Harare’s parliament has done it again: a rushed vote, a raised hand, and another decade for Emmerson Mnangagwa. The bill extends presidential term limits from two to three terms, and—let’s be honest—who’s counting? The British Foreign Office, predictably, has issued a sternly worded condemnation, tutting from afar like a schoolmarm watching a pupil cheat at cards.
But to frame this as a simple breach of democratic norms is to miss the point. Zimbabwe is not a democracy in crisis; it is a postcolonial state performing the ritual of liberal governance while adhering to the older, more honest logic of patrimonial rule. The West’s outrage is a kind of nostalgic theatre, a pretend belief that once upon a time Africa elected leaders who left office gracefully.
History suggests otherwise. From Mugabe to Mnangagwa, the pattern is clear: power is not a temporary trust but a birthright, a spoils system where the winner takes all and the loser faces exile or worse. The British Parliament, after all, spent centuries refining its own gentlemen’s agreements—until the 20th century, prime ministers could still dissolve Parliament at will.
So let us not feign shock. Zimbabwe’s bill is a reminder that, far from a ‘backslide,’ it is a steady state for many nations. The real question is not why Mnangagwa wants to stay, but why we persist in expecting him to leave.
