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

New from Freedom House.

In Zimbabwe, democracy must be driven from below

With a constitutional referendum and subsequent national elections drawing near, Zimbabwe is poised to enter an exciting and highly uncertain period. However, if left in the hands of the current political elites, the creation of a democratic Zimbabwe remains unlikely at best.

Once an inspiring example for the African continent, Zimbabwe under independence fighter Robert Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) has become the epitome of a dysfunctional, corrupt, despotic country. Stability during the first years of independence was followed by violent suppression of the Ndebele ethnic minority in the 1980s, increasing authoritarianism and economic decline in the 1990s, and outright dictatorship in the past decade—characterized by political violence, land grabbing, electoral fraud, and the abuse of state resources. The climax of this process came in 2008, when Mugabe’s regime, having lost parliamentary elections and facing the loss of the presidency as well, embarked on a campaign of violence against the opposition and its supporters. The crackdown killed scores of people and led opposition presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai to drop out of a runoff vote against Mugabe. Facing intense brutality and regional diplomatic pressure, Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was forced to accept a power-sharing government of national unity, with Mugabe remaining in place as president.

The MDC, ZANU-PF, and the country’s security apparatus have many more interdependent interests now than in 2008. What binds these three unlikely and reluctant partners together is a shared commitment to preserving their participation in a power-sharing agreement at the expense of any true political and social reforms. And the more uncertain the political situation becomes, the more they will need and rely on one other.

ZANU-PF is in many ways a perfect reflection of its longtime leader: old, rigid, authoritarian, and desperately clinging to the trappings of power as its founding ideology fades into history. It can no longer rely on its traditional bases of support, whether within Zimbabwe or among its liberation-era comrades in the region. The suspicious death last year of former army chief Solomon Mujuru, the husband of Vice President Joice Mujuru and a reputed “kingmaker” in the party, put the spotlight on bitter rivalries within the ZANU-PF leadership. Years of mutual distrust, personal avarice, and criminal interests are ripping the party apart. After the most recent Politburo meeting, ZANU-PF had to publicly threaten its own officials in the hopes of consolidating the party structure for one last run at national glory.

The MDC also seems to have lost its coherence and sense of direction. For all the initial optimism it inspired, the party is afflicted by the weaknesses of a typical junior coalition partner, ceding ground on an endless series of important issues. These have included an increase in the number of ZANU-PF ministers, the replacement of the attorney general and the reserve bank governor, and targeted sanctions against ZANU-PF leaders. The political and economic reforms championed by the MDC, including work on upholding freedoms of expression and association, have stalled. Even when nominal progress is made, it is followed by prolonged delays in implementation and compromise solutions, as with the process for drafting a new constitution, the centerpiece of the MDC political program. The MDC and its leadership are at times openly resentful of their support base, including human rights groups and civil society, wrongly interpreting constructive criticism and insistence on reforms as evidence of insufficient loyalty and support. The MDC is also terrified of the security forces’ potentially brutal response if it were to opt out of the present power configuration, meaning much of the party’s effort is devoted to preserving its participation in the unity government and its relationship with ZANU-PF.

Unlike the two main parties, the security apparatus appears to be organized and focused. Brimming with confidence as a result of ill-gotten diamond wealth, it is ready to kill with impunity, burn down homes, and torture opponents as needed. It is also motivated by fear, however, with the overriding objective of avoiding investigation by the International Criminal Court. The “securocrats” have undeniable influence over ZANU-PF and the MDC alike. Amid the near-collapse of Mugabe’s regime in 2008, the military wrested control of the state structure from ZANU-PF, infiltrated the party in alarming numbers, and assumed key positions of power, all while encouraging predictions of an outright military coup. Indeed, the only thing averting a coup is the fact that average Zimbabweans—including traditional ZANU-PF stalwarts and lower-ranking military and police personnel—truly despise the army and police commanders. Thus the securocrats remain dependent on ZANU-PF’s civilian facade and the MDC’s enduring veneer of credibility.

So what is next for Zimbabwe? The MDC could once again win a nationwide election, though recent rumors suggest that it would endorse another unity government to preserve “stability” and mitigate the risk of potential conflict with the securocrats. ZANU-PF could again attempt to hijack the elections through fraud and violence, but would likely back off if faced with hostility from regional leaders. For their part, the security chiefs could kill and torture scores of opponents and attempt an armed coup, but this would jeopardize their personal, long-term economic interests, making support for another government of national unity an attractive alternative.

Sadly, the current political stalemate and lack of reforms could go on indefinitely. If the dream of a democratic Zimbabwe is ever to come true, the country’s citizens, whether they sympathize with the MDC or ZANU-PF, will have to start pushing their representatives to actually represent them, to be accountable and socially responsive, and to build a legitimate political system founded on free and fair elections and the rule of law.

