Zanu PF’s Subversion of the Constitution Making Process Unacceptable

By Vimbainashe Mangoma

The Mugabe regime has a historical infamy for dictating and imposing its perspectives and authoritarian policies on Zimbabweans. Subjugation has been Zanu PF’s main weapon of mass destruction from the days of the liberation struggle to the present. It may have made sense to legitimise violence against the settled oppressors during the liberation struggle, but, there is no rationalisation to employ state-sponsored violence, intimidation, torture and terrorism to prevent its people from making free choices which are consistent with justifiable universal democratic norms and values.

Zanu PF use interminable rituals and impulsive violence to frustrate the fundamental human rights of its citizens. The brutal mass killing of Ndebele people in Matebeleland during the 1980 is a chilling and grave reminder of the Mugabe regime’s disregard for universal human rights and freedom of choice, expression and liberty. It is clear that the subsequent Unity Government between the former ZAPU Party was borne out of repression. They used violence and brutal repression to impose a one-party state friendly Zimbabwe Constitution.

The process should be a free, fair and transparent one yet, the Mugabe’s regime is undermining it through continued violence, subterfuge and propaganda. The same repressive methods, which undermine people’s fundamental and universal human rights are being used again with arrogant impunity against defenceless citizens.

It is tragic that the United Nations Security Council has for the past years ignored the brutal repression of human rights in Zimbabwe despite compelling available evidence.  The Zimbabwe Government violated its own constitutions with impunity from the advent of independence in 1980 to date. It has disregarded international law human rights protocols by refusing to honour judgements by legitimate international courts and tribunals.

The fraught land reform programme, which is responsible for the current constitutional failures was ruled illegal by Mugabe’s own courts. Typical of its dictatorial and repressive passions, it contrived to manipulate the constitution to suit its partisan politics.

Mugabe’s regime has been in power for 28 years yet, it never bothered to make a new and legitimate constitution after the Lancaster House Agreement had expired.  Instead, it took great comfort in making piece-meal amendments rather than engage in a meaningful constitutional reform process for a legitimate and acceptable democratic constitution for Zimbabwe.

The security forces, that is, the army, air force and police force are being used to subvert and corruptly deny, the collective wills of Zimbabweans to choose and write their own constitution.

The Joint Operations Command brazenly refused to recognise the MDC Leader-Morgan Tsvangirayi despite his impeccable political credentials. There is endemic violence in Zimbabwe, which has disrupted on going constitutional outreach meetings. Both anecdotal and empirical evidence testifies to the deliberate under-hand activities of the so-called security forces. They continue to be Mugabe’s tools of repression by perpetrating state sponsored violence against law-abiding citizens. It is evident that they are bent on manipulating and rigging the constitutional referendum outcome in order to maintain the status quo.

History has a tendency of repeating itself, first as farce and second, as a tragedy. It is not over-reaching to assume that the Draft Constitution Making Process is seriously flawed and fraught with irregularities and is bound to be manipulated to safeguard ZANU PF’s selfish interests. The time for right minded Zimbabweans to stand up to this dictatorship in order to ensure that a people-driven constitution ushers in a genuine democratic dispensation is now.  Ahoy!!

Vimbainashe is a volunteer Community Reporter and co-editor of HAT news based in Nottingham. In July 2009, she graduated in BA Honours Mixed Media Textiles design at De Montfort University Leicester. Her most prominent work called ‘Child of our time’ was exhibited at the 2009 Graduate show at the same university.

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

The Diaspora, an indispensable member of the Zim family

By Chofamba Sithole

The ongoing constitutional reform exercise comes at a time when there’s been a marked transformation in the spatial distribution of the Zimbabwean nation. Estimates vary, but there’s a general consensus that up to a quarter of Zimbabwe’s population – over three million people – now live in exile.

The Zimbabwean Diaspora is scattered across four continents, but with discernible concentrations in South Africa and the United Kingdom.

Driven by the country’s protracted economic and political crisis to seek opportunities and refuge elsewhere, Zimbabweans in exile have nonetheless remained connected with their homeland.

The majority lead parallel lives in which they exert themselves emotionally and materially to sustain livelihoods both in their countries of domicile as well as in Zimbabwe.

These binding ties mean that the Diaspora, quite rightly, considers himself an intrinsic and indispensable member of the Zimbabwean family and not merely a disparate person who traces his or her origins to Zimbabwe.

Read more

Diaspora can also discuss new constitution

(IRIN) – The parliamentary committee in charge of reviewing Zimbabwe’s constitution is actively inviting feedback and recommendations from the millions of Zimbabweans living abroad.

“Our resources could not permit us to travel all over the world to solicit the views of Zimbabweans on the contents of the draft constitution; this meant that we could only conduct outreach programmes in Zimbabwe,” a co-chair of the Select Committee of Parliament on the New Constitution, Edward Mkhosi, told IRIN.

Read more

Read related article here

Zanu PF’s Terror Campaign Threat to Constitution-making

The Standard – ZANU PF is reportedly forcing villagers to attend political meetings where they are taught how to respond to outreach teams when they solicit views on the new constitution. The latest reports of intimidation, especially in rural areas, have heightened fears that Zimbabweans will once again be denied the opportunity to freely determine their future.

Consultations on the constitution were suspended two weeks ago after the Constitutional Parliamentary Committee (Copac) ran into a number of logistical problems.

The political battles are set to add another dimension to the various issues threatening the historic process.

