ZIMBABWE.... TRENDING TOWARDS THE PAST, WHILE KENYA LOOKS TO THE FUTURE

 ZIMBABWE.... TRENDING TOWARDS THE PAST, WHILE KENYA LOOKS TO THE FUTURE

The writing is on the wall, and it is written in a foreboding bright red colour almost akin to blood. While other nations are trending towards the future, it is clear that Zimbabwe is looking and heading backwards - trending towards the past. Any self-serving perceptions of reform, change and betterment that we have been holding on to because of the formation of the inclusive government and the interregnum provided for by the GNU are fast fading, as the beast of repression rears its ugly head yet again whilst attempts to ensure that Zimbabwe returns to the commonwealth of nations through norm compliance, fall flat on their face. 

Over the last couple of years, we have watched and revered in the ability of our fellow African nations to move their countries in a positive democratic trajectory. We have celebrated with the Zambians, toasted the Ghananians and now, hope with the Kenyans. We have marvelled at the democratic revolutionary zeal of our brothers and sisters in North Africa, and complemented their abilities to stand up to the bullies who dictated in their countries, in pursuit of a better future, which so many sacrificed their lives for, knowing that the path they would be taking would be hard and difficult. We have showered praises on every country in the SADC region (except for Swaziland) for their successes in moving beyond the first post independent republics, their abilities to change guard at Presidential and government levels, and the ability of the revolutionary liberation movements to transform themselves into modern, fairly democratic, adaptable political parties – not lost in the past but looking to the future.

 The democratic progress on our own continent has made sure, that those of us looking for good examples no longer have to cross oceans and seas for them, at the risk of being labelled imperialist lap dogs, but only have to cross the Zambezi into Zambia, the Limpopo into South Africa or make the much romantic trip to Ghana to find good case studies of democracy at work, in African countries. These are countries we should learn from since they nurtured our own struggle for independence, and gave us refuge, counsel, training and arms during our own struggle for liberation.

But in terms of contemporary politics, perhaps closest to our hearts, because of both imagined and real parallels, is Kenya. To a lot of people, Kenya’s political development is mirrored by Zimbabwe, because of myriad of reasons. Not least amongst these is our shared colonial heritage, and more recently, disputed elections which led to “Unity Governments”. Though the models and modes of intervention by the continent were different in both cases – easy parallels can be drawn. But the comparisons basically end there, and any attempts at likening political developments in Kenya to those in Zimbabwe, will be at worst, an exercise in futility, and at best, akin to high school science experiment, with Zimbabwe being the control experiment, where conditions for possible success are not put in, and where no hope of success exists.

Kenyans went to the polls on the 4^th of March 2013, and are eagerly and anxiously awaiting the final results of that election. As they do so, the horrors of December 2007 and January 2008 are foremost in their minds, and everyone is decidedly keen on not repeating that episode. They have counted the costs, and decided consciously and unconsciously that the country deserves better than that and are better than that. In stark contrast, in Zimbabwe the refrain, by ZANU PF supporters, that “ Zvikanetsa toita zvaJune” (If it becomes hard we will do what we did in June – a clear reference to violence perpetrated in the run up to the runoff election of June 2008), has been used far too often, and repeats of what happened during that gory period worth forgetting, have been commonplace during the life of the inclusive government.  This trending to a past worth forgetting, instead of looking to future with the nation at heart is beyond disturbing. What makes it possible however, is the fact that indeed what happened in June of 2008 is still not a closed chapter. In Kenya, many people have been held accountable for their actions in the violence that characterised the December 2007 post-election period. As we speak, the front runner in the Presidential Election, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta of the Jubilee Coalition and his running mate William Ruto have been indicted by the International Criminal Court for sponsoring part of the tribal based anarchy that visited that country. In addition to the ICC process there have been national Peace processes including, the Truth Justice and Reconciliation process, National Peace meetings led by the Lutheran Church and the Kenya national; Dialogue and reconciliation processes.  In Zimbabwe you will be hard pressed to find someone who has been charged and or found guilty even by the Magistrates Court. The Organ on National Healing was rendered dysfunctional, while something akin to a truth, justice and reconciliation commission is only envisaged in a New Constitution, which is being promulgated days before an election.

