From a subscriber:

Dear Kubatana Crew, The environment is peaceful here in Chikomba East & many people await tomorrow’s plebiscite. All the polling centres have received their ballot boxes & are manned by the police. Many people are promising & eager to go & vote tomorrow in the constitutional referendum despite the fact that some did not get the draft papers.Regards from Chikomba East.

The message for Zimbabweans from this pen is that every patriotic son and daughter of the soil should become a watchdog against these pikinini politicians among us who want to feel big by working for and being bankrolled by imperialist powers that want to keep a stranglehold on Zimbabwe politically and economically. – The Herald

The government does not seem interested in this referendum. They only want it rubberstamped so they can have elections. – Clifford Mashiri

All we want to say is that his (Tsvangirai) closeness to Mugabe has become a problem. – MDC spokesperson Nhlanhla Dube

If the new constitution is to guarantee a free and fair election, there must be a political will by all the players. Without political baptism of the constitution, baptism by an observable change of our political behaviours, the whole exercise is futile. – Sondon Stalin Mugaradziko, the Secretary of International Relations in the MDC led by President Ncube

The words of the UN secretary-general, urging that last week’s Kenyan elections should be “credible and peaceful” have set a tone. No one is talking “free and fair”. If Zimbabwe’s referendum on Saturday is credible and peaceful, the UN, the Commonwealth, the southern African region and many others will breathe a sigh of relief. – Stephen Chan

An excerpt from an article by Stephen Chan:

In the meantime, the Law Society of Zimbabwe is right to say that there is something to celebrate in the constitution. It provides an expansive Bill of Rights with citizen capacities to enforce those rights in law. Gender rights are very visible. Powers are clearly separated to protect the courts. Such a constitution, with a government that observed it in good faith, would be workable and a massive improvement. But the question in today’s Zimbabwe is precisely to do with good faith.

More from Guardian African Network here

I can’t believe that there are young Zimbabweans, particularly born frees, who think that its hip to wear clothes with an R G Mugabe label. I mean how far out of touch with real politics can you be? What’s the state of the UZ like, where are the jobs, what does your future look like – selling airtime at traffic intersections? These kids might look sharp, but they certainly aren’t sharp. And doesn’t this quote, from the person behind the House of Gushungo, make you want to roll about: “The president does not want to make money.”

Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) … it’s all fair and fine to come out and declare whether you’re a Yes or a No in regard to the referendum but it’s disappointing to see WOZA jump on the “we’ve decided yes so you come along and vote yes too” bandwagon. “WOZA call on Zimbabweans to turn out in their millions and exercise their right to vote peacefully and to vote YES for the parliamentary select committee draft constitution.” WOZA – democracy 101: it’s about choice … full stop after peacefully, please.

Until we challenge this ridiculous notion that there is only One Way and its The Way, we’re in trouble. It is unacceptable that a Zimbabwean gets arrested for putting up a Vote No poster. Meanwhile there is encouragement to Vote Yes every which way you look. In Zimbabwe the regime criminalizes people for thinking differently. This has to stop.

Here is an excellent piece by Derek Matyszak:

Can’t say no?

The constitution making process has revealed the utter contempt with which Zimbabwe’s politicians treat the electorate, from Operation Chimumumu of the outreach programme, to insulting our intelligence by constantly claiming that the document they have presented as the proposed new constitution reflects the people views, rather than the being result of inter-party negotiation, and then allowing insufficient time for most people to consider the substance of the draft.

Should, however, one reject the draft simply to punish the politicians for this arrogance and to demonstrate that the electorate refuses to be treated so shoddily? On the other hand, if, regardless of the process which produced it, a brilliant document has been prepared is one not being churlish and shooting one’s self in the foot by rejecting the draft? Hardly. Even the proponents of a “yes” vote concede that the document is a poor thing (but their own), the best they could do under the circumstances. It is, we are told, nonetheless “incremental progress” and we should thus vote “yes”.

We have heard this argument before. We were told that the Constitutional Commission’s draft of 2000 was progress and we should thus vote “yes”. But the people voted “no” because the draft did not achieve that which they had set as their objective, to reduce the vast powers of the President.

We were also told to support the GPA because, although the accord left Mugabe’s vast powers intact, it was the best that could be obtained under the circumstances, was incremental progress and was the means by which the integrity of the electoral process could be restored. A new constitution was presented as one of the instruments by which this would be accomplished.

This being the stated intention behind the constitution making process, the draft should be rejected on this ground alone. Its provisions will do nothing to restore the integrity of the electoral process. Certainly it contains hopeful clauses stipulating that elections “must be peaceful, free and fair, free from violence and other electoral malpractices” and that “neither the security services nor any of their members may, in the exercise of their functions act in a partisan manner; further the interests of any political party or cause; prejudice the lawful interests of any political party or cause; or violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of any person.” But the constitution very deliberately fails to include any remedy or steps that can be taken if there is no compliance with these provisions. They are thus little more than pretty window dressing designed to allow politicians to tell the naïve that the draft is not all bad.