MDC-T says Zanu PF has conscripted soldiers, youth militia and war veterans, who spearheaded the party’s ruthless campaign in the June 2008 polls, to cow villagers into supporting the Kariba Draft.

Zanu PF has been pushing for the Kariba Draft -— a document crafted three years ago — to be adopted as the new constitution while the MDC-T wants a “people-driven” process.

Read more

A new constitution for Zimbabwe

By Eddie Cross

Eddie Cross lays out the key issues ahead of the public consultations

More than ever we are learning that good government is not an optional extra – it’s central to the task of administering the world in which we live. Bad government is bad for everyone except a small minority who may stand to benefit from the concentration of power and patronage.

As Churchill said once, democracy may not be perfect, but in a fragile, decadent world, it is the best option available to us. One might say the same about markets – never perfect, but always better than the alternatives. The Bible got it right – money is usually the root of all evil!

These factors together make for a very lethal mix, so lethal that it can kill almost any country if we do not manage them and get the various controls and counter measures in place. Zimbabwe is a prime example of a country whose economy has been destroyed by bad government and money and power.

How do we stop this ever happening again? I guess it starts with the Constitution. The American founding fathers got it right when they sat down and worked out a constitution for the United States . I think they managed to create a sound constitution because they had set themselves clear guiding principles.

They recognised the depravity and fallen character of man, while accepting mankind has great potential. They determined to spread political and administrative power equally among the three branches of the Federal Government. They accepted the supremacy of the law over the players in the Federal Government and ensured the executive would be accountable to an elected House of Representatives and Senate. They provided for a powerful, directly elected President who would be head of Government but accountable to the Elected Assembly.

We are about to go through the same process as a country with the raw wounds of bad government still smarting. It is important we get it right this time even if we have to adjust matters later on in the light of on going experience.

I have been giving this matter some considerable thought in recent weeks, spurred perhaps by the fact that we, the people, are about to be consulted on this vital issue. I am going to take a risk and lay out here what I think are the key issues for us as a nation going into this debate.

Firstly I think that the principle of a clear separation of power is a vital ingredient in this mix. At present we have no such separation – the Judiciary is too reliant and subservient to the Executive and there is no separation between the Executive and Parliament. We need to secure both principles in our new Constitutional dispensation. What I would go for is the American system where we would have a strong directly elected President. But I would get him or her to appoint a small (maximum 20) Cabinet, drawn from our whole society.

I would then provide for a single chamber House of Assembly (I think the Senate is a waste of money and time and adds little to the process of government), with perhaps 200 elected Members of Parliament. These I would select on a Party list, proportional representation basis so that we can ensure 50/50 gender balance at all times. If any MP is selected to go into the Cabinet, then the Party holding that post would replace them maintaining the electoral and gender balance. Each Province would contribute 20 per cent of its national lists to ensure national coverage.

I would divide the country up into 5 Provinces with new boundaries and designed to hold 20 per cent of the population each. Each Province would have its own House of Elected representatives comprising all elected officials in both local and central government drawn from the Province. This Provincial House of Assembly would elect an executive Committee reflecting the composition of the Cabinet and designed to allow the Provincial Executive Committees to monitor and guide national policy and priorities.

In respect to the need to entrench the rule of law, I would strengthen the independence of the Judiciary, allow judicial salaries and conditions of employment to be determined independently and paid direct from the Exchequer. I would give the Judiciary the responsibility of enforcing the Constitution in all respects and for ensuring that the fundamentals of the law are applied to all who live and work in Zimbabwe without preference. I would ensure that contract law and basic rights over property are fully enforced and respected.

In my view, local government is very important in terms of the delivery of basic services and ensuring quality of life for all. I would therefore entrench local government in the constitution and thereby protect its elected representatives from interference from Central Government. I happen to believe that people should be responsible for managing the social institutions that deliver services to the people who pay for them. Local Authorities should be made responsible for this with Central Government proving a policy framework, guidance and funding.

Eventually we are going to have to establish our own currency and when we do, we will need a strong, independent Reserve Bank to manage the currency and our Banking system. Because the temptation will always exist for Government to interfere with this essential function, perhaps this should also be made a constitutional issue.

Many friends are asking me about the issue of faith and the making of a new Constitution. In my own view there is no such thing as a “Christian Nation” or even a “Nation under God”. Faith is a personal issue and I think it should be left to each individual to seek their own way in this area of life. But that said, I would like to see the supremacy of God reflected in the preamble as all politicians need to know that one day, no matter who they are, they will face God and be judged for what they did while they were in positions of responsibility.

Jacob Zuma is in town, judging from the body language I have seen so far, Mugabe has had quite a tough time – I hope that is true as we have been let down by regional leaders so often in the past and there is little belief that this time round will be any different.

Eddie Cross is MP for Bulawayo South and the MDC’s policy coordinator. This article first appeared on his website www.eddiecross.africanherd.com

People-driven Constitutional Reform Process Ideal for Zimbabwe

By Kenneth Mawomo

Fair-minded Zimbabweans from all walks of life agree that a new, genuine, acceptable and legitimate democratic constitution for our beloved country is long overdue.

However, there is lack of unanimity on the way forward.  The major bone of contention relates to who should spearhead this historic constitutional reform process.  Basically, there are two schools of thought.

On the one hand, there is the argument that the process should be government-led, a view the ruling ZANU PF party subscribes to.  On the other hand, the two MDC formations, including civil society organisations led by the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), content that the reform process should be people-driven.