The conduct of the polls in Kenya, so far, has been a source of pride not only for Kenyans, but for the continent. But how did they get there? Well, their Grand Coalition (Unity) Government was formed in April 2008, through facilitation by the African Unions envoy, former UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan. They went through a constitutional reform process led by a committee of experts tasked with putting together outputs from previous attempts, incorporate best practice and engage a broad spectrum of Kenyans. They prioritised this task, and did not see it as necessary evil to election, and by August of 2010 after 4 months of debate they had adopted it as the new constitution of Kenya, with an impressive 72.2% turn out. They then went about the process of realigning their laws to the constitution, putting in place an independent and credible Elections Management Body, and by September of 2012, even those of us who were not Kenyan knew that the Kenya election would be on 4 march and if there is no clear winner there would be a runoff on April 11.

In Zimbabwe, the opposite is happening. Our Constitution Making process, besides being plagued by genuine concerns around process, has been taking place for almost as long as the Inclusive Government has been in existence. Entrusted to politicians, it has been subjected to constant political haggling based not on what is best for the country, but what best suits the politicians in power. When they finally agreed on a draft that was palatable to all of them, the people where given a month to consider and pass a verdict on it. In that month, there hasn’t been any meaningful national debate on the draft. Engagements on it have been informed by parochial and partisan posturing by both those sponsoring it and those who stated from the onset that they would be against it irrespective of its content. 

The constitution has not been perceived as seminal to the country moving positively into the future based on a new constitutional dispensation. Instead, for ZANU PF it has been a necessary evil to move towards elections, which if they had a choice, would have dropped on day 1. While for the MDC T, they have romanticised it as political victory based on who introduced the agenda, and are hoping that like what happened in 1979, it will be a transitional instrument capable of ushering them into power. The MDC N, well, I think for them it is an instrument to facilitate, through its electoral mechanisms, their continued existence in the state, through attempts at proportional representation enshrined it, which favour smaller political parties have a stake in parliament, and also because of the almost even split amongst the 2 bigger political parties, some space in government by virtue of their smaller but tie breaking share of the vote. While all this is very smart from the political parties – they all get something out of this. The constitution itself has been reduced into an exclusive playbook for politicians, instead of being the binding charter and social contract between the governors and governed that it is supposed to be. One is forced to wonder, whether beyond these parochial partisan interests, this New Constitution can actually stop us from trending backwards and move towards a brighter future. Perhaps even more definitive in differentiating our political reality from that of Kenyans is in the time given to entrench the constitution before an election. The Kenyans took over 2 years to do this. Zimbabwe has given this task, at best 6 months, but more likely 3 months given all the talk about the possibility of a July Election. Zimbabwean elections? On what date? No one knows, but we are told they will be carried out this year.

The voter turnout in Kenya’s general election has been estimated at over 70%. The turnout is credited to a real interest by Kenyans in having their say on who governs them, but facilitated by a free electoral environment. An environment in which those campaigning were free to do so, had unfettered access to the media and communities, journalists could function without fear, and civil society could engage and train citizens on voter education without let or hindrance. Kenya boasts over 90 FM radio stations plus many other independent radio stations operating on short wave and AM. It has over 14 Television stations and at least 15 major newspapers plus other regional ones. In Kenya press freedom violations have been on the decrease.  Anyone and everyone in Kenya has been broadcasting results, tweeting retweeting, facebooking. Hell the IECB itself is streaming the results live. International observers from all over (an estimated 23,000 of them) are all over Kenya, testifying to the credibility of the election.

