By Costain Banda| It is wise for wise people to leave on their own initiative and when their country is thriving and not when the court or people ask them to step down. It should be noted that former Presidents can be effective opinion makers long after leaving office.
Power is sweet when all are happy and everything is on the letter of the law.

Zimbabwe is very lucky to have the president who is serving his institution well and we are hoping that he can go on forever. Unfortunately, many people who think this way sometimes end up having a belief that good service must be rewarded by over staying. They do not in anyway suggest that maybe it’s time for the good leader to retire or move on.
No one wants to be blindsided like this. All of us would prefer to leave on our own initiative, preferably when we are at the top of our game and our country is thriving, not when the people ask him to step down. So even if things seem to be going well, there are questions one might ask each year on the anniversary of his appointment as president.

Is our president still getting along with his people. Because successful presidency and economies are the result of a partnership between the president and the people,it’s important occasionally to do a reality check whether our relationship with the grassroots , is still positive. Not that there won’t be moments of discord. But if suddenly a definite and/or irreconcilable divide occurs between us and them or if a new situation arrives with whom we are incompatible, we might want to take stock of our situation.

Am I still enjoying the job? The presidency is difficult, but it should also be pleasurable. There are too many presidents who in their last term will tell you they can’t stand the job anymore. They have gotten into a repetitive cycle of way of life that is predictable to the point of being monotonous, but they are nevertheless hanging on. Some would hang on because power is sweet. Progressive economies need high-octane leaders who are enthusiastic and energetic, not people who no longer enjoy the job and wish they could be somewhere else. It needs a button to be passed on to another. The best way to serve is to give your team mate the chance to develop and mordenize your developments. Projects succeed when the project manager owns it communally.

Does the country have new or different needs now? The needs of a country change over time. Perhaps the country elected you because you had a special expertise at that point in time the country needed someone who could manage and balance the budget. It took ten years, but now your country is not only in good order but thriving. Now what it needs is a president who can participate with the maintaining the development you have brought about which is perhaps not your strong suit. If that is the case, you need to ask yourself whether you have the ability and/or the inclination to adjust to the changing needs of your country.
But asking these questions could also cause you to see the beginning signs that it’s maybe time to reconsider your situation.

The vibe from within the party to amend the constitution is not only irresponsible but also dangerous for the nation. Amending a nation’s constitution to extend the tenure of a president is not only a dangerous precedent but also a betrayal of the democratic principles upon which the nation stands. The notion that President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s success is a valid justification for amending the constitution to allow him to serve beyond the two term limit is deeply flawed. The president has maintained that he is a constitutionalist and will not stay a day longer in the office. The President has explained clearly that,the constitution is the supreme law of the land, designed to provide a framework for governance that ensures stability, fairness, and the protection of citizens’ rights. It should not be subject to manipulation for the benefit of any individual, regardless of their achievements or popularity. If we argue that a “good job” by a president warrants an extension of their tenure, we open the door to the dangerous possibility of indefinite rule, which undermines the very essence of democracy.

There is no question that ED worked so hard and managed to turn Zimbabwe’s fortunes. Within the first five years the President pulled the country out of the woods and placed it in an economically attractive platform.
The reasoning being sounded by the 2030 team raises a critical question: if we are willing to amend the constitution to keep a successful president in power, what happens when a president is failing? Should we then amend the constitution to remove them prematurely or prevent them from serving at all? Such a perspective risks turning the constitution into a tool of convenience, bent and reshaped at will to suit current circumstances rather than standing as a solid foundation for governance. This not only erodes public trust in the legal framework but also destabilises the political system by making it subject to the whims of those in power and those who are seeking to be noticed by the president.

There is a difference between Vision 2030, which is the aspiration for Zimbabwe to become an upper middle income country by 2030. This is not a personal project of any single individual, it leaves no one behind. It is a collective goal, a national vision that transcends individual leadership. As such, the success of Vision 2030 should not hinge on the breaching of the constitution but rather on the commitment of the nation’s leadership whoever they may be to uphold and pursue this shared goal. Any competent and dedicated leader who assumes office after 2028 should be fully capable of carrying forward the mandate of Vision 2030. To suggest otherwise undermines the collective spirit and ambition that the vision represents.

The campaign to amend the constitution in this manner is not just misguided, it is ridiculous and fundamentally undemocratic. It is made worse by some sloganeering elements who change the slogan to “ Pasi nevasingade 2030.”Constitutions are designed to endure, to outlast the leaders who govern under them, and to protect the nation from the dangers of power consolidation. It is both unreasonable and undemocratic to tamper with the constitution for the sake of an extended rule. This spirited effort contradicts the very purpose of term limits, which is to prevent the emergence of autocracy, ensure regular leadership renewal, and promote the healthy functioning of democracy.
The idea of amending the constitution to allow the President to serve beyond the two-term limit, no matter how “good” his performance is,is an affront to democratic principles.

The constitution is a safeguard for all Zimbabweans, not a tool for personal gain. Vision 2030 belongs to the people, not to any one individual, and it is the collective responsibility of the nation’s leaders to ensure its realization. Therefore, any attempt to amend the constitution in this way should be resisted as a grave misstep and an act of folly that threatens the very fabric of Zimbabwe’s democracy. It is advocated by the people who have failed to win any election and are serving at the discretion of the President. They are actually labouring under the belief that their push for 2030 will increase their chances of being rewarded by the president.
The problem is that when external involvements begin to compromise our internal responsibilities, our country begin to suffer. We will have to continue wallowing under sanctions.

While in theory a president’s power should end when they end their term in office, they can often wield considerable influence after they leave the State House.

In other countries former presidents can influence public opinion,
The idea that a head-of-state’s term would expire before he did was a profound departure from the political norm. However, beginning with President ED , the handover of presidential power will be a cornerstone of Zimbabwean democracy.
But the transfer of formal presidential powers does not mean that ex-presidents are powerless. Outside their constitutional authorities, presidents enjoy a bevy of informal powers that they continue to wield long after leaving the State House. The presidents will draw power not only from their constitutional role, but also their unique ability to cultivate a direct relationship with the general public.

Zimbabwe’s name is being pulled down into the graves of history by a few who seek further advantages.

Patriotism is not proved by advocating for the breach of the constitution. The president needs a constructive advice and not a criminal advice.
The legacy of the president is at risk of being soiled.