Does it make sense for an 83-year-old president to be pushing for a term extension?

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

When a politician actively pushes to bypass constitutional term limits, the immediate justification offered by his handlers is always wrapped in the language of national stability, unfinished projects, or a unique mandate to govern. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

But we must strip away the political theater and interrogate the absolute absurdity of such an ambition, particularly when the individual at the center of this power grab is 83 years old. 

A nation is not a private estate, and governing it is not a hobby. 

To demand an extension of power at this advanced stage of life is to defy the most fundamental laws of nature and biology, sacrificing the future of an entire country for the sake of personal stubbornness.

To understand why this ambition is so profoundly misguided, one does not even need a degree in political science; it requires only a basic observation of human life. 

I loved my late mother in ways that could never be described. 

She was a sweet, loving, and entirely selfless lady whose impact on my life is permanent. 

Officially, her records stated she was born in 1947, as no one in her family in rural Rusape at the time knew the exact dates. 

However, when we made careful comparisons, taking various historical factors and family milestones into consideration, she was likely born in 1938, making her 85 at the time of her passing last year. 

Even though she was still quite active for her age, it was clear to everyone around her that the natural, irreversible progression of aging had taken its toll. 

If I were to be asked today whether I would have recommended her to lead a country, my answer would be an unequivocal no. 

There was undoubtedly no way she could have handled the exhausting, demanding task of running a modern state at her age.

This brings us back to the central contradiction: why then would an 83-year-old president want to remain in power for even longer? 

If a robust, loved, and active individual cannot escape the physical realities of their 80s, by what magic does a politician believe he is immune to them? 

State governance is an elite-level, high-stress endeavor that demands peak physical resilience and constant mental sharpness. 

It requires round-the-clock decision-making, rapid crisis management, punishing international travel schedules, and intense negotiations. 

Forcing a term extension means entering a period where the leader will be expected to manage the complex affairs of millions of people well into his late 80s or even early 90s. 

This is a demographic window where the human body naturally faces an escalating risk of physical frailty, chronic fatigue, and cognitive slowing.

No serious institution, corporate board, or international organization would ever hire a chief executive at 83 years old to launch a demanding, multi-year strategic plan. 

The responsibilities of running a country are vastly more complex and exhausting than managing any corporation, yet the physical limitations governing human biology remain exactly the same. 

Entrusting the supreme executive authority of a nation to an individual whose physical stamina is in natural decline is a massive, unnecessary gamble with national stability.

Beyond the physical limitations, the neurological reality of aging poses an even greater risk to national governance. 

While an older individual retains accumulated historical experience, fluid intelligence—the specific cognitive faculty required to synthesize massive volumes of conflicting data under extreme time pressure—naturally declines. 

The brain experiences a reduction in processing speed and working memory capacity. 

In moments of national crisis, a president must make rapid, decisive judgments. 

An octogenarian brain simply requires more time to process inputs, directly impeding the agility of the state. 

Furthermore, cognitive flexibility decreases with advanced age, leading to a psychological tendency to rely rigidly on outdated strategies from the past, even when facing entirely novel, modern challenges.

This advanced age also creates a profound, unbridgeable generational gap between the leadership and the citizenry. 

When a leader is an octogenarian, his formative years and perspectives belong to a completely different era, making it practically impossible for him to grasp or relate to the contemporary socioeconomic realities of a young population. 

A modern nation requires forward-looking, energetic leadership capable of navigating rapid technological change, digital economies, and innovative global trends. 

An 83-year-old presidency is structurally anchored in the past, resulting in a stagnant leadership apparatus that lacks the agility and long-term vision necessary to steer a country effectively into the future.

The psychological distortion of a compressed personal timeline further compromises governance. 

A leader in his late 80s operates with a very short temporal horizon. 

While younger leaders are incentivized to implement sustainable, long-term policies because they will live to see the consequences, an elderly leader is psychologically predisposed to short-term thinking, immediate legacy protection, and maintaining the status quo.

Similarly, an advanced age makes the president highly vulnerable to manipulation by younger, ambitious insiders who exploit his physical frailty and cognitive slowing to run a parallel government behind the scenes. 

These figures control the flow of information to ensure the elderly leader sees only what serves their interests, effectively turning the presidency into a captive instrument for their own political and economic agendas.

Ultimately, forcing a term extension at 83 years old is a complete rejection of logic. 

It ignores the natural limits of human capability, insults the intelligence of the citizenry, and cripples the development of the nation. 

A leader genuinely committed to his country focuses on ensuring a smooth transition and handing over power to a new generation capable of facing the future. 

Clinging to power in one’s twilight years serves as definitive proof that the ambition is entirely personal, extractive, and completely disconnected from the national interest.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08