Now contrast that with Zimbabwe. There is little appetite to engage in public political process because of the violent character that is still a part of the DNA of our political processes, and apathy is likely to be the order of the day come referendum and elections should things not change. The operating environment is shrinking at an alarming rate, with limited access to the media for those who do not preside over the state, meetings on the constitution being barred by the police, and NGOs being persecuted and raided by the police at a rate of about 1 organisation per week since the year 2013 began, with the governor of Masvingo, Titus Maluleke not appreciating that slow rate choosing instead to group over 20 organisations at a time, and reading them the riot act and placing unreasonable requirements of accountability to him. To crown it all off, the President of the Country, through his Minister of Foreign affairs, clearly thinks that the Presidents birthday party will continue until year end and that the elections are a part of it (where they can pick and choose who comes based on their affinity for the President), and have vowed not to invite observers from countries that are not their friends. We understand that only Africans will be allowed to monitor both the referendum and the elections. The Police have joined into the backward trending by engaging in partisan policing, reducing people’s access to information through banning radios. Really, who does that?

Political Violence and intimidation are on the rise and they are real. The President may be sarcastic about it and say people are blaming all and any deaths on ZANU PF, but the reality is that denying the existence of politically motivated violence and intimidation is akin to denying that the President is 89. It’s a stubborn fact, which instead of being wished away needs to be dealt with decisively in order for polls to have even a modicum of legitimacy. The above assertion, however assumes that all in government are pursuing the same objectives. Not really, save for the shared intention to take over state power from the inclusive set up to one political centre.

 Those who have a thicker microscope than mine can write acres of text on the parallels between Kenya and Zimbabwe. But the sad reality is that, while the people of Kenya are waving the white flags of peace, in Zimbabwe you can hear the loud howls of war. While the people of Kenya are writing about progress and peace on the walls, for Zimbabwe the writing on the wall is an ominous message spelling doom, destruction and political stagnation. While Kenya and most parts of the continent are trending towards the future, Zimbabwe is clearly trending towards the past. It’s eerie, but it’s not too late to change course. Zimbabwe can be great again, but at this time, the great Zimbabwean hope lies in a credible, free and fair election – which is slowly becoming a pipe dream in Zimbabwe.

 

REMOVING THE LEGAL FACADE FROM THE ZIMRIGHTS CASE..A CASE OF UNJUSTIFIED CRIMINALISATION

Okay Machisa is a good man with a good heart, one of the truly few good men that one can mention without hesitation. Hailing from Penhalonga, the 42-year-old Okay is a product of humble beginnings and man of modest means, who grew up at schools and developed a passionate love for music. He eventually taught music, and even as he carries out his other duties, still finds time to perform, arrange and organise arts events.  He is an arts industry aficionado. He is father to two lovely daughters, one in High School, the other in Primary school, and husband to a loyal loving wife, Candice.

His pursuit for the Zimbabwean dream of freedom and a land full of milk and honey, took him from a profession in the theatre arts (with Rooftop Promotions) that he loved. In 2007, Machisa joined the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition where as a Programs Associate; he was specifically tasked with infusing art and creativity in the Coalition’s work. This task, he performed beyond expectations, presiding over one of the best and most successful campaigns that the Crisis Coalition has done to date, “ The Get Out The Vote Campaign for 2008”. The campaign had as its centre piece “Rock Da Vote Concerts”.

His success in this quest saw him being persuaded to take up leadership as Director of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (Zimrights). At that time, after close to 20 years of existence, Zimrights was in dire need of new energy and reinvention. In a short space of time, Okay was able to infuse into ZIMRIGHTS his enthusiasm, passion and creativity, and rebuild and grow its grassroots structures to the over 300 branches. It now boasts over 70,000 members from a cross section of society. In the process and through his creative leadership, the unassuming Okay won the Association accolades not just in their core-business of Human Rights defense and promotion – as ZimRights was awarded the Human Rights and Governance Award for 2010, but other uncharted waters for Civil Society, in film. A ZimRights documentary, which had a photo exhibition twinned with it, won the Best Short Film Award at the Zimbabwe Film Festival in 2010.The exhibition was staged in Zimbabwe before being banned. It was displayed internationally in Hungary, Norway, Switzerland, London, Germany, Botswana and South Africa. His ability to lead and connect people; his ability to influence and get things moving is now a record beyond reproach. This saw him being asked to Chair the Coalition that first introduced him to civil society work and gave him the opportunity to show the world his passion and love for a better Zimbabwe.

