By: Malgas Adamu
The recent move in Zimbabwe to extend presidential terms and potentially keep President Emmerson Mnangagwa in office until 2030 raises an important question: Are longer terms in office good or bad for a nation?
The answer is not as simple as many would like it to be.
On one hand, short political terms often make long-term transformation difficult. A leader may spend the first years of office assessing challenges, building a team, and developing policies. By the time those policies begin to take shape, the next election is already approaching. In many cases, a new administration arrives with different priorities, and projects that were only beginning to bear fruit are abandoned before they can mature.
Development requires continuity. Roads, industries, educational reforms, and economic strategies are not built overnight. They require years of planning, execution, adjustment, and expansion. This is one reason why countries that have experienced long periods of stable leadership have sometimes achieved remarkable progress.
One example often cited is Rwanda under President Paul Kagame. Since taking office after the tragedy of 1994, Rwanda has undergone significant reconstruction and development. Whether one agrees with all aspects of his leadership or not, few can deny that continuity in governance allowed long-term plans to be implemented and sustained.
However, there is another side to the argument.
Longer terms can also create the conditions for dictatorship. Leaders who begin with noble intentions may become attached to power. Over time, the pursuit of national development can be replaced by the pursuit of personal comfort, political survival, and control. Institutions become weaker while the individual leader becomes stronger. The nation begins to serve the ruler instead of the ruler serving the nation.
This is my concern when I assess the situation in Zimbabwe. Extending a leader’s time in office can only be justified if that leader possesses a clear vision, a demonstrated commitment to national development, and the courage to implement meaningful change. In the cases of leaders such as Paul Kagame in Rwanda or the current leadership of Burkina Faso, supporters point to visible national projects and a defined direction for the country.
In Zimbabwe, however, I struggle to see such a vision. I do not see a leader urgently pursuing national transformation. Instead, I see a political system that appears increasingly focused on preserving power. For that reason, the extension of presidential terms does not inspire confidence in me. It appears less like a strategy for development and more like a strategy for political longevity.
Yet the issue extends beyond Zimbabwe.
Perhaps the deeper lesson is that Africa remains fragmented into many small political kingdoms. Each state struggles alone with its successes and failures. Weak leadership in one country becomes a burden borne entirely by its own people. Stronger regional integration could create greater accountability, cooperation, and shared development. A more united Africa would reduce the temptation for leaders to become kings of small territories while millions remain economically vulnerable.
The challenge before Africa is not merely deciding how long leaders should stay in office. The challenge is ensuring that leadership remains accountable, visionary, and committed to the welfare of the people. A five-year term without vision is ineffective. A fifteen-year term without accountability is dangerous.
The true measure of leadership is not how long a person remains in power, but what they do with the time they are given.
