What is in a constitution anyway? What lessons can we learn from our 33-year long history and particularly from the Lancaster House process? The purposes of a constitution are to regulate the exercise of power and to define the relationship between individuals. A good constitution has to be based on the will of the people to whom it will be applied.
As was the case in 1979, the purpose of the recent constitution-making process was to ease political tension, provide a platform for free and fair elections, and above all return their political voice to the masses of Zimbabwe. But is this what we got? What went wrong in the process?
It is important to look at the formation of the NCA. This is anchored in the move made by President Mugabe through the Lancaster House Constitutional amendment No. 17, which opened up a number of very controversial acts and gave Mugabe imperial powers thereby making him an imperial president of the independent Zimbabwe.
The NCA was formed to stop him from becoming the most equal person in the Republic. The mandate for the formation of the NCA in 1997 was to push for a new constitution – meaning that the Lancaster House Constitution had failed to address the pleas of the people of Zimbabwe as evidenced by the massive amendments it suffered since its inauguration.
Being aware of the agenda of the NCA and the expanse of political damage it potentially possessed against the only strong political party that time, Zanu (PF), the president and his party moved in quickly in 2000 to pretend that they had given in to the calls of the NCA for a new constitution and threw the country into a constitution referendum. The 2000 constitution draft was not allowed to pass into the light of the day. The NCA, which campaigned for a “No” vote, argued that the draft failed to reflect the views of the people taken during the public consultation process and created an overly powerful executive, weak Parliament, and inadequate human rights protection.
Together with the newly formed MDC, the NCA mobilized a massive civil society campaign against the draft. The result was a No vote, which, combined with the MDC’s significant improvement of successes in the general elections the same year, shook the Zanu (PF)-dominated government, which had overestimated its popularity with the people.”
In September 2007, representatives from Zanu (PF) and the two MDCs attempted to produce a Constitution – that became known as the Kariba draft. The anomalies in that draft included a very powerful president with powers to unilaterally declare a state of emergency, suspend human rights, dissolve Parliament, and appoint all public officials. Thanks be to God, it was rejected for two main reasons, “first, it was the product of a very secretive process; based neither on consensus nor public participation and second, the executive structure in place ensured that parliament and the judiciary remained very weak institutions dominated and controlled by the executive.”
In my opinion, the process that led to the current constitution falls far short of many Zimbabweans’ expectations. The GPA that has ruled Zimbabwe for over five years is not a product of the people of Zimbabwe. It has been a charitable imposition from SADC to salvage the dignity of our leaders. No ordinary Zimbabwean or even civil society groups has control over the GPA.
In whose favour is the content of the new draft constitution? Is it a document that the next government can confidently rely on without amending it? Why are some clauses deferred to five years and 10 years? Is this document in any way better than the Lancaster House Constitution? Is the current constitution really in the best interest of the people?
The process to constitution making in any country should be as transparent as possible. There should be transparency in the composition of the Constitution Commission set up. There should be transparency and a deliberate attempt to safeguard and respect the people’s suggestions so that the content of a document to be promulgated as national constitution will no doubt contain realities that the people who suggested the content will recognise and identify with so that they uphold the constitution with great esteem. This will make a constitution a people’s constitution.
It is only when the people of Zimbabwe come to full realisation that we have the authority and power to participate in the governance of our country that we begin to take keen interest in both the process of constitution-making and the contents of the constitution. – Musekiwa is a Jesuit priest currently residing and working in the Zambia-Malawi Province of the Society of Jesus.
Post published in: News