On January 4, 2012, while sitting in the High Court of Zimbabwe, attending a bail application case in which a colleague of his, Leo Chamahwinya, a Zimrights employee was questionably charged with fraud and forgery Okay was surprised to hear the Prosecution Attorneys saying that they wanted Leo remanded in custody because they could not locate the ZimRights Director. There were further allegations that the director – Machisa – had skipped the country with his Secretary Faith Mamutse, to Norway. Leo Chamahwinya, had been arrested on December 13 by Harare police, who had initially left with him from his ZimRights Office to “assist in identifying people who had allegedly been defrauding ZimRights. Leo’s lawyer, Trust Maanda, who had noticed Okay’s presence in court, promptly offered to show him to the court in a bid to secure bail for his clients, an offer the court refused.

Okay got in touch with his lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa, who then engaged the police on the matter, and accompanied him to the Harare central Police station on January 14, 2013, ostensibly for an interview. The visitby the end of the day had turned into an arrest, with Okay spending the night at Rhodesview Police station. For two days prominent lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa tried to secure his release through some very persuasive legal arguments which clearly showed that Okay and ZimRights had no case to answer. This was in relation to trumped up charges of Forgery and Conspiracy to commit fraud, with people who Okay didn’t know and had no dealings with ZimRights, at the Magistrate Court. Okay was remanded in custody to January 30, 2013. A clearly unmoved Magistrate Mahwe, denied Okay bail ostensibly on the grounds that his matter was

“A national security issue, his co accused have all been denied bail so he cannot be treated differently and investigations are yet to be carried out at all the organization’s regional offices”.

What is the issue really in this matter? It seems apparent that when finally heard, Okay and ZimRights will be exonerated of any wrong doing. It is said that the police officers who first came to ZimRights and left with Leo Chamahwinya, said they had come to help ZimRights in a case in which ZimRights could have been defrauded. The Zimbabwe Republic Police were investigating a case in which they had arrested three people found in possession of falsified documents from Headmaster’s letters to Residents permits for foreigners, one of whom had fingered Dorcas Shereni, a ZimRights Local Chapter Chairperson. She then asked her kids to call Leo for advice on what to do since Highfield police had arrested her, and thought Leo could help. The police called Leo, and on learning that he was at ZimRights, came to ZimRights on the originally stated premise.

Leo works for ZimRights and by extension for Okay. Without subverting the role of the courts, it seems, someone saw an opportunity. Okay is a careful man, and law abiding citizen. ZimRights is a registered organisation, which has legally operated for 20 years as a Private Voluntary Organisation (PVO); its mandate is clear and broad, and difficult to stray away. So what really is the issue here?

It’s almost obvious that there are several things at play. Someone somewhere saw an opportunity to dent the credibility of ZimRights by tying the institution to criminals and criminal acts they had nothing to do with as an institution. It is clear that the work of ZimRights of promoting and defending human rights is not criminal, but through charging the institution and its leader, that work is being criminalized. This is not surprising, as there is a standing ZANU PF Conference resolution made in Gweru last month to deal with “ errant” NGO’s, “ operating outside their mandate”, which can be translated to mean organisations working on Human Rights and Governance like ZimRights and other organisations of its ilk. This link can be found based on a previous ZANU-PF conference resolution made in Bulawayo in December 2011. There is an attempt to damage the credibility of and intimidate democratic actors and misdirect the public from real issues to carefully planted ruses. 

Why go after ZimRights’ credibility? Credibility is loosely defined as the quality of being trusted or being believed in. Often, this is a character that one gains through time, effort, and a track record in ones’ work, in the process becoming a trusted and credible commentator, actor, advocate or provider of information. To deal with the credibility of ZimRights, they have to be presented to the world, as nothing but a group of forgers and fraudsters, and see who would then want to be associated with or listen to forgers and fraudsters.

Okay’s case is not a new phenomenon, and a clear look at the above strategy shows that many a people in leadership in civil society may yet suffer the same before elections are held in Zimbabwe. Outside Leo and Okay, ZimRights is the same organisation that had to go for well over a year without its National Coordinator Cynthia Manjoro, who had to leave a suckling baby to go to jail on trumped up charges of “murder in the first degree”. She only returned after 255 days when the baby, David, could walk and could say a few things except “mama”. Along with Cynthia 29 other people were charged with the same crime, and 27 of them including her were released on bail after more than a year. Indications are clear that most if not all of them really had nothing to do with the so-called murder, if indeed pre-meditated murder did take place.