On the basis of available overwhelming evidence that militate against a government-led process, I am persuaded to throw my weight solidly behind a people-driven initiative.

False Start

Already, the government-led initiative has made a false start.  For instance, the three principal signatories to the Global Political Agreement (GPA), President Robert Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara, were without explanation, conspicuous by their absence at the Harare International Conference Centre, the venue for the All Stakeholders Constitutional Meeting, on the very first day [1].

Coincidentally, the opening ceremony was marred by violence instigated by the gullible and malleable trio of Youth minister, Saviour Kasukuwere, war veterans’ leader and self-styled commander of farm invasions, Joseph Chinotimba, and Mugabe’s nephew and legislator, Patrick Zhuwawo [2].

The three rabble-rousers led a rented rowdy ZANU PF mob that brought the constitutional conference’s proceedings to a regrettable premature end.  It was however, heartening to note that, well-meaning Zimbabweans, irrespective of political persuasion, took great exception to such a deplorable public display of bravado by the small-minded, brawn-reliant and violence-prone ZANU PF trio.

Sadly, the same charlatans, who do not seem to have enough of the media glare, albeit for the wrong reasons, have gleefully accepted the honourable task of gathering the views of the people they so much despise.  To be honest, who, in their right frame of mind, would trust this shameful lot to retain an accurate record of the evidence they are expected to gather, assuming that they actually do?

As it stands, the government-led process has done very little to dampen the people’s scepticism regarding the sincerity of the whole exercise.  If anything, this unpopular process has so far succeeded in generating more heat than light.  And this is quite unsettling to say the least.

Certainly this scandalous politicians-led, ZANU PF supported adventure, is slowly but surely taking us nowhere.  We have been led through this garden path before and our memories are still fresh.

Politicians-led Process

For goodness sake, why is ZANU PF so scared about a people-driven constitutional reform process?  Maybe they have too many skeletons in their cupboard.  Their party president, Robert Mugabe, has publicly derided the noble idea of a people-driven constitutional reform agenda [3].

In an otherwise unprecedented but desperate move, indicative of an unstable mind, Mugabe displayed an uncharacteristic and uneasy admiration for the United States of America’s politicians-led constitutional reform process.

Mugabe put forward the pathetic and untenable argument that since the respected USA constitution was crafted by politicians; it therefore means that constitution-making should be an exclusive preserve for politicians [4]. Such warped logic should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

Such hallucinatory spasms are symptomatic of a psychological condition known as selective memory overuse disorder.  Of course, it is a fact that the USA constitution was crafted by politicians, but that is only part of the story.  Your Excellence, you cannot just cherry pick half-baked examples to suit your argument.

What Mugabe deliberately forgot to tell his audience was that these American constitutional drafters were not ordinary politicians in the same mould as the hangers-on that surround him.  Mortals? Yes, but undeniably, the calibre of this rare breed of politicians that included venerable luminaries such as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, to name but a few, is without equal.

It is sheer arrogance to try to draw parallels between charlatans and real life heroes.  If Mugabe thinks that the American-style-politicians-led, constitutional reform process is the best, why does he seem to have a problem with the resultant democratic dispensation that the same process ushered?  Are we missing something here?  This is the problem with the addictive selective memory overuse disorder.  Some unpalatable facts either get back grounded or, are deliberately omitted for obvious reasons.

The truth of the matter is that, the USA’s constitutional crafters were unflinching selfless patriots, inspired by the enduring spirit of the American dream and driven by the irresistible desire to advance national interests at the expense of personal gain.  As such, they managed to produce a durable and ageless constitution that has outlived its crafters in terms of its acceptability and legitimacy to different American generations; past, present and future.

In the not-so-distant past, Mugabe told us ad infinitum, that Americans cannot teach us democracy, accusing them and the British of pursuing a regime change agenda in Zimbabwe.  Unashamedly, he has made a spectacular volte-face, and is now busy telling us that we can learn from the American experience of a politicians-led constitutional process that culminated in the drafting of a truly democratic constitution that is the envy of many.  The simple reason for his atypical confession is that he wants to justify the indefensible flawed process he has imposed on the people.  What gibberish!

Pitfalls of a Government-led Process

We take great exception to such deliberate enthusiastic indulgence in selective memory overuse, irrespective of the individual’s identity or standing.  The Zimbabwean politicians that Mugabe is so keen to put at par with the incorruptible American statesmen are their direct opposites. Our politicians, Mugabe included, are the flip-side of their counterparts.

They are selfish, greedy and power-hungry.  The evidence for such an apt description is far and wide.  Take for instance, the current state of the almost unrecognisable Lancaster House Constitution, which has been mutilated, vandalised and scarred for life, by its 19 amendments to date.  All this makeover was designed to ensure Mugabe enjoys unbridled power as the omnipotent and omniscient, executive president.

Add to this, the rejected 2000 Draft Constitution, reduced to a sham through the blatant manipulation of the process by the corruption-prone and self-centred ZANU PF partisan politicians [5].  As if that is not bad enough, this shameless bunch of jokers want to foist upon the nation, the scandal-laden Kariba draft, that seeks to invest unlimited power in the executive branch of government, at the expense of other key institutions such as, the judiciary and the legislature [6].

In short, the Lancaster House Constitution, the 2000 Draft and the Kariba Draft, all have one thing in common; they bear the unmistaken visual footprints of our egocentric, insatiable and power-hungry politicians.  The general concern regarding a government-led process stems from the fact that our incumbent leaders are so discredited that they cannot be trusted to do an honest job.  They have shamelessly failed us before and it is on record; that is the beauty of history – it always preserves vital lessons for future reference.

