CIVICUS speaks with civic educator and activist Munashe Masiyiwa about a recent proposal to extend presidential terms in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe’s ruling Zimbabwe African National Union — Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party has proposed extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s term by two years to 2030, despite constitutional limits of two five-year terms that should end his presidency in 2028. While Mnangagwa has publicly committed to stepping down in 2028, his party has also suggested removing term limits altogether, though no details have been provided on how such changes would be implemented. The two-term limit was established in 2013 under longtime president Robert Mugabe, who ensured the new rule wouldn’t apply retroactively. Mugabe was ousted in 2017 after 37 years in power.

How do Zimbabweans view the proposed extension of presidential terms?

Many Zimbabweans are deeply sceptical of the proposed extension of President Mnangagwa’s term, recalling the concentration of power under Robert Mugabe, whose presidency lasted from 1987 to 2017, and fearing a return to similar authoritarian rule. Historically, Zimbabwe operated under a parliamentary system in which the prime minister was accountable to parliament. However, the introduction of an executive presidency led to power becoming centralised, which eroded democratic checks and balances.

The 2013 constitution, which limits the presidency to two terms, received widespread public support. Mnangagwa has already served his first full term and completed the remainder of Mugabe’s term after the 2017 military-led transition. Many Zimbabweans view any attempt to extend his presidency as a betrayal of democratic principles, seeing it as reinforcing a cycle of leadership entrenchment rather than renewal.

How would the change impact on Zimbabwe’s democracy?

Zimbabwe’s constitutional culture has been weakened by frequent amendments designed to serve political interests rather than uphold democratic governance. Amending the constitution to prolong Mnangagwa’s rule would set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that democratic rules can be altered when they become inconvenient to those in power. Leadership should focus on renewal, allowing new leaders to bring fresh perspectives and drive national progress. If this amendment proceeds, it risks further eroding public trust in democratic institutions.

Zimbabwe stands at a crucial crossroads. The extension of presidential terms threatens to undo the democratic gains made since the adoption of the 2013 constitution. Should Zimbabwe proceed with this amendment, it risks reinforcing the very problems it seeks to overcome, ultimately deepening political and economic instability.

How does this situation compare with similar cases across Africa?

Zimbabwe’s situation mirrors similar attempts by leaders across Africa to extend their rule. In Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni removed age and term limits, which enabled him to remain in power indefinitely. His extended rule has been characterised by repression, electoral manipulation and economic decline. Similarly, in Burkina Faso, attempts to extend presidential terms fuelled widespread unrest, ultimately leading to a popular uprising that ousted Blaise Compaoré in 2014.

These examples illustrate the dangers of term extensions, which often lead to political instability, economic decline and the erosion of civic freedoms. Should Zimbabwe follow this trajectory, it risks deepening governance failures and further alienating its citizens.

What resistance has emerged against these proposed changes?

Although state repression has effectively weakened the political opposition, there has been significant pushback against this move from the public, opposition parties and civil society. Even within the ZANU-PF there are factions that oppose the amendment, signalling internal discord.

Civil society argues that Zimbabwe’s real challenges lie in unemployment, poverty and inequality, not in presidential term limits. It highlights that governments should prioritise national development instead of retaining power. But the outcome remains uncertain: although public discourse against the amendments is growing, it is yet to be seen whether it will be sufficient to stop them.