Zimbabwe will be more isolated and unstable if president's term extended without referendum

Shortcuts are usually "wrong-cuts" that achieve the exact opposite of the desired effect.

The political landscape in Zimbabwe is currently dominated by a frantic effort to manipulate the supreme law of the land. 

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

Authorities are pulling out every trick from an extensive bag of maneuvers and employing complex legal semantics to justify an extension of President Emmerson Mnangagwa's term in office. 

This push centers on avoiding a constitutionally mandated national referendum, a move that threatens to unravel the fragile threads of progress the country has managed to weave. 

While proponents of the Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill wrap their arguments in the comforting language of stability and continuity, the reality is far more perilous. 

Bypassing the democratic will of the people will not bring national development; instead, it will invite a damaging wave of isolation and internal strife that could haunt the nation for decades.  

In the corridors of power, the terms stability and national development are being used as shields against criticism. 

The argument is that the current administration needs more time to finish its projects and solidify its economic vision. 

However, history and political science suggest that the opposite is true. 

True stability is never built on the shifting sands of legal loopholes or the suppression of constitutional imperatives. 

When a government seeks to bypass a national referendum required to enable a sitting president to benefit from a term extension, it creates a crisis of legitimacy. 

Section 328 of the Constitution is clear that any amendment whose effect extends the length of time that a person may hold or occupy any public office cannot benefit the person who held that office before the amendment. 

There is no other way around this legal imperative without a direct and transparent mandate from the citizens.  

The push for these amendments has already begun to manifest in a chilling crackdown on dissent, further exposing the hollow nature of the promised stability. 

The recent arrest of renowned lawyer and opposition figure Tendai Biti in Mutare serves as a stark reminder of the lengths to which the state will go to silence alternative voices. 

Arrested alongside his colleagues from the Constitutional Defenders Forum while campaigning against these very amendments, Biti's detention sends a clear message that the authorities view legal and peaceful advocacy as a threat. 

Although he was eventually granted 500 dollars bail, the conditions accompanying his release are particularly telling. 

The requirement to seek police clearance before convening any further campaign meetings is a de facto ban on public debate. 

It creates an environment where the constitution is being rewritten in the dark while those who seek to illuminate the process are shackled by restrictive legal conditions.  

This pattern of intimidation is not limited to the courtroom or the police station. 

The brutal physical assault on prominent lawyer Lovemore Madhuku and his National Constitutional Assembly comrades highlights a more violent dimension of this political desperation. 

Being attacked while holding a private meeting in their own offices is an affront to the very notion of the rule of law. 

Such acts of state-sponsored or state-tolerated violence do not project strength; they project a profound fear of the people's voice. 

When prominent legal minds and activists are beaten for simply discussing the constitution, the government loses any remaining moral authority to claim it is acting in the interest of national development. 

These events are already creating a sense of instability that delegitimizes the entire amendment process before the Bill even reaches a final vote.  

The immediate consequence of forcing such an amendment through without national consensus is a deep and dangerous increase in social division. 

Zimbabwe is already a country marked by significant polarization, and this move will only serve to widen the chasm between the ruling elite and the governed. 

When the rules of the game are changed mid-stream to favor those in power, the sense of unfairness fuels resentment. 

This polarization is the antithesis of the peace and stability required for any meaningful development. 

A nation at war with itself over its own founding document cannot focus on the Herculean task of economic recovery. 

Instead of a unified push toward a better future, the country will likely see a rise in civic unrest and a breakdown in the social contract that binds a people to their leadership.

The international implications are equally dire. 

For several years, the government has touted its engagement and re-engagement program as a centerpiece of its foreign policy. 

The goal was to shed the pariah status of the past and rejoin the community of nations as a respected partner. 

Pushing through these constitutional amendments while simultaneously arresting opponents and assaulting lawyers will effectively destroy the credibility of this program. 

The international community views the respect for constitutional term limits and the protection of civil liberties as litmus tests for democratic maturity. 

By ignoring these limits and stifling debate, Zimbabwe signals to the world that it is returning to a path of autocratic entrenchment. 

This will lead to renewed international reprisals and a hardening of diplomatic stances from key global players.

International confidence is not merely a matter of diplomatic niceties but is the lifeblood of foreign direct investment. 

Investors are notoriously risk-averse, and nothing signals risk quite like a country that treats its constitution as a mere suggestion. 

If the legal framework can be bent to serve the interests of one individual, then no contract or investment is truly safe. 

This lack of confidence will lead to stalled development as capital flees to more predictable environments. 

Zimbabwe has spent over two decades in an economic pit, and just as it should be striving to climb out, this political maneuvering threatens to kick the ladder away. 

The national development that proponents claim the president deserves to finish will instead be reversed or permanently halted by the very instability they are creating.

We must also consider the human cost of these political decisions. 

Currently, an estimated 80% of Zimbabweans are living below the poverty datum line. 

For these millions of citizens, political stability is not an abstract concept but the difference between eating and going hungry. 

Increased economic turmoil, triggered by political uncertainty, will push even more families into destitution. 

When a state becomes more isolated and is once again viewed as a pariah, the economic opportunities for its people dry up. 

We will likely hear the familiar refrain of sanctions being used as an excuse for failure, even if no new measures are imposed. 

The internal dysfunction caused by bypassing the constitution is a self-inflicted wound that no amount of external scapegoating can heal.

The impact on the local currency, the ZiG, could be devastating. 

The currency has enjoyed a period of relative stability lately, providing a glimmer of hope for businesses and consumers alike. 

However, currencies are reflections of the faith people have in the governance of a country. 

A move that undermines the constitutional order will inevitably wreak havoc on the ZiG, leading to a renewed cycle of soaring prices and hyperinflation. 

Zimbabweans know all too well the pain of losing their savings and seeing their purchasing power evaporate overnight. 

Political decisions have profound effects on the economy, and a decision to bypass the will of the people is a decision to invite economic chaos. 

The loss of jobs and the subsequent disinvestment will further hollow out an already struggling middle class.

The push for Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) is a gamble where the stakes are the very survival of the nation's future. 

Continuity at the expense of the law is not continuity at all but a fracture. 

If the authorities truly believed that the people supported an extension of the current term, they would not fear a national referendum. 

The attempt to use legal semantics to avoid the ballot box, combined with the violent suppression of dissent, is a tacit admission that the move lacks popular support. 

By choosing the path of least resistance in the short term, the government is ensuring a path of maximum resistance for the nation in the long term. 

Zimbabwe stands at a crossroads where one path leads toward the consolidation of constitutional democracy and the other leads back into the darkness of international isolation and internal decay.

Ultimately, the drive for national development cannot be separated from the requirement for constitutional integrity. 

You cannot build a modern economy on a foundation of political instability and human rights abuses. 

The advocates for this amendment are selling a false promise of peace while planting the seeds of discord. 

If the president's term is extended without the direct consent of the people through a referendum, Zimbabwe will find itself more isolated and unstable than ever before. 

The country deserves a future where the law is respected and where the economy is allowed to thrive under the sun of transparency and accountability. 

Anything less is a betrayal of the progress so many have worked so hard to achieve.

© 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