As such, we will never lose sight of the fact that, since the 1979 Lancaster House Constitution, any constitutional matters, in particular, the crafting of amendments and new draft documents has been the de facto prerogative of our acumen-deficient politicians.

Predictably, though unfortunate, we have been badly let down.  Therefore, we can no longer afford the luxury of placing our faith in untrustworthy and corrupt weirdos masquerading as true custodians of our hard won independence.

Lancaster House Constitution

A cursory look at the 1979 Lancaster House Constitution crafted against the backdrop of a protracted war of liberation, clearly shows that it was a purely compromise document intended to ensure a smooth post war transitional period, leading to internationally supervised elections.

Without being too harsh on the Patriotic Front negotiators at the Lancaster House Conference, led by Robert Mugabe and Joshua Mqabuko Nyongolo Nkomo, the resultant post war constitution, in use since the country attained independence from Britain in 1980, did not live up to expectations.  While the Lancaster House Constitution enabled black politicians to wrestle the reigns of political power, it fell far short were it mattered most, that is, on the economic front.

Economic power remained firmly in the hands of a white minority community. In particular, the land question, the most contentious of all the sticking points that were debated, was insufficiently dealt with.  According to the agreement, land acquisition could only proceed on the basis of the willing-seller, willing-buyer principle, with no provision for compulsory acquisition, for at least a decade [7].

In this regard, the Lancaster House Constitution was viewed as an act of betrayal by the people and disgruntled liberation war fighters whose involvement in the war, was predicated upon the desire to see an equitable redistribution of the most priceless economic resource, the land.

The politicians, who appended their signatures to the agreement that led to the adoption of this defective constitution as the supreme law of the land, were understandably branded sell-outs!  The reason being that what they agreed upon did not in any way subsume the values, dreams, hopes and aspirations of those who had sacrificed their lives in the name of the struggle for self-determination.

Constitutional Amendments

In a bid to make amends, the ruling ZANU PF party introduced in 2000, constitutional amendment number 16, which allowed the government to compulsorily acquire land, a stipulation that deprived the affected white commercial farmers of any recourse to the courts, for legal challenges [8].  This constitutional amendment was motivated more by political expedience than a real desire to resolve the most intractable outstanding issue in Zimbabwe today.

If the powers that be were indeed sincere, why did they have to wait until 2000, a decade later, to introduce the amendment when in fact, the Lancaster House clause that hamstrung the government from dumping the willing-seller, willing-buyer principle, had expired in 1990?

In fact, an opportunity to compulsorily acquire land through such an amendment had presented itself in 1998, when villagers from Chief Svosve’s area near Marondera, invaded nearby farms to demonstrate their desire for land, while at the same time, venting their frustration at the snail’s pace at which the government-led land reform programme was progressing.

However, since there was no political mileage to be gained by ZANU PF from this decent gesture given its poor timing, the Svosve villagers were forcibly evicted by the police from the occupied farms.

Unfortunately for the Svosve farm invaders, Mugabe was still busy flirting with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank’s futile Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), while at the same time entrenching his stranglehold on power through constitutional amendments, kick-started in 1987 through the creation of the executive presidency.  He could not be bothered by the peasants’ bread and butter issues.

Threat Posed by the MDC

However, this business as usual attitude was soon to change, especially with the arrival of the vibrant MDC on the political scene in 1999.  In 2000, the MDC campaigned against a government sponsored constitutional draft, and the ‘NO’ vote it sponsored, carried the day.  The people had spoken and Mugabe awoke from a deep slumber with a vengeance.

His response was unequivocal. He unleashed war veterans and youth militias on white commercial farms to punish farmers who supported the ‘NO’ vote in the constitutional referendum, marking the beginning of violent farm invasions that have showed no signs of abating even under the recently constituted Government of National Unity.

The parliamentary elections that followed later in the same year were characterised by unprecedented levels of state sponsored violence intended to force people to show their allegiance to ZANU PF by voting them back into power.

Feeling politically vulnerable for the first time since he assumed power in 1980, the geriatric leader railroaded a constitutional amendment through parliament to compulsorily acquire white owned farmland without any legal challenge.  Somebody’s political life was on the line hence, immediate decisive remedial action had to be taken to placate an otherwise restive electorate.

As such, the amendments that ZANU PF has so far pushed through a lame duck parliament have been carefully contrived, to serve the interests of Robert Mugabe and his Party.  As a party, ZANU PF has never had any desire for genuine constitutional reforms; serve for the piecemeal amendments that suited its selfish political agenda.

2000 Constitutional Draft

Clearly, ZANU PF’s involvement in the constitutional reform process in 2000 was not by design.  It had no choice.  It was dragged into it kicking and screaming.  The   chorus for a new democratic people-driven constitution had reached a crescendo and ZANU PF could not continue employing its crude tactic of burying its head in the sand.

However, in trade mark bullish fashion, they hijacked the constitutional reform programme and produced a document that did not reflect the will of the people. Fortunately, the people gallantly fought back, and the results of their tenacity are the very reason the constitutional reform process is back on the agenda once more.

The Kariba Draft

Prior to the March 2008 harmonised elections, the three main political parties crafted a draft constitution in 2007, the infamous Kariba Draft.  This daft document is even far worse than the rejected 2000 draft [9].  It gives sweeping powers to the office of the president.  No wonder why Mugabe is insisting on having the Kariba document as the basis of any future constitutional debate.

