BEYOND PLATITUDES AND SLOGANS…GIVE US A
REAL NATIONAL DEBATE
This week I had the opportunity to be told 3
stories by a legal legend and Constitutional Reform and Constitutionalism Guru,
Former South Africa Constitutional Court justice, Albie Sachs. All 3 stories
where about constitution making and constitutionalism. In the first story, he
spoke of how the ANC National Executive Committee chaired by Oliver Tambo, had
made a strategic decision before 1994 that they would facilitate that the next
constitution would be a South Africa n Constitution, not an ANC Constitution.
To that end they would not go back to South Africa with a constitution from
exile but would go and encourage a meaningful national debate on the subject
that carried the different complexions of the rainbow nation. The second story,
was about the choices that confronted them post 1994 as the ANC. He said they
had choice between having US Constitutional model (some legal checks on power
but promoting personal power and leadership), (peoples power constitution
(revolutionary party takes over the state, government and society) and a post
dictatorship constitution, and how the NEC opted for a less formal constitution
and one that did not necessarily protect power and privilege – which they
identified as a post dictatorship constitution. The 3rd story was
about the Community Law Centre and how it helped to entrench
constitutionalism. All these stories
were profound, and impressive, as I am sure any encounter with a luminary such
as Sachs is, but it left me with a bad sense about my own country’s experiences
around constitutional reform and the territorial nature of engagements around
the subject.
Over
the last couple of weeks, as a Zimbabwean and a democracy activist myself, I have
grown fatigued by attempts of so called Political Analysts and Experts who have
been commenting sometimes at length on the constitution making process and the
new draft, but without really saying anything. The kind of input that has been
given acres of space in newspapers and on other media platforms, is fitting of
a cause celebre like the draft constitution, but the input itself on the
subject is hardly worth the ink used to write it. This is because at the heart
of the contributions is the continuation of a political culture that takes
people for granted and assumes that the masses live in mental dark rooms knowing
nothing, and wait for instructions from
the enlightened on what to do even without any justification. Most of what we
have been exposed to so far, does not help people make an informed choice on
the draft constitution because a lot of the contributors either lie or do not
make it clear what people have to choose from or between.
Hiding
behind academic titles and assumed expertise, the public has been subjected to
a process of appropriation of the national debate on the draft constitution by
those who believe they are either technically or politically more superior than
the rest of us. What has emerged, instead of a meaningful constructive national
debate on the draft, is an elite conversation that is well propelled by the
media as guardians of the formal transcript of what is happening in our
country. This middle and upper class take over of national discourse, by people
in political society and in civic society ignores the reality that democracy
and issues of national importance such as the constitution making process
should not be the preserve of political society or indeed political society in
conversation with some elements of organised civic society. Inputs into the debate thus far seem to be
products of a gramscian thinking, which is almost irrelevant, that assumes that
the subordinate classes (subalterns)
consent to the thought and other forms of leadership by residents of the
hegemonic and political and economic elite classes. While this kind of thinking
and its promotion is, well, understandable from the Authoritarians in our
midst, what is surprising and unacceptable is an assumption of the same by the
“democrats “in our midst.
This
is precisely so because one of the key tenants of democracy is deliberative
discussions and or informed deliberations. Now, informed deliberations of
necessity entail that we jump over slogans and get to the meat of matters.
Platitudes alone as part of arguments, are all show with no substance and do
not help anyone except those with an agenda far from objective deliberation and
settlement of issues.
Take Dr. Simba Makoni for instance, a respected Political Leader in our
country, leading an opposition political party, who speaks, like a typical
politician about the draft. He says
“the people of
Zimbabwe deserve a 21st century best practice consituation not a cut and
paste, and what we have here does not qualify as a 21st century best practice
constitution. There is a fear that if we don’t have
this current one, we will go back the Lancaster house, I would say better the
devil you know than the one you don’t know.”
The above makes for a good sound bite, and while we are all entitled to
our opinions and putting them across as we wish, surely Zimbabweans also
deserve more than that. While Zimbabweans deserve a “21st Century
best practice constitution”, they also deserve constructive engagements based
on facts and citations on the draft itself in terms of what makes it not a “ 21st
century best practice constitution”. For an Academic Doctor and a political
leader to just use blanket, overarching generalisations and end there is to
perform an act of academic dishonesty, because it doesn’t tell us anything as
an expectant audience. It is to hide behind the veil of academia while saying
nothing and hoping that because you are a doctor, people will value your input
and accept it as fact none the less.
Dr.
