Tuesday 14 January 2020

Zim's 2nd Constitutional Amendment: An Exercise in Symbolism and Power.


By Takura Zhangazha*

The Constitution of Zimbabwe is due to be amended this year.  The changes to be made according to the gazette constitutional amendment bill No 2 of 2019 include repealing clauses that allow for presidential running mates, the extension for two more parliaments of the women’s quota system and the new addition of ten parliamentary seats for the youth quota.  The latter point also interestingly being done with names of candidates that are interchanged by way of gender.  

Other proposed constitutional amendments include the extension of the tenure of office of judges who have reached retirement age and the constitutional establishment of the office of a public protector and deputy. Further proposed constitutional amendments relate to provincial and metropolitan councils wherein members of the same are to be elected by proportional representation.  Also add to these the proposed changes the greater role the president would be expected to play with respect to the disciplinary procedures of the office of the prosecutor general.

These proposed constitutional amendments are a handful.  And somewhat varied in their import.  Arguments put out by either civil society organisations or opposition parties relate to at least three issues.  The first being that the amendments are too soon after the constitution was passed and therefore fly against the spirit and letter of democratic constitutionalism.  A point that is relatively moot if anything else. 

The second being that the proposed amendments give the president considerably more power via changing the running mate clause and allow him/her to appoint deputies as well as with the greater role the president plays in the dismissal or retention of the prosecutor general or the appointment of judges.  A fair point in so far as it relates to the dynamics that were present during the COPAC led constitutional reform exercise.  As determined by the larger than life political figure that was Robert Mugabe.

Thirdly, the argument is why change a constitution that has not even been fully aligned with the existent subservient laws?  For them the issue to is first fulfill the alignment requirements before seeking to change it.  The only problem with this is that Mnangagwa’s government has no legal obligation to do that. It can always argue that it is all ‘work in progress’.

The ruling Zanu Pf party has also given some reasons why it wants to change the constitution.  On the issue of presidential running mates it has argued that it does not require two centers of power.  On devolution it is arguing that it is fulfilling its electoral campaign promises.  Same with the extension of the women’s quota and the introduction of the youth quota in Parliament.

Beyond these arguments against  or for amending the constitution as proposed by Constitutional Amendment Bill No 2 of 2019, there are some stark political realities that may be lost in translation.  The first and what should be the most obvious one is that the government wants to change the constitution because it can.  The ruling Zanu Pf party has a two thirds majority in both houses of Parliament (Section 328 (5) and can therefore constitutionally do so.  Except for Chapter 4 (Bill of Rights) and Chapter 16 (Agricultural Land) where it will require a constitutional referendum.  So on the face of it, it is within Zanu Pf’s legal right to do so. Unless someone takes them to the Constitutional court on some technicality or the other.

The next hidden element to these proposed amendments is a desultory political public.  Amending the constitution is not high on the Zimbabwean public’s priority or concern list.  Instead it’s the  political economy (with an emphasis on economy and economic survival) that is top of the list.  This does not mean there will be no entertainment of the subject in general or in its parliamentary specificity and televised antics when it is read for the first and second times.  

The general lack of populism around the matter indicates a continued public ignorance of the provisions of the constitution but more significantly a continued lack of desire at public ownership of the same.  In other words, the constitution of Zimbabwe is not an organic but entirely functional one. Especially for the political elite that wrote it and got their supporters to vote for it. 

A final hidden element to the constitutional amendments as proposed is the fact of their symbolism in the exercise of political power.  First of all the recognizable source of the changes is the ruling party which in doing so is asserting not only its authority for public recognition but also for its own party structures.  That is giving meaning via this sort of action to its own exercise of power.  In the second instance is the benevolent attitude toward women and the youth via extending, for the former, the quota system and for the latter, introducing it.  Add to this, the new Chinese facilitated massive new Parliament building made in the image of Great Zimbabwe and you have a sum total of the exercise of power and symbolism.  Even if the majority of us don’t see it.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

. 


1 comment: