22/12/2024
This is Hopewell Chin'onos response to a Follower who had asked if it's democratic for Paul Kagame to stay in power for such a long time:
I have stated on the record many times that I don’t care who runs Zimbabwe, as long as they are competent, honest, visionary, and they are NOT part of a looting cartel.
Ordinary Zimbabweans would not have cared how long Robert Mugabe stayed in power if he had been competent, honest, visionary, and compos mentis.
Unfortunately, he was none of those four things when he left office via a military coup, and Mnangagwa is no different either.
That is why progressive Zimbabweans want change, they want a better economy with hospitals that work, roads that are not potholed, employment opportunities and more tangible things like they have in Rwanda.
America had a president who stayed in power for 12 years, his name was Franklin D. Roosevelt.
He died in office in 1945 during his fourth term.
He stayed in power that long due to circumstances specific to America at the time, including the Great Depression and World War Two.
He argued that America needed a leader with experience and a steady hand. Americans agreed and voted for him four times.
Rwanda, like Singapore, has taken a path that works for them, and I judge them based on their output.
Malawi, with its Westminster style democracy, is an embarrassing economic mess, worse than a dictatorship like Muammar Gaddafi who actually looked after his people.
Nobody would have minded Mnangagwa’s self-desired lengthy tenure if his regime were delivering public services, demonstrating vision, and growing the economy substantially.
Instead, Mnangagwa’s regime has made Zimbabwe a laughing stock. Is Rwanda a laughing stock?
Term limits were put in place for people like Mnangagwa and Chakwera, who have failed to deliver anything under their watch.
They are also a reflection of a country’s history.
Britain has no term limits due to its specific history.
The head of state is the king,