The Pre-emptive Politics of Zimbabwe’s Undemocratic Constitutional Reform Process.
By Takura Zhangazha.*
Zimbabwe's
current constitutional reform process whichever way one would like to view it,
is devoid of a necessary national political dignity or seriousness. This is a
necessary point to make at the outset primarily because there have been a
number of continual public arguments around the Parliamentary
Constitutional Select Committee (COPAC) process as established by Article 6 of
the Global Political Agreement (GPA). These arguments have ranged from issues
to do with outreach reports, donor funding, the role of political parties and
at the time of writing, issues to do with the final content of the draft
constitution. There have also been a number of opinions expressed concerning
how the Zimbabwean public must view the entirety of the COPAC process.
One of
these opinions relates to seeking to give the process ' a chance' or
alternatively to view it as the 'best that could be done' given the
circumstances surrounding the GPA. Such an argument was premised on the
assumption that with time and within the now passed initial 18 month time-frame
for drafting the new constitution, COPAC would be popularly legitimate and lead
to a 'people driven' new constitution. Time, unfortunately has not assisted
COPAC in relation to its performance or popular legitimacy. From the disrupted
initial stakeholders conference (whoever one blames) through to the then regularly
violent and politicized outreach meetings and the now contested politicized
drafting process, COPAC has been primarily a four party political process. And
this, of its own volition with no particular pressure from the Zimbabwean
public. If at all there was pressure it came from the political parties that
are in the inclusive government.
Even if
one were to argue that there has been a bit of pressure from civil society such
a position would be dishonest. Civil society's role has been muted and to the
greater extent co-opted by one political party or the other, making the former
pragmatically irrelevant or at best window-dressing for COPAC's assumed
'consultative' processes. Even components of civil society that have opposed
the COPAC process have been at fault for undertaking the 'lets wait and see the
outcome' strategy when in fact they have all along been arguing on the basis of
'process'. However given the fact that it is now 72 months after it was
formed and since COPAC is about to come full circle with the publication of its
draft, it is necessary to put key developments around the process into clearer
perspective.
Naturally,
the finalization and publication of the draft constitution is a development
that Parliamentarians,civil society and the political principals will seek to
use to vindicate themselves. Their 'memories' will become short as regards the
processes that led COPAC and the country to where it is. Instead of combining issues to do with how the process thus far has influenced the content, the focus will shift solely to content. This has been evidenced by the last few months where arguments about various 'unofficial' drafts and drafters have found their way into the public domain. And this shift from process
to content has not been on the basis of popular public participation. Instead
it has been on the basis of contestation about presidential age limits or the
continued politicization of the issue of sexual orientation rights.
An exacerbation
of this current state of affairs will however be when the full and
official COPAC draft constitution is made public. The debate will then involve
various legal and civil society experts who will compete to explain the full
import of various clauses of the draft in relation to their vested political
interests. This may not be a bad thing in and of itself but the character of
the debate will not necessarily change from its highly politicized and
'proximity to power' elitist character. There will be Zanu Pf and MDCs experts
praising or denouncing one clause or the other and various other analysts who
intentionally or unintentionally will be seen to be taking sides. Neutrality in
this instance will be of limited import due to the partisan and elitist character
that has been the Article 6 constitutional reform process.
It
therefore becomes necessary to outline the key challenges that all Zimbabweans
might consider as the country heads toward a referendum on the draft under
these circumstances. The first pre-emptive issue that needs public and private
debate is the key challenge of measuring the democratic performance of COPAC
and the principal leaders of the inclusive government. Whereas at the beginning
of the process both those who supported or opposed Article 6 of the GPA felt it
necessary to give Parliament and government the chance to make this work or not
work, it remains rather urgent that an assessment be made as to whether what has
happened thus far on constitutional reform is reflective of a broad national
democratic vision for the country. Or whether perhaps it is reflective of
partisan political positions that suit solely the pursuit of political power at
the expense of the public interest.
Secondly
and in relation to the first issue to be considered, if the political leaders
are asking us to accept their flawed constitutional reform process and
compromise what is known to be democratic principle, it is necessary for us to
ask as to what national end and benefit such a request is being made. The request
for the compromise has and will continue to come in the form of a request by
all parties involved directly and indirectly in the COPAC process to vote 'yes'
at the referendum. Some of these parties will cite the flawed argument that the
'no' vote in 2000 was a mistake (a point that can only have resonance with
people that believe in elitist or qualified franchise politics). Others from
the same camp will argue that a 'yes' vote would guarantee the beginning of the
removal of Zanu Pf from power or on the opposite end, the removal of the
MDCs from proximity to power.
Such a
point misses the intention of constitutionalism and reform related thereto
which is normally about the progressive replacement of an autocratic
fundamental legal/political system with a democratic one. It therefore is not
about individuals let alone particular political parties. It is then necessary
that in considering the 'necessary compromise' request there be careful public
consideration of the full import of a 'yes' vote on our country's political
culture. Where caution is thrown to the wind we may have a 'yes' vote that takes us back to processes in which our political leaders assume they
can create partisan political realities for us without due consideration to our
interests nor our broader national input.
A third
consideration should be that of querying those that would seek to persuade the
public to vote 'no' to the draft. The defining nature of this call for a no
vote will stem from the National Constitutional Assembly on the basis of
process as well as potentially undemocratic clauses within the draft as an
inevitable result of the flawed path that has been Article 6 and COPAC. Other
organisations (inclusive of smaller political parties) will join the 'no'
chorus on the basis of content alone, particularly on clauses that may relate
to executive powers or the role of the military. Such organisations may have
initially supported the COPAC processes but will not hesitate to join a
campaign to reject the COPAC draft. In all of this, it will be necessary for
citizens to consider the post referendum mechanisms of re-visiting the
'unfinished business' of establishing a democratic constitution for Zimbabwe
regardless of the referendum result. And these mechanisms should begin to be
part of the discourse sooner rather than later.
Finally,
it is important that where we consider the actions, promises as well as the
draft of COPAC we must do so holistically. This would entail measuring the
democratic perfomance of COPAC from its inception to present day. And as COPAC
prepares to publish its official draft constitution, it is the task of every Zimbabwean to not only
view the contents of the same, but to also remember how it came to be undemocratically
presented before us.
*Zhangazha writes here in his personal
capacity: takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com
My take is that this document is a transitional one and Zim still needs a proper constitutional process later on in its life, as and when circumstances allow. As of now Civil society must push for clauses that allow for a peaceful political transition, regardless of the history and challenge with process. This is continuous struggle in which civil society and citizens are caught between a rock and a hard place.
ReplyDeleteAnd if these peaceful political transitions are not there Rashi, what is to be done (ala carte Lenin)
ReplyDelete