What boggles the mind is that the MDC, of all parties, shamelessly endorsed this draft [10].  For an organisation that claims to be a Party of excellence and a champion for democratic principles and values, it defies all logic why it appended its signature to such a scandalous document.  Such behaviour is as preposterous as it is unacceptable.  At this rate of betrayal, who needs politicians?

To be honest, ZANU PF is right to claim that the MDC is backtracking on an earlier agreement regarding the status of the Kariba Draft in any future constitutional reform agenda.  One wonders why the MDC, is now making some silly noises about the status of the Kariba Draft, especially, given their inexcusable complicity in its crafting.  Politicians! My foot!

Such behaviour by our politicians makes the argument for a people-driven constitutional reform process even more compelling.

Current Constitutional Debate

As for ZANU PF, they should be the last ones to claim that they genuinely desire to see a new constitutional order which is truly democratic.  Once again, they have grudgingly been forced back into the constitutional debate.  They did not want to have the issue addressed in accordance with the time frame stipulated in the GPA, requesting instead, to have the process postponed indefinitely citing insufficient funds [11].

Again ZANU PF has been dragged by the scruff of the neck.  When they realised the process was irreversible, they tried to disrupt proceedings through violence.  Surely these are not the kind of people to lead us to the Promised Land.  NEVER!

We are not interested in stop-gap-measure-type constitutions.  We are desirous of a constitution that is durable and ageless, one that invests power in institutions not strong men.  This will ensure zero-tolerance to the politics of patronage that has for a long time, poisoned Zimbabwe’s system of governance.

We yearn for a constitution that strikes a fair balance of power between the executive, judiciary and legislature, based on the principle of separation of powers.  This ensures that there is no abuse of power by any of the three important pillars of the state.

The legitimacy of a genuinely democratic constitution for Zimbabwe will be measured by its acceptability to the generality of the people, not just a coterie of self-centred mandarins.  This is why ordinary citizens have to be involved at every stage of the process not just the referendum as suggested by President Mugabe.

In all fairness, politicians have had their chance, and they squandered it, not once, not twice but on numerous occasions.

Zimbabweans crave for a constitution whose acceptability and legitimacy is indisputable, not only on the simply basis that it is a product of a people-driven process, but because its responsiveness to the values, dreams, hopes and aspirations of the people is absolute.  No ifs, no buts.

On the basis of available evidence, there is no guarantee that politicians will deliver such a constitution.  Their claim to be true democrats is in words only, not deeds.  Democracy and Christianity share one striking resemblance; too many non-believing street-corner-type preachers. Sadly, each preacher has his/her own ‘better’ brand.
At least with Christianity, God will intervene to weed out hypocrites.  As for democracy, the people have to ensure that an acceptable and legitimate democratic constitution, their only potent weapon to deal decisively with pretenders, is always at their disposal.

Squandered Opportunities

While we may be persuaded to forgive our politicians for the half-backed Lancaster House Constitution that ended the war and ushered a new political era, we will never forgive them for selfishly entrenching their foothold on power with numerous amendments when they could have drafted a new democratic constitution instead.

We will never forgive them for hijacking the 2000 constitution reform process in which they openly admitted that ‘the people had spoken’ only to find that, what the people had actually said, was inexplicably lost in translation and never saw the light of day.

We will never forgive them for trying to foist upon us, a sham document infamously known as the Kariba Draft, which is anything but, democratic.

We will never forgive them for squandering numerous opportunities that they could have exploited in order to spearhead real constitutional reforms.

We will never forgive them for denying us the chance to demonstrate that we can, without undue interference, determine our own destiny.  Their half-hearted involvement is unpardonable, and who knows, they may try to play hard ball again and scupper the process once more, effectively delaying the inevitable.

Whatever they so decide, we shall persevere.  The road might be steep and rough, but we will get there, we have overcome far worse challenging obstacles before, and we know we cannot fail at the last hurdle, not when we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.  Never!  Failure has never been an option in this struggle.

Now is the time for people to reclaim their power and say, ENOUGH!  Let us make a clean break from the past, and usher in a new political order, characterised by responsible governance.  The politicians have never been on our side, and never will. The will of the people shall prevail.  The power is in our hands.  Ahoy!!!

References:

[1] Sibanda, T. (2009) ‘Drama as ZANU PF disrupt all-stakeholders conference in
Harare’, http://www.swradioafrica.com/news130709/drama130709.htm (Accessed 05/08/09)

[2] Sibanda, T. (2009) ‘Drama as ZANU PF disrupt all-stakeholders conference in
Harare’, http://www.swradioafrica.com/news130709/drama130709.htm (Accessed 04/08/09)

[3] ‘Militants Disrupt Constitutional Process’
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=19719 (Accessed 05/08/09)

[4] ‘Militants Disrupt Constitutional Process’
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=19719 (Accessed 05/08/09)

[5] ‘Zimbabwean constitution Referendum, 2000’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_constitutional_referendum,_2000
(Accessed 07/08/09)

[6] Kapuya, T. (2009) ‘Zimbabwe: Deferring Democracy – Dining with a Deliquent’
http://allafrica.com/stories/200907230947.html (Accessed 05/0809)

[7] Fowale, T.J. (2009) ‘Zimbabwe after the Lancaster Constitution: Analyzing the
“Willing-seller, willing-Buyer” clause of Lancaster’ http://zimbabwe.suite101.com/article.cfm/zimbabwe_after_the_lancaster_constitution (Accessed 05/08/09)