Vukasin Petrovic, Director of Africa Programs, Freedom House

So much about what appears to be glib public statements on zero tolerance to political violence: “An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a since interest in prolonging lives of poultry.” George Eliot, 1866

Reading a book by a Franciscan friar on the fall of apartheid and came across this quote: “It is often victims who are cursed by memory while perpetrators are blessed by forgetting,” from  The File by British author Timothy Garton Ash. I looked it up and a review by the UK’s Guardian newspaper says it’s an account on the feared Stasi in East Germany. I thought, yet another poignant reminder why the Gukurahundi ghost lives on. Yet I figured it goes even as recent as the 2008 Zimbabwean polls where we find the murders of political activists remaining unpunished, the perpetrators blissfully amnesiac.

Here’s some feedback from some Kubatana members about what’s happening on the ground. Maybe we need election observers Now!

I stay in Warren Park, about a week ago we had people at our doorstep who said they were checking whether we were registered to vote or not. They practically had a voters roll and they checked our names and all our names were there. I asked them whether they were from the Registrar Office, Statistics Office or any office but they said no. Finally after questioning their whereabouts they said they were sent by the Unity Government and they were people from our constituency! They said they were from the 3 political parties and their ‘Seniors’ will make a follow up after them. Do we have such people? Can anyone (or any political party) get the voters roll from the Registrar’s Office?
- from a subscriber in Warren Park, Harare

Thanks for keeping us updated. I have something that is worthy of public knowledge or public consumption. Can anything be done to improve service delivery on the ongoing voter registration exercise especialy in Chitungwiza. The staff there at Makoni seem to have been trained to frustrate people into not registering. The delays, the daily changes in their demands and the reception has done more harm than good to would be registrants. Its sad and the whole of Chitungwiza has one registration centre yet the population is big. Is there anything that can be done.
- from Obey in Chitungwiza

It must be pretty frustrating for the ordinary guy with very empty pockets who has looked up to other people to solve Zimbabwe’s headache, a migraine that has defied the Aspirin that has come in many shapes and forms rendering it nothing but a very useless placebo. Turns out SADC has been such an Aspirin, at least faced with an obdurate headache in the form of Zanu PF. Each time SADC meets to map the way forward concerning the holding of elections, whatever communiqué is issued after such lengthy deliberations appears to be futile in that it has become predictable for the ordinary guy with very empty pockets that President Mugabe will say no one will dictate to Zimbabwe, a sovereign nation, what to do.

Mugabe has said no one has a right to interfere in the affairs of “his” country, effectively saying whatever it is that SADC recommends, he will not accept it as long it does not coincide with his own position, never mind how anti-people that position has been fashioned. You only have to listen to or read statements from party blabbermouth Rugare Gumbo, and you wonder if Zanu PF has any reason belonging to SADC. The ordinary guy with very empty pockets believes Zanu PF belongs to the dustbin of history, I heard the guy say the other day! But then the pan-Africanist shindig bringing together Africa’s “leading liberation movements” here has been cited by Zanu PF loyalists (like that beefy guy Herald guy booted out of Botswana a few years back) as proof that Mugabe is being supported by fellow anti-imperialist spirits in his calls for polls this year. It was then US President Ronald Reagan who said the memorable line back in 1985 after “terrorist attacks by Shi’ite Muslims”:  “We are not going to tolerate these attacks from outlaw states, run by the strangest collection of misfits, looney tunes and squalid criminals since the advent of the Third Reich.” Well, the same can be said about these folks!

Finance Minister Tendai Biti and human rights watchers in and outside the country have already said holding elections this year and without any electoral reforms is one sure way to sacrifice people’s lives as a political violence powder keg is sure to explode, recalling of course the 2008 madness where Zanu PF enthusiasts are accused of punishing political opponents with death. It ain’t alarmists who are predicting blood and gore if polls are held without the necessary conditions being set as already outlined by the GPA and as insisted by the MDC, but it is indeed safe to say the world has been warned about the political violence that has already begun in many parts of the country. Imagine then if the polls are officially called? Considering this, no one therefore can be criticised for concluding that this could yet be another African story of dead consciences where people will say they saw it coming but did nothing to stop it before it happened. There are just too many such stories that do not need any repeating.

And the painful bit is that some faith-based non-governmental organisations and Churches are already involved in activities and programmes of national healing where victims of political violence during past elections are sitting together with the perpetrators in search of peace in their hearts. What then becomes of these people in the face of yet more election violence when past scars remain unhealed? And this in a country where 1980s violence continues to hog contemporary political discourse. You just have to listen to Moses Mzila Ndlovu to get the point. And the guy is a government minister!