WHILE ZIMBABWE SUFFERS, THE REAL PRIORITY APPEARS TO BE POWER

Zimbabweans are watching a painful reality unfold where the country’s most urgent crises seem to be treated as secondary while political energy is focused on constitutional changes linked to presidential power. At a time when families are struggling with economic hardship, hospitals remain under pressure, jobs are scarce, and public frustration continues to grow, reports suggest that major government attention is being directed toward efforts connected to extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s political future beyond the current constitutional timeline.

The reported movements of Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi have raised fresh questions about where the government’s priorities truly lie. Instead of focusing on Zimbabwe’s representation at a major international human rights gathering, attention appears to have shifted toward consultations connected to constitutional reform. For many Zimbabweans, that contrast is striking. A country facing serious governance, economic, and rights concerns would be expected to engage fully on global platforms where such issues are debated. Yet the greater urgency appears to be domestic political restructuring.

Reports suggest that consultations have involved legal and political strategists, including discussions around proposals that would significantly alter Zimbabwe’s constitutional order. These reported changes include extending presidential tenure beyond the current two term structure ending in 2028, increasing presidential term length, and changing how the president is chosen by moving away from direct public voting.

These are not small legal adjustments.

They would represent some of the most serious constitutional changes Zimbabwe has faced in years because they go directly to the heart of democratic accountability, leadership renewal, and citizen participation.

Term limits exist for an important reason. They are designed to prevent power from becoming permanently concentrated in one office or around one political network. They create predictable leadership transitions and protect democratic systems from becoming personalised around individuals rather than institutions.

Changing those protections in favour of a sitting leader naturally creates deep public concern.

The proposal to weaken or remove direct public participation in choosing the presidency would be equally significant. Direct voting is one of the clearest ways citizens exercise democratic ownership over national leadership. Removing that power would fundamentally reshape the political relationship between the people and the state.

That is why many Zimbabweans are unlikely to see such changes as technical reforms.

At the same time, Zimbabwe continues to face international scrutiny over governance, rights, and civic freedoms. Major global human rights discussions continue to examine issues such as freedom of expression, protection of human rights defenders, political repression, and civic space. Zimbabwe’s own record has frequently been part of wider international concern, particularly through testimony from civil society groups and rights observers.

This makes the current political focus even more revealing.

At a moment when Zimbabwe could be working to rebuild international confidence, strengthen domestic legitimacy, and address public hardship, the political system appears increasingly consumed by constitutional engineering.

Back home, the pace of consultations appears intense. The reported ninety day consultation window suggests urgency, coordination, and strategic planning. But that urgency raises a difficult question. Why is constitutional extension treated with such speed when long standing national crises continue with far less visible urgency?

Zimbabweans have lived for years with economic pain, failing services, unemployment, and declining trust in institutions. Citizens are not demanding longer presidential terms. They are demanding opportunity, stability, dignity, and accountable governance.

Leadership renewal is not a threat to democracy. In many systems, it is one of democracy’s essential protections.

A political system becomes dangerous when constitutional rules are adjusted not because the nation demands change, but because power demands preservation.

Zimbabwe stands at an important moment. Constitutional reform should strengthen democracy, expand participation, and protect institutions. It should never create the impression that the system is being redesigned to serve incumbency rather than citizens.

The real national emergency is not the calendar of presidential succession.

It is the daily struggle of ordinary Zimbabweans trying to survive while political elites focus on preserving power.