If the new constitution was to address the issue of electoral integrity, then this was the moment to attend to institutional reform, particularly the partisan nature of the criminal justice process and security sector which has played a key role in subverting democratic choice in the past. The MDC politicians proudly tell those who have felt or fear the double whammy of the combined operations of the Commissioner-General of Police and Attorney-General, that this problem has now been addressed. The Attorney-General will no longer be in charge of prosecutions. This will now be done by a Prosecutor-General. They fail to mention that the draft specifically provides that the current Attorney-General, Johannes Tomana, will be the new Prosecutor-General, that the President has the ultimate power to determine his successor in any event and that Chihuri will remain in his post. Hence, rather than addressing partisanship in the application of the criminal justice system, the draft is carefully drawn to ensure that it continues. Similar criticism can be directed at the problem of security sector governance. To make the point, one need only take note of one of many adverse provisions: while in democracies the operations of the intelligence services are governed and regulated by statute, the draft again specifically includes a clause to ensure that this does not happen and allows the intelligence services to remain the unregulated plaything of the President and to be used for party political purposes.

The “yes” proponents either obfuscate these issues or ask us to focus on the “incremental gains” reflected in the draft. The incremental gains appear predominantly in the unquestionably greatly improved Declaration of Rights. Its provisions are better for women. Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and inter-sex rights are also given strong support, albeit not by name. There is improved freedom of expression and the media etc.

These “incremental gains” in the Declaration of Rights do nothing to encourage a “yes” vote. They require an uncompromised and uncompromising judiciary and legislative reform to be realised. Contrary to the basic principle of the separation of powers, the draft ensures that the head of the executive retains control over both the judiciary and the legislature. Although there is an improved system of advertising for positions and the public interview of candidates for judicial office, if the President does not like the nominees that emerge from the process, he can by-pass this process and select candidates he finds more amenable. Similarly, the draft retains the President’s power over the legislature. Egregiously, under the present constitution the legislature consists of Parliament and the President who has the power to veto legislation. This is retained under the draft. Certainly, a two-thirds majority in Parliament can override the Presidential veto. But this is highly unlikely to happen in practice. The President is elected at the same time as the Members of Parliament. It is thus improbable that Parliament will comprise enough members opposed to the President, or of a different party, to counter his or her veto.

The “yes” and “incremental gain” proponents also disingenuously claim that once they win the elections they will amend the constitution to attend to these problems. But any constitutional amendment will require a two-thirds majority in favour in both Houses of Parliament. The current political configuration suggests the neither party is likely to be able to muster this majority. Hence, once the draft is accepted, the constitution making chapter will be closed and we will be stuck with a document that none regard as satisfactory for the foreseeable future. Politicians from the winning party, which ever that may be, are likely to be comfortable with the overweening powers of the President, even if the electorate is not. A “no” vote will keep the constitution making process alive, which might then continue under more favourable conditions, with a different balance of political power, at a later date. The GPA only requires that there be a referendum on the constitution before the elections – not that a new constitution be in place by then. So why the rush to bring the constitution making process to an end?

The rush is because the draft constitution provides a convenient fig leaf for SADC’s ineffectiveness and anaemic responses in the face of ZANU PF’s refusal to affect the reforms necessary for a credible election. None of the essential reforms necessary for the integrity of the electoral process have been implemented during the course of the GNU. It also provides a convenient escape route for SADC, facing yet another flawed election in Zimbabwe. SADC has already started preparing the claim that although “not all” the reforms provided for by the GPA were implemented at least the election was conducted under a new constitution – an approach which delights ZANU PF. From there will follow the non-sequitur, (based on the off key refrain that a new constitution will protect the integrity of the electoral process) that the vote substantially reflects the will of the people and the poll is thus acceptable. A “no” vote will strip away this fig leaf and close this escape route for SADC. The narrow democratic space in which the elections will undoubtedly be conducted will thus be there for all to see.

The advantages of a “no” vote are thus readily apparent. It requires one to peer very closely at the draft through thick rose tinted glasses to discern any advantages accruing from a “yes” vote.

- Derek Matyszak, March 05, 2013

Australia is lifting sanctions against various ZPF officials. Why? Because the constitutional referendum has been announced. Makes you wonder whether they live down under or on another planet altogether. Maybe its the same thing because they seem to have conveniently chosen to ignore the assault on human rights defenders in the run-up to the referendum. They’re a bit of a cheap date if all they need is an “announcement”.