ZimRights is one of the oldest Civil Society Organisations in Zimbabwe. There is nothing criminal about their work, yet now it is being criminalized. These Campaigners for Human rights are now victims of their message and also their success, in a clear case of targeting by elements of the state who are afraid of an enlightened society. They feel that a society that knows and demands its rights, including the right to vote is the biggest threat to their continued existence in power. In Zimbabwe, people have started to dismiss envy and being targeted by saying “usatye kumakwa, because anomakwa ndeane bhora, asina anosiwa akadaro” (don’t be afraid to be ‘targeted’, because only the one who has the ball is targeted, the one who doesn’t is left alone). This targeting, if for no other reason is an affirmation of the great work that ZimRights is doing in encouraging people to exercise their right to vote by first registering as voters. If at all ZimRights were hard pressed to find indicators of success on the work they are doing as an association, here is a loud acknowledgement from the state that they are winning. ZimRights and its members thus have to take this badge of honour, which the state thinks is targeting, and victimisation, wear it with pride and continue doing their good work.

As certain as day, ZimRights will not be the last organisation to have its work criminalized, we have already stated that it is not the first. During the course of 2012, the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO’s Forum and its Director Mr. Abel Chikomo were consistently hounded and the director detained on ludicrous charges of “running an illegal organisation”. A clinic in Harare, which offers clinical and counselling services, was raided in November of 2012, and some of its clinical and counseling staff charged spraying graffiti on some wall in Bulawayo. Journalists have been criminalized as liars, bribe seekers and gossipers, while the bulk of civil society have been bulkanised, and most of them labelled sell-out lap dogs of the west, European and American spies.

We have stated before that this line of march, on the part of ZANU PF and some elements of the State is not new. In the past Human Rights Defenders were persecuted and charged under laws that are repressive and would clearly show that they were being persecuted for their work, like POSA, or held under no charges at all like Jestina Mkoko. Now their work is being criminalized. It may sound a slightly different pitch but it is the same old song. Initially people may be hoodwinked by the new approach, but because the beat is the same, sooner rather than later monotony will set in. People will recall why the beat had become boring and not worth listening to. If you are credible you are credible, and it will take much more than this criminalisation to erode that credibility.

It is inevitable and imperative to conclude that as we head towards the end of the Inclusive Government (IG), the space for elections has been effectively shut by the recent anti-NGO campaign. Any NGOs that will be involved in matters distantly related to elections will be targeted.

ThruTheEyesOF Letugo: 2nd All Stakeholders Conference on Constitutional ...

ThruTheEyesOF Letugo: 2nd All Stakeholders Conference on Constitutional ...: Over the course of the last two weeks and especially the week that has passed, the issue of the Prime Minister’s “Nuptials” to E...

2nd All Stakeholders Conference on Constitutional Reform: 9 imperatives for Success

Over the course of the last two weeks and especially the week that has passed, the issue of the Prime Minister’s “Nuptials” to Elizabeth Macheka has been the most dominant media and indeed public issue. Without rekindling that popular discussion and debate, I am glad that it is now behind us. I am glad that this is behind us because, instead of serving as just a moment of great celebration for the re-entry of our Premier into to the institution of marriage (which a friend of mine calls a program for the Stabilisation of Adult Personalities), it has served amongst other things, as a fruitless distraction from pertinent national questions. While the Prime Minister was priming himself for his corrective moral (and eventual defiance) act, and the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) were allegedly rolling out their plan to disrupt that big day, there were several things of national significance and of consequence to our lives, taking place.

