Even constitutional changes benefiting the opposition, Mr. Mahomva, are self-serving and a danger to democracy

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The sanctity of a national constitution lies not in its flexibility to meet the passing whims of a political moment, but in its unwavering rigidity against the tides of opportunism. 

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

When a constitution is treated as a tactical instrument that can be surgically altered to “accommodate” the perceived weaknesses of an opposition, it ceases to be a supreme law and becomes a weapon of statecraft. 

The current discourse surrounding Constitutional Amendment (No. 3) Bill, CAB3—framed by ZANU-PF apologists like Runyararo Richard Mahomva as a “fortune-bearer” for a “decomposed” opposition—is a masterpiece of rhetorical gaslighting. 

It seeks to dress a fundamental assault on democratic guardrails in the borrowed, and highly ill-fitting, robes of altruism. 

To suggest that the supreme law of the land should be tinkered with to give an unorganized opposition “time to resurrect” is a transparently cynical attempt to manufacture consent for an amendment that serves only one master: the incumbency.

We must be clear-eyed about the nature of this “mercy.” 

Mahomva’s sudden concern for the “recuperation” of the opposition is not born of a democratic epiphany, but of a calculated need to provide a moral cover for the extension of political terms. 

By characterizing the opposition as “bankrupt” and “defunct,” the ruling party’s intelligentsia seeks to infantilize the political contest. 

They offer a seven-year electoral cycle as a “panacea,” yet the true beneficiary of such a delay is not the opposition struggling to find its footing, but the administration seeking to avoid the accountability of the 2028 finish line. 

A constitution is a sacred covenant, not a charitable foundation. 

It exists to provide a fixed schedule for the people’s will to be heard. 

If an opposition party is disorganized or institutionally weak, the remedy lies in their internal reform and grassroots mobilization, not in the state rewriting the national charter to “grant” them more time. 

To move the goalposts under the guise of helping the trailing team is a logical fallacy that insults the intelligence of the Zimbabwean electorate.

Furthermore, this logic of “accommodating failure” is a dangerous precedent that cuts through the very heart of constitutionalism. 

If we accept the premise that the law should change to help a weak opposition “get back on its feet,” we inherently validate the logic that the law should also change to accommodate a leader who fails to achieve his developmental goals within the constitutionally mandated two five-year terms. 

This is the “Trojan Horse” of CAB3. 

By framing the extension of terms as a “second chance” for the opposition, proponents are attempting to grease the wheels for a permanent shift in the power structure of the Republic. 

Leadership is defined by its ability to execute a vision within a set, immutable timeframe. 

Constraints are what drive political urgency. 

By removing these constraints, we do not invigorate democracy; we stagnate it, creating a system where the incentive to perform is replaced by the incentive to amend.

Mahomva’s narrative further exposes its own insincerity by linking political viability to the realization of an “Upper Middle-Income Economy by 2030.” 

He argues that the opposition must wait for a state-led economic milestone to develop “organic fundraising.” 

This is not just patronizing; it is a profound subversion of political rights. 

A citizen’s right to vote and a party’s right to compete are not contingent upon their participation in specific state-run economic programs or their proximity to “mining sector millionaires.” 

To suggest that a segment of the polity must wait for the incumbent’s economic vision to reach fruition before they are “fit” to contest an election is to argue for a de facto one-party state masquerading as a benevolent democracy. 

The constitution is meant to protect the political agency of all citizens, regardless of their economic alignment. 

Using the economic self-marginalization of the opposition as a pretext for altering the electoral lifecycle is a cynical attempt to turn the ruling party’s economic control into a permanent political advantage.

We do not for a moment believe that the architects of CAB3 have developed a “soft heart” for their rivals. 

The claim that this amendment is a “timely panacea” for the opposition’s “existential tribulations” is a rhetorical trap designed to make opposition to the bill look like self-sabotage. 

In reality, the “heinous crime” Mahomva accuses the opposition of—promoting the preservation of old economic controls—is used here as a smear to justify their further marginalization under the guise of “giving them time.” 

If the opposition has suffered “factional decimation,” that is a matter for the voters to judge at the polls, not for a ZANU-PF dominated parliament to “fix” via constitutional surgery. 

The electorate does not need a seven-year wait to decide the direction of the country; they need the certainty of the five-year cycles they voted for in 2013.

Ultimately, the strength of Zimbabwe’s democracy will not be measured by the “institutional traction” that a ruling party graciously “permits” its opposition to have. 

It will be measured by the resilience of its institutions against the ambitions of men. 

The 2013 Constitution was a product of national consensus, designed specifically to prevent the personalization of power and the indefinite extension of mandates. 

Any attempt to tinker with this document—whether to “save” a weak rival or to prolong a presidency—is a betrayal of that consensus. 

The supreme law must remain the bedrock that political reality respects, not a plasticine model that apologists mold to fit the convenience of the day. 

If we allow the constitution to be treated as a tactical tool for “giving chances,” we lose the rule of law and inherit a hollow republic where the only constant is the will of those who hold the pen.

• 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