Makoni is not the only one who I believe has been guilty of sharing platitudes
without giving us any meaningful debate on the draft. Those in support of the
draft, have often times been heard to say that the “ draft is better than
Lancaster”. Few have bothered to articulate In what way is it better than
Lancaster. To what extent does it meet the democratic test both in terms of
what it carries, how it was developed and how it is crafted from a language
perspective?
A
clear example of “experts” and “analysts” doing a disservice to the public can
be seen from two people who have both advocated that the draft be thrown into
the bin, De-facto ZANU PF spokesperson Professor Jonathan Moyo and Political Analyst
and NCA spokesman, Blessing Vava. On his Blogg, Vava argues that the draft must
be voted against because it retains huge powers in the President, something, he
argues correctly, a lot of Zimbabweans have been fighting about. He writes:
“In the
draft nothing has substantially
changed with regards to the powers of the president as we are being
made to believe. If anything the powers
have been expanded only the term limits which have been reduced.”
Then comes professor Moyo, who agrees with
Vava that the draft should be fought, and one of his reasons, wait for it,
"It strips the executive of all powers and
leaves it as a clerical branch of
government,"
So
who is telling the truth? While these two gentlemen agree on a course of
action, their reasons for it clearly fight each other. This is made worse by
the fact that besides these two gentleman stating these things, even the
academic does not spell out how executive powers are stripped by the constitution
let alone, why it is a bad thing warranting that the draft not be supported.
Clearly, both men have a political agenda, and are simply looking for premises
to pursue their political agendas without having the decency of a meaningful fact
based debate.
Political
parties have not been left behind in this exercise in dark whole type politics.
Dabengwa and his ZAPU, Makoni and his Mavambo, Job Sikhala and his MDC 99,
Rugare Gumbo and Jonathan Moyo and their ZANU PF, have all jumped onto the band wagon of dismissing the draft because” it does not carry what the people said
in outreach”. Again organised political actors are allowed to have opinions,
but they should also learn the value of a meaningful debate beyond sharing
these slogans. In what way where the peoples voices ignored? Was the outreach
process itself, given what we know a bout it, a platform where people shared
freely, openly and objectively, such that their voices from that process
warrant being respected? From what perspective is a constitution drafted- from
inputs by the people, from inputs by constitutional drafting experts, based on
international standards or what?
What
is also a bit disturbing about these champions of the “ peoples voices” is that
the vast majority of them, perhaps with the exception of ZANU PF, were rejected
by the people as their leaders and representatives at the last elections, and
have a combined seat total in parliament of …ZERO, in both houses. And they
purport to know what we said and can say that what we said is not there in the
draft even before we say it our selves. This is part of the challenge of our
Politics, there is always someone wanting to speak for you even when you can do
so your self. This is not to say they
cannot be part of the discussion as equals, they should be, but they certainly should
not be allowed to dominate that discussion.
I
was recently accused of kowtowing to the MDC T, but I have to say this because
it is true. The MDC T in my opinion seems to have tried to at least articulate
the reasons why they support the draft, complete with a list of what they
called the good, the bad and the ugly about the draft. The MDC led by Professor
Welshman Ncube, also stated their reasons for supporting the draft and also
their areas of reservations, which they had to cede on because it was a
negotiated process.
If
everyone could follow the example of Professor Madhuku Dr. Magaisa, WOZA and
Minister Tendai Biti, I am sure we would have a much more beneficial debate on
this question. Prof. Madhuku has made it clear that his tool of analysis is
process oriented and that because they faulted the process they cannot and will
not okay the content. There is no pretense there of whether the draft is good
or bad, unless perhaps as an extras. Dr. Magaisa has developed an illustrious
blog, where he engages with the content of the draft and explains it, in a
qualified manner as a participant in part of the process (an unnecessary qualification,
in my opinion, because one way or the other participation of Zimbabweans
indifferent ways has been stated to be a hallmark of a good process). As the late Chinese Paramount leader, Deng
Xiapong once said “ I don’t care whether it’s a black cat, or white cat…as
long as it catches mice".
My
point is not that people should not make judgements on the draft. They
should…but judgements must be informed by sound, substantiated arguments and
citations from the draft itself. To do anything else is to take people for
granted. To subject people to platitudes and slogans is to take people for
granted. To substitute the people and make judgements for them is to take
people for granted. To make platitudes and slogans that are more
show than substance is to take people for granted. We deserve a meaningful
national debate on the draft constitution before we climb on top of mountains
screaming YES or NO.