Not least amongst these, was the climb down by ZANU PF, in the middle of the dust and the smoke, to agree to go to the Second All Stakeholders Conference with the COPAC Draft of July 18 2012, on condition that the National Report will be tabled at the same conference. The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC T), was quick to come out with a retort that welcomed the climb down, but not on the condition stated - of tabling the National report. Again, setting up the Second All stakeholders Conference as a no holds barred political showdown. In any other country, this would not be an issue, people differ all the time, and they negotiate their differences and come up with compromise solutions that allow everyone to emerge a winner. Heck, in most democratic societies, people actually understand that there is no democracy without compromise. NOT in Zimbabwe. It is clear that because of the tenor of discussions and proceedings so far, that if a clear set of conditions and rules are not abided by, the Second All Stakeholders Conference, can easily turn into a blood bath of tremendous proportions.

2 of the 3 COPAC Chairs, Speaker of Parliament and Senate Presiden

The only way that this can be guarded against is through the firm and committed agreements by stakeholders to the process on a clear modus operandi at the conference. Without this, the Second All Stakeholders Conference may just be another waste of not just money, but also valuable time.

Like any other democratic process, the Second All Stakeholders Conference must be subject to predictability of process, with clear objectives and outcomes articulated and anticipated. Just like in sport, the rules of the game need to be clear before the game actually takes place. We can’t make them along the way without every foul being turned into a penalty. The obvious handicap stems from what the Global Political Agreement (GPA) does not say more than what it says with regards to this key part of the process of Constitutional Reform. It states the following:

                 

“The draft constitution shall be tabled within 3 months of completion of the Public consultation process to a second All Stakeholders Conference”.

Given our experience from the ^First All stakeholders Conference, this vagueness is less of a blessing than it is a curse. It is a litmus test on the commitment of political leaders to putting the country first and ensuring that a clear way of operating at this conference is determined in a way that moves the country forward – not backwards. 

In my humble opinion the following need to be considered seriously by Zimbabweans and COPAC in planning for the Second All Stakeholders Conference, as key imperative for success:

1.     Clear time frames. This has been a constant malady with regards to the Global Political Agreement. There are claims to be following a Road map to elections, whose date is not known, and now, there are agreements and preparations for a Second All Stakeholders Conference whose date is not known. The Second All Stakeholders Conference must be allowed to set a new tone in the conduct of Political business through ensuring that the dates and timing of it are not the preserve of political elites. All Stakeholders need to plan for it not just ZANU PF, which on the 14^th of September had its Commissariat structures holding a mobilisation workshop on how to present the party position at the Conference. Or the MDC T, which called its structures to launch a “Yes” Campaign for a referendum whose date is not known to the public.

Transparency around these key process starts with breaking down the monopoly of information by Political actors on the timing of key processes. If they too do not know, then it is time to set these key dates up, starting with the electoral timetable and timetable for reforms, with the dates of the Second All Stakeholders Conference being amongst the key markers. We have already discovered that the state of confusion and disorder that is sponsored by uncertainty is exactly what Andreas Schedler meant when he talked about disorder being seen by politicians as a ‘valued horizon of attainment’, not a ‘feared horizon of avoidance’. But this must stop, in order for us to move forward, order must be the order of the day.

2.     An inclusive dialogue on how to have a truly transparent and beneficial process: The Second All Stakeholders Conference, unlike other elements of the Constitution Making Process is a multiple stakeholder process, which includes interests and parties beyond COPAC and political parties. Discussions and plans for it and the Modus operandi should be an inclusive process that allows representatives of a cross section of Zimbabweans to be part of the planning process.

3.     A Real Commitment to Civic Society Participation: There was a commitment that was made but not properly followed through at the First All Stakeholders Conference to have delegates to it in the following Proportions, 70% Civil Society, 30% Political Parties. This has to be abided by, noting that political parties include more than those parties, which are represented in Parliament. COPAC also needs to allow legitimate apex organisations of Civic Society like, NANGO, to determine who is civil society, not the Political Parties who can easily form NGO’s overnight. Business must be included, noting that the previous allocations seemed to have ignored them and that classic definitions of civic society exclude the state and capital.

4.     Agenda setting by The Broad Church of stakeholders: Stakeholders as mentioned above must be the ones who set out a clear agenda and program for the Second All Stakeholders Conference. The above will allow us to move away from the ‘loiter and linger’ strategy that political parties have been subjecting us to at the expense of National Progress.