[8] Lebert, T. An Introduction to Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe
http://www.landaction.org/gallery/Zim%20Bckgrndr-bested%20completed.pdf
(03/08/09)

[9] Kapuya, T. (2009) ‘Zimbabwe: Deferring Democracy – Dining with a Deliquent’
http://allafrica.com/stories/200907230947.html (Accessed 05/0809)

[10] Gonda, V. (2009). ‘Negotiators endorse use of Zimbabwe controversial Kariba
Draft’, http://www.swradioafrica.com/News280709/Kariba280709.htm
(Accessed: 07/08/2009)

[11] Malaba, S. (2009) ‘Zanu PF Trying to Delay Major Constitutional Meeting’
http://www.zimbabwemetro.com/politics/zanu-pf-trying-to-delay-major-constitutional-meeting/ (Accessed 06/08/09)

*Kenneth Mawomo is a volunteer Citizen Reporter with HAT News.

Political violence growing in rural areas

(IRIN) – Families are turning on each other in Zimbabwe’s rural areas, where a higher premium is being placed on political allegiance to either President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party or Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), than ties of blood.

Ebba Katiyo, a middle-aged MDC supporter Uzumba, a village in Mashonaland East Province, told IRIN while convalescing after a beating ordered by her uncle because of her MDC membership that relatives were turning on each other over party loyalties.

“My uncle, who is the village head and a ZANU-PF official, summoned me [on 12 July 2009] to a public meeting where he berated me for continuing to be an MDC supporter,” she said.

“After he publicly humiliated me, he ordered some youth militia [established by ZANU-PF and often accused of political intimidation and thuggery] to beat me up – they used sticks, their feet and clenched fists to beat me all over my body.”

A few days later the same youth militia accosted her and again assaulted her, leaving her for dead. She was discovered by friends and brought to the capital, Harare, for medical treatment.

Mugabe declared three “peace days” from 24 to 26 July “to observe the prevailing peace, [and] promote the ideals of national healing and reconciliation”, but in the rural provinces of Mashonaland West, East and Central, Masvingo and Manicaland – once ZANU-PF strongholds – supporting the MDC still carries the risk of a beating.

Morgan Komichi, a senior MDC official involved in rural organization, told IRIN that ZANU-PF violence was increasing as the party went about shoring up its support ahead of the elections expected to take place once a new constitution has been agreed.

Machinery of violence

“What is happening is that ZANU-PF is rolling out its machinery of violence in order to intimidate the population ahead of the constitution making-process; it is a constitutional battle,” Komichi said.

“Mugabe has said he wants the new constitution to be based on a draft … crafted during the inter-party negotiations [which led to the formation of the unity government], while the MDC is for a people-driven process,” he commented.

Read full story here

Catholics work to get citizen input into new constitution

(CNS) — Catholic officials in Zimbabwe said they are working to involve ordinary Zimbabweans in a constitutional consultation, although many people fear retribution.

“People are apprehensive about taking part in discussions about the constitution but, while there is fear, this process has to happen,” said Father Frederick Chiromba, secretary-general of the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

Through its parishes and other structures, the church “is well-positioned to reach people and bring them into the process” of drafting the constitution, Father Chiromba said in a July 13 telephone interview from Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare.

Under the deal that brought President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change into a coalition government in February, Zimbabwe is to draft a constitution that will go before voters for approval in a referendum in 2010, clearing the way for new government elections.

Noting that “we are doing our best to get the widest possible contribution,” Father Edward Ndete, parliamentary liaison officer for the bishops’ conference, said “the political environment is uneven” in rural Zimbabwe, with residents fearful of violent retaliation if they are seen to be critical of Mugabe.

Brutal state-sponsored violence targeting the opposition after disputed March 2008 elections left more than 80 people dead and 200,000 displaced, human rights groups said.

In Zimbabwe’s cities, supporters of different political parties “are learning to co-exist” and there is “far less tension” between them, Father Ndete said in a July 14 telephone interview from Harare.

“We have invited people from rural areas to Harare so that they can see that people here are able to speak their views without negative consequences,” he said.

Father Ndete, who is coordinating the church’s participation in the constitution-making process, said the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in each diocese, “with the help of priests and parishioners,” will gather people’s ideas and views on the constitution.

Where necessary, civic education will be provided “to make it possible for everyone to have their say in what they want in a constitution,” he said.

“It’s important that people know why the constitution matters and that they feel ownership of it through their participation,” he said.

A parliamentary committee to start the process of drafting a constitution organized a meeting in Harare July 13-14, and Father Ndete said “different viewpoints were heard and useful discussions held” among participating churches, civic groups, trade unions and lawmakers who will form teams to canvas Zimbabwe in public consultations until November.

The talks were disrupted by militants who pushed the speaker of the Parliament off the stage while singing anthems to Zimbabwe’s 1970s liberation war. The talks resumed the next day under tight security, following a rare joint press conference by Mugabe and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, who condemned the violence.

Father Ndete, who is on the committee responsible for drafting the position paper of the country’s churches, said, “We are calling for broad-based inclusion in the drafting of the constitution, openness and transparency, freedom of expression and receptiveness to different opinions.”

Father Chiromba said that among the churches’ main concerns are that the constitution has a strong bill of rights, strengthens Parliament, limits presidential powers and guarantees the independence of the judiciary.

Zimbabwe’s current Constitution was written in Great Britain before the African nation gained independence in 1980.

