Just thinking about Marko’s blog on the national census, have you noticed the large, full colour adverts about the census in our newspapers? The latest advert suggests that if you cooperate with the census process your participation will help ensure the provision of water … something that we haven’t had a consistent supply of for the last several years. You’ve really just got to wonder at the lengths the Zimbabwe government will go to with their propaganda on the one hand, and their heads up their arses on the other. I mean, let’s face it, the mismanagement of the economy and a politics based in patronage and self enrichment have been central to the erosion of the standard of living of the average citizen in this country. A national census isn’t going to remedy this. Kicking out all the useless politicians will.

After enduring the pain of the Zimbabwe 2008 election violence residents of my constituency are yet to see the “change” we were promised by our Honorable Member of Parliament (MP). With an overwhelming victory in 2008 people thought real change had come. Like any other urban areas in Zimbabwe where poor service delivery is now the order of the day, Chitungwiza South constituency’s woes have been worsened by the recent Typhoid outbreak. Still reeling under the effects of the 2008 Cholera outbreak residents in my constituency thought our Honorable MP was going to do a noble thing by using funds he received from government under Constituency Development Fund (CDF) to sink more boreholes. Living in a town where rusty and slimy drops of water trickling from the tap are received with loud cheers and ululation doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out that a crisis is looming.

Water rationing is increasing by each day.

Children now spend most of their time helping parents to queue for water at the few boreholes donated by UNICEF. I wonder if our Honorable Member of Parliament is still living in Chitungwiza for him to understand these problems? I guess he also can’t feel the effects of bumps on most of the pot and ditch-hole riddled roads in this constituency because he was allocated a four-wheel drive truck by the government.  As a school headmaster and a former mayor for the town these problems should not be new to him.  Where and when he consulted residents on how to use CDF funds boggles the mind because the only time our Hon MP was seen addressing a public meeting was during a tour of the town by high-ranking officials from his party.

With nothing to write home about as a success story, it’s a pity that legislators like these would seek another term in office. Prepare to choose another career, or go on pension because the time for cheap politicking is over and your time is up Hon MP.

How about this, from the Guardian: Belarus’s president sacks two generals after Swedish plane drops hundreds of teddy bears bearing human rights slogans. More

How foolish is it to have on the one hand AIDS activists (including the government) giving out condoms especially to sex workers and on the other hand police officers taking these away from them?

In a report Criminalizing Condoms, published by the Open Society Foundation it is revealed that Zimbabwean police officers are amongst those who confiscate condoms from sex workers. By carrying condoms the police assume that women are prostitutes.

In as much as prostitution is illegal in Zimbabwe the state however should not be discouraging safe sex practices. If one is ‘proven’ guilty of prostitution let the law apply. But assuming that one in possession of a condom is a prostitute and further going on to confiscate condoms is absurd.
The report brought to light that in some countries where sex workers are arrested and have their condoms confiscated, they still make it back to the streets on the same night and end up having unprotected sex. And in other instances, sex workers have resorted to not carrying condoms at all to stay safe from police harassment or arrest. Confiscating condoms places the life of sex workers at risk and compromises disease prevention.

Photo: The Guardian

On the Guardian today, a reminder that revolutions often start in culture.

Will the constitution in the making help bring about free and fair elections in Zimbabwe? Will it help restore democracy? Will it provide the political checks and balances that are crucial for real democracy? Many think not. There’s already talk that the next election in Zimbabwe will bring about GNU the Sequel. What is waiting in the wings is yet another elite political deal made between two parties too attached to power and position, than honouring the democratic process.

Here is an article by Dale Dore. Worth a read I think.

What is David Coltart saying?

In his reply to Ben Freeth’s letter, David Coltart said that the land provisions are “racially discriminatory and should never be in any modern democratic constitution.” He also said that even worse than these land provisions was that “far too much power is still vested in the executive.” In other words, the constitution abrogates fundamental human rights and does not contain the necessary checks and balances to constrain Presidential powers. Yet, Coltart argues that we cannot “pick and choose” which elements we like, and urges us to accept the constitution in its entirety or risk subverting the whole process. His argument is baseless on a number of counts.

The first is that human rights and the separation of powers, amongst others, are not minor elements but the core pillars upon which a democratic constitution stands or falls. Remove one of those pillars and the whole edifice of the constitution crumbles. Equally worrying, is that the constitution specifically contradicts the rulings of the SADC Tribunal which were based on international customary law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As ZANU(PF) systematically discredited and dismantled the Tribunal, the MDC did nothing but maintain a shameful silence. Now Coltart is asking the people to do that same: turn a blind eye to grievous flaws inserted into the constitution at the behest of those who militate against the Tribunal and international law.

The second argument Coltart uses is that if we do not accept this deeply flawed document we will play into the hands of ZANU(PF) hardliners. But, hold on a minute …  are the people of Zimbabwe being asked to judge the draft constitution on its own merits or to make a political decision? Is Coltart asking us to blindly accept the founding law by which we are to be governed, and to vote along party lines for a document conceived through an elite political pact? Just because Jonathan Moyo is rejecting it for political reasons, do the people of Zimbabwe also have to accept it for political reasons? But there is more. By my reading of the constitution, the MDC has already played into the hands of the hardliners by capitulating on human rights, executive powers, and the question of justice.

The third argument on which Coltart can be challenged is his notion that the draft constitution will lead to more accountability, more democracy, and the loss of power by hardliners. This is an odd claim given that, by Coltart’s own admission, the new constitution makes “the fundamental error of thinking that men can be trusted with power.” Indeed, it is possible that such unconscionable executive powers could remain in the hands on Robert Mugabe or his successor. If so, this is hardly likely to lead to a loss of power by hardliners. But even this misses a central point. The constitution (whether it is the new or old) and the rule of law are irrelevant to hardliners. If Robert Mugabe blatantly disregarded the last constitution, why should he abide by the new one? By what constitutional authority, for example, does the President instruct the police to defy court orders and ignore their constitutional duty to protect the people from atrocities committed by his party supporters? The truth of the matter is that they subverted the old constitution and then inserted the offending clauses in the new draft constitution. Is this what Coltart’s is trying to sell us as “an all out bid to protect people”?

The fourth argument Coltart advances is his now infamous line that “we just do not have any other options.” This is his ‘killer quote’ to convince any doubters that unless we, like the MDC, compromise with a regime that has brought nothing but poverty, humiliation and misery – and which created a Diaspora that has conveniently been denied the vote – matters will only get worse. The MDC won elections and ceded power because ‘they had no other option’; they legitimised the seizure of farms based on race because ‘they had no other option’. When Mugabe refused on budge on any GPA reforms, they joined him by calling for the removal of sanctions because ‘they had no other option’. Although the MDC has given in on almost every major political decision, including principles of natural justice, Coltart denies the charge of appeasement. Instead, he claims there is no non-violent “practical alternative”. Perhaps this is because he mistakes non-violence for pacifism and collusion rather than as a mode of struggle and resistance against tyranny.

But now, we the people do have an option to decide upon whether or not to adopt the draft constitution. We must deliberate and discuss the merits and flaws of the draft constitution rigorously and openly. We must decide whether any president should be trusted with such sweeping constitutional powers. If necessary, we should sink this rickety and leaky ferry and start afresh with a sturdy and seaworthy vessel of state that can confidently withstand the constitutional gales and storms that lie ahead. But, above all, we must not be blackmailed into accepting the unacceptable.

Dale Doré
Harare, 28 July 2012