5.     Popularising the COPAC Draft of 18 July 2012. The Herald has already serialised the ZANU PF amendments, in an act that fortifies impressions that have always been there that instead of being a public newspaper it is just a propaganda tool for ZANU PF. COPAC needs to make its Draft of 18 July readily available to all and sundry in forms and languages that people can access. There can be no meaningful national debate and discussion if people do not know what they are debating or discussing.  The Draft is available on the internet, but this is not enough given the low internet penetration levels in the country which have been reported to be around 11%

6.     NO Violence. Measures must be put in place to ensure that there is no violence at the conference and that if it occurs it will not be tolerated through non-partisan policing. Part of this, is an agreement on process with no tolerance for those who try to operate outside the process.

7.     Commitment to tolerance, patience and progressive debate. Political party supporters are notorious for being amongst the most intolerant groups of people in the country. It has to be noted that this is a national process on which the future of not just the Constitution Making process, but the country hinges on. Lastly,

8.     Unfettered Media Access to the Event: If the process is to be respected and assist in enhancing the constitution making process, both local and international media need, of necessity, to be allowed to cover the event without let or hindrance.

9.     SADC and the AU MUST observe the process. This has already been suggested and dismissed as an invitation to outsiders to supervise our own process. This rebuttal is dishonest. The Global Political Agreement (GPA) itself, which is the instrument that gives life to the Second All Stakeholders Conference, is not just a domestic affair it is a continental affair.  The African Union, as represented by its Commission Chairperson, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) as represented by its Chairperson, and the Facilitator – Former President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, appended their signatures to the agreement. Having them observe the process is not to invite foreigners to an internal process, but it is an act of acting in the spirit of the conference, which seeks to bring “All” stakeholders to the table. 

Continued arguments around sovereignty especially by ZANU PF are dishonest and a pure act of chicanery – Zimbabwe has already ceded its sovereignty in many ways, largely attributable to them. We have lost sovereignty over our currency (we use the US Dollar), lost food sovereignty (the World Food Program estimates that 1,6million citizens of the former bread basket of Africa, are in need of food aid) and lost political sovereignty (our country is being governed by an agreement that was facilitated by the African community not necessarily the will of the people). Not to mention how economically, our country has fallen prey to what Stephen Marks and Fironz Manji (in their Book, African Perspectives on China in Africa) call the new policy of China, which he argues has shifted from

Cold War ideology to a more classical pursuit of economic self-interest in the form of access to raw materials, markets and spheres of influence through investment, trade and military assistance - to the point where China can be suspected of pursuing the goals of any classical imperialist.

Because of the above, any vaunted talk of sovereignty where Zimbabwe is concerned is more show than substance because our politicians know that through their actions they have mortgaged the country to SADC and the AU politically and China economically. What is more important for them to realize, if they are serious about the sovereignty of the country, is that, the Constitution Making Process and the full implementation of the GPA are attempts at gaining back our sovereignty. But for now it is what is.

The above 9 points may not be enough to guarantee a positive Second All Stakeholder Conference, but their consideration, nay, their implementation will go a long way in ensuring that we move our country forward and not backwards.

If there was a time, when greater patriotism was called for, it is now. Our politicians are called to action, with the interests of the country at heart, beyond parochial partisan interests. The Second All Stakeholders Conference will be a stern test on whether our country wants to write a constitution for the nation or for particular political parties.

There are those who have already dismissed the possibilities of a successful Second All Stakeholder Conference because of what they have seen in the past and in the present. These people are justified in their skepticism, but this country needs ‘greater fools’ – people who believe that success can be achieved even if the odds are stacked against them, and others have failed. It may seem foolhardy and crazy to expect that the Second All Stakeholders Conference can come out with some meaningful result. But as an Apple Macintosh  advert once proclaimed as part of their “Think Different” campaign in 1997 ‘ the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do’. Now Apple Inc. is the most valuable company in the world.

BEYOND PLATITUDES AND SLOGANS…GIVE US A REAL NATIONAL DEBATE

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 3^rd 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 “21^st 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 “ 21^st 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.