In 2000, in his first electoral defeat since 1980, Mugabe lost a referendum on a constitution that would have expanded his already extensive presidential powers. Weeks later, state-sponsored invasions of white-owned farms began, setting off a spiral of political and economic turmoil that has left the country impoverished.

Presidential Powers in the “Kariba Draft Constitution”

Background

On 30 September 2007 at Kariba, the Minister of Justice and the Secretaries-General of the two MDC formations agreed upon a draft Constitution to replace the present Constitution of Zimbabwe. The draft, which is known as the Kariba Draft, was the culmination of secret negotiations between the parties sponsored by the then President of South Africa, Mr Mbeki. The draft was never implemented but in Article 6 of the Inter-party Political Agreement [IPA], which deals with the constitution-making process, the parties “acknowledged” it and it was an annexure to the IPA.

MDC-T Minister of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Eric Mr Matinenga has said that the Kariba Draft is one of several draft constitutions that will be made available for reference, but he also said “Nobody owns the Kariba Draft and it is where it belongs – Kariba”. At its extraordinary National Executive meeting on Tuesday, the MDC resolved “to reject any attempts to have the Kariba draft, one of many drafts available, adopted as the Alpha and Omega of the constitution-making process”.

Mr Mugabe has insisted that the Kariba Draft should form the basis on which the new constitution is drafted and it was reported this week in the Independent that “the Zanu PF politburo recently tasked Minister of Women’s Affairs Olivia Muchena to go to the Parliamentary Select Committee to enforce the Kariba draft as the reference document”.

MDC-M are sticking to the principle that the parties to the IPA agreed that the Kariba Draft would be the working document that would be put to the people.

Basis of Kariba Draft

Although the Kariba Draft is to some extent based on the Government Constitutional Commission Draft Constitution, which was rejected in a Referendum held in 2000, it gives the President more powers than this rejected Government Draft did. It was very largely because of the excessive Presidential powers in the present Constitution that there was a popular drive for a new constitution culminating in the National Constitutional Assembly [NCA]’s proposed Constitution in 1999. The NCA process stimulated the Government into setting up its own parallel constitution-making process. The Government Commission’s Draft was rejected in the 2000 Referendum, largely because (a) it was mistrusted as emerging from a government driven process and (b) it did not reduce the President’s powers sufficiently. It is going backwards to base the present constitution-making process on the Kariba Draft, which embodies fewer democratic principles than the rejected Government Draft Constitution.

The Presidency

There is to be an executive President, as at present, elected in a country-wide election. A President will be limited to two five-year terms, but tenure as President before the draft constitution comes into effect will not be counted, so Mr Mugabe will be eligible to continue in office for another 10 years.

There will be up to two Vice-Presidents appointed by the President, as under the present Constitution and they will hold office at the pleasure of the President. They will act for the President in his absence and in the event of his death or incapacity one of them will act as President for up to 90 days, whereupon both Houses of Parliament acting together will elect someone to be President until the end of the former President’s unexpired term of office.

The President will have extensive executive powers. Acting in his own discretion [i.e. without having to seek advice from anyone] he will be able to:

• prorogue [adjourn] and dissolve Parliament;

• appoint and dismiss Vice-Presidents, Ministers and Deputy Ministers and assign functions to them;

• appoint “other public officers”;

• appoint and receive diplomats, and conclude and execute treaties;

• call referendums; and

• deploy the armed forces outside Zimbabwe.

Everything else he will have to do on the advice of the Cabinet. [His powers under the rejected Government Constitutional Commission draft were more limited: acting in his own discretion under that draft he could only prorogue and dissolve Parliament and appoint a Prime Minister.]

The President’s power to declare a state of emergency is much the same as under the present Constitution, but it will last for only three months, as opposed to six months at present, before having to be renewed; and the President will have to get Parliament’s approval within 14 days. [Under the rejected Government Constitutional Commission draft the President had only 7 days to get approval.]

President Appoints Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Cabinet

As under the present Constitution, there will be Ministers and Deputy Ministers appointed by the President in his absolute discretion from members of Parliament. It may be noted that under the rejected Government Constitutional Commission draft Ministers were to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister and there were to be no Deputy Ministers. Again as at present, there will be no limit to the number of Ministers and Deputy Ministers that the President may appoint [though under the rejected Government Constitutional Commission Draft there were to be only 20 Ministers unless Parliament, by a two-thirds majority, agreed to more.] The office of Prime Minister [which would have been provided for under the rejected Government Constitutional Commission Draft] has no place in the Kariba draft. The Cabinet, as under the present Constitution, will be presided over by the President or a Vice-President [in the rejected Government Constitutional Commission Draft the Prime Minister would have presided.] [Note under the IPA and the present Constitution there is provision for a Prime Minister and for certain presidential decisions to be taken in agreement with the Prime Minister. This would obviously fall away if the Kariba Draft Constitution is adopted, as there would not be a Prime Minister.]

Presidential Powers vis a vis Parliament

The President will have to summon Parliament within 21 days after a general election, but apart from that, the position will be the same as under the present Constitution: the President will have power to summon, dissolve or prorogue Parliament.

Presidential Powers vis a vis Judges

The Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice will be appointed by the President after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission; the President will appoint other judges from lists of nominees drawn up by the Commission. [Under the rejected Government Constitutional Commission Draft, the appointment of all judges would have been subject to approval by the Senate.] It should be noted, moreover, that in the Kariba Draft the Judicial Service Commission will consist almost entirely of presidential appointees: the Chief Justice, the Judge President, the Minister of Justice, the Attorney-General, a nominee of the Public Service Commission and six other members appointed by the President in his own discretion. [Under the rejected Government Constitutional Commission draft, the other members would have been appointed by the President on the advice of Cabinet and with the approval of the Senate.]

