.
If the president eventually pulls the plug on this amendment, the only thing that will be left "extended" is the embarrassment of those who didn't have the brains to see the trap they were walking into.
© 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
There is a particular kind of intellectual gymnastics required to be a professional sycophant, and lately, the performance has become truly exhausting to watch.
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
One has to wonder if it ever gets tiring being a brainless cheerleader for policies that might be pulled out from under you at any moment.
Currently, the push for Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill is in full swing, seeking to extend the presidential term from five to seven years.
We are being bombarded by noise from the usual suspects—ruling party loyalists and those captured fragments of the opposition who have found a new home in the pockets of power.
They tell us that five years is just not enough time for the president to complete his development programs.
They claim that frequent elections are too expensive and disruptive to national stability.
In all this manufactured clamor, there is one detail that should make any sensible person pause.
The very man who would benefit from this extension, President Emmerson Mnangagwa, has been eerily quiet.
Ever since the Bill was gazetted last month, the president hasn't breathed a word about it.
He hasn't justified it, he hasn't endorsed it, and he hasn't even referenced it.
Why is the man at the center of this storm staying so silent while his loyalists scream themselves hoarse?
If this amendment is truly the panacea for Zimbabwe's development, why isn't the leader of the nation leading the charge?
It is entirely possible that the president is doing something much more calculated than his followers realize.
He might simply be studying the national mood.
In politics, silence is often a scout sent out to see how much fire a particular idea will draw.
Is it really so far-fetched to assume that if these proposed changes appear too dangerous or likely to backfire, the president might decide to step out and condemn them?
Imagine a scenario where he eventually emerges, not as the beneficiary of a power grab, but as the protector of the constitution.
He could easily brand these amendments as nonsensical and foster the exact opposite narrative of what his vocal proponents are currently touting.
If that were to happen, the irony would be delicious.
The president could suddenly declare that frequent elections are actually the heartbeat of national development.
He could argue that no cost is too high for a right that thousands of Zimbabweans shed their blood to secure.
He might even lecture the nation on how Zimbabwe possesses institutions strong enough to ensure that national programs continue regardless of who sits in the high office.
He would look like a principled statesman who respects the rule of law, while his most devoted "supporters" would be left standing in the rain, looking like absolute fools.
This is the inherent danger of blind support.
When you trade your ability to think for the comfort of following, you become a puppet whose strings can be cut by the very hand you are trying to kiss.
Only last year, the president claimed several times that he would abide by the constitution and step down at the end of his current term in 2028.
Whether one believes that assertion or not is beside the point.
The point is that the president has left himself a back door, while his sycophants have locked themselves in a room that is currently on fire.
What would these people do if the president suddenly changed his tune?
We already know the answer.
They would pivot instantly.
They would start saying that the amendments were ill-thought-out and counterproductive, using the exact same arguments that social justice advocates and critical thinkers are using today.
They would pretend they were always on the side of constitutionalism, never missing a beat as they transitioned from one script to the next.
But in doing so, they would only confirm what the rest of the nation already suspects—that they have no core, no principles, and no shame.
Ultimately, this level of sycophancy makes a person look like an idiot in front of the entire nation.
It is a gamble where the stakes are your own dignity.
If you spend your days justifying the unjustifiable and defending the indefensible, you shouldn't be surprised when the person you are defending decides to save his own reputation at the expense of yours.
National development is built on the strength of laws and the integrity of institutions, not on the shifting whims of those who are too afraid to speak truth to power.
If the president eventually pulls the plug on this amendment, the only thing that will be left "extended" is the embarrassment of those who didn't have the brains to see the trap they were walking into.
© 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
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.
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
