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)
.
Interesting viewsTakura.
ReplyDelete