Presidential Powers vis a vis Attorney-General

The Attorney-General and Deputy Attorney-General are to be appointed by the President after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, as under the present Constitution, and the Attorney-General will continue to be a non-voting member of the Cabinet and Parliament. [In the rejected Government Constitutional Commission draft, the Attorney-General would have been appointed on the advice of Cabinet and with the approval of the Senate.]

Presidential Powers vis a vis Service Commissions

The Public Service Commission will consist of a chairperson appointed by the President in his own discretion, and up to seven other members appointed by him with the approval of the Senate. [In the rejected Government Constitutional Commission draft, the appointment of all the members would have been on the advice of the Cabinet and would have required approval from the Senate.] The other service commissions — the Defence Forces, Police and Prison Service Commissions — will all consist of the chairperson of the Public Service Commission and other members appointed by the President in his discretion.

Presidential Powers vis a vis Security Forces

The officers commanding the Defence Forces, the Police Service and the Prison Service will all be appointed by the President in his own discretion, though in the case of the Commander of the Defence Forces he will have to consult the Defence Forces Service Commission and the Minister of Defence. The President will be able to deploy the Defence Forces outside Zimbabwe in his absolute discretion [at the moment he has to consult with Cabinet] but the deployment will be subject to later ratification by both Houses of Parliament.

Presidential Powers vis a vis Independent Commissions

The composition and functions of these Commissions — the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Human Rights Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission and Media Commission – will be the same as under the present Constitution, as amended by Constitution Amendment No. 19. It should be noted, though, that under the Kariba draft the chairpersons of the Electoral and Human Rights Commissions will be appointed by the President in his own discretion, after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission and the parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. [In the rejected Government Constitutional Commission Draft, by contrast, all the members of the Commissions would have been appointed by the President on the advice of Cabinet and with the approval of the Senate, and the Media Commission would have been established under an Act of Parliament.]

[Rejected Government Constitution Commission Draft Constitution put to the Referendum in 2000 available on request]

The Kariba Draft and Dual Citizenship

Not related to Presidential powers, but of great interest – to those in the Diaspora in particular – is the question of dual citizenship. Again, the provisions relating to citizenship are essentially the same as those in the present Constitution. There is no provision permitting dual citizenship. As in the present constitution the question of dual citizenship is left to be regulated by the Citizenship Act, which at the moment forbids it.

Sourrce: Sokwanele.com

Civil society opposes new constitution process

(IRIN) – The creation of a new Zimbabwean constitution is severely straining relations between Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and its civil society partners, who are usually united by their opposition to President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF.

A draft constitution was agreed by ZANU-PF, the MDC, and a break-away grouping led by Arthur Mutumbara, at a meeting in the Zimbabwean resort town of Kariba in September 2007.

What has become known as the Kariba Draft paved the way for the Global Political Agreement (GPA) between ZANU-PF and the MDC, signed on 15 September 2008, although the unity government it ushered in only came into effect on 11 February 2009 after months of political bickering.

The Speaker of Parliament, Lovemore Moyo, from Tsvangirai’s MDC, announced earlier this month that a 25-member parliamentary committee comprising legislators from the MDC, Mutumbara’s break-away MDC and ZANU-PF and would lead the process of writing a new constitution.

“The historic inter-party political agreement places the responsibility of leading the constitution-making process on parliament and, more importantly, provides an opportunity for the country to create a constitution by the people and for the people,” he said. The committee is expected to finish the process by 2010 and subject the new constitution to a referendum by July 2010.

Lovemore Madhuku, chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), an organization of labour movements, churches, business, human rights and civic groups, said the process should be driven by civil society, not politicians, and that they would begin campaigning for a “No” vote in the expected referendum in protest.

“As the NCA, we reject the parliamentary committee that has been announced to lead the process of writing a new constitution. The process should be people-driven and not led by parliamentarians. We will campaign against it and ask people to reject the flawed constitution during the referendum,” Madhuku told journalists.

The NCA successfully thwarted Mugabe’s attempt to introduce a new constitution in 2000, giving ZANU-PF its first electoral defeat since coming to power after independence from Britain in 1980.

Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Eric Matinenga told a recent meeting of civil society representatives that “the Kariba Draft is not, and will not determine, the final constitution. The draft will only serve as a point of reference.”

A people driven constitution

The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), the largest trade union federation and birthplace of the MDC, also condemned the fact that the new constitution would be written under the leadership of parliament.

ZCTU secretary-general Wellington Chibhebhe told IRIN: “We have always stood by the belief that a constitution-making process should be people-driven and led by an independent body of people, and that position has not changed.

“So far we have not lobbied for the rejection of the constitution when the referendum is done, the … [issue] is about the process of coming up with a new constitution. If the process is not adjusted so that it is people-driven, then we will be forced to come up with a position to say ‘No’ to the whole process and outcome,” he said.

Clever Bere, president of the Zimbabwe National Students Union and another MDC ally, told IRIN they were opposed to the “process of coming up with a new constitution [and it] should not be allowed to proceed.

“As civic society, we were expecting an all-stakeholders conference that would come up with an independent commission, which would take charge of coming up with a new constitution, and not politicians, as has happened.”

Next Page »