Perhaps the most controversial issue pertains to the so-called “frequencies” that are alleged to be contained in the so-called National Report. There is currently no agreed definition of the term frequencies. To members of some of the political parties in Copac, the term means the number of times an issue or a position was mentioned at a meeting during the outreach stage of the process.
To others, the term simply indicates the number of meetings held in the various urban and rural wards during this stage. The heart of the controversy relates to whether or not the figures contained in the National Report indicate the popularity or otherwise of any given issue, position or preference. It is the considered view of this writer that the figures in the National Report cannot be assumed to be indicative of the popularity or otherwise of an issue or preference.
First, right from the outset, it was agreed by all parties in Copac that the people were in favour of or against any issue, position or preference during the outreach meetings. All three co-chairpersons of Copac signed the agreement to this effect. Rather, all the issues mentioned by the people in response to the set questions would be recorded as part and parcel of what the people said. There was, therefore, no scientific or quantitative determination of how many people were in favour or against any issue, position or preference. There was no voting and there was no counting of people in relation to their response.
To treat the number of meetings where an issue was mentioned as indicative of its popularity is simply deceptive. Demographic data gathered by Copac clearly indicates that some meetings were attended by as few as 300 people, while other meetings had as many as 2-3,000 people. To regard these as equal through the use of the current frequencies is an attempt to fabricate facts where mere fiction exists.
Further, it is common cause that, at least one political party engaged in the bussing of some of its activists from one meeting to another for the purpose of ensuring that its preferred issues and positions would be noted at as many meetings as possible. Some of the activists were later recognised and challenged by Copac officials who accused them of seeking to unduly influence and dominate other people. What makes this situation even more ridiculous is the fact that the same political party often engaged in the intimidation of ordinary people who attended the meetings and sought to prevent them from speaking.
Copac officials made strenuous efforts to assure ordinary Zimbabweans that they were free to speak, but the violence of June 2008 was still too fresh in the minds of the people for them to take any risks. Ironically, this is the same political party that, today, would like Copac to use the number of outreach meetings as relating to the frequency and popularity of what should be contained in the draft constitution. This must not be allowed to happen.
Copac records indicate that there were some areas where the people’s views were not expressed. The use of the so-called frequencies, thus, becomes fictitious since it gives the impression that the environment in which the meetings were conducted was ideal throughout the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who could not express their views because the meetings had been disrupted are also Zimbabweans, but their aborted meetings are not in any way represented in the current frequencies.
Finally, the so-called frequencies, to the extent that they are merely the number of recorded outreach meetings held in some parts of the country, totally negate the reality that some of the views, positions and preferences gathered by Copac were written submissions from the Diaspora, from professional organisations, churches and civic groups. The use of the so-called frequencies to determine the content of the draft constitution would result in all these written views and preferences being regarded as of no significance to the writing of the new charter. This would be a travesty of justice.
In light of the current clamour for the release of the so-called National Report, the following could be considered as a possible way forward:
– Compile an Interim National Report including the statistical data from the outreach meetings, videos and photos from the same meetings, summaries of all written submissions, as well as minutes of some of the Copac meetings.
– Insist that the National Report can only be prepared after the holding of the Second All-Stakeholders’ Conference.
– Point out that Article VI of the GPA does not require that the National Report be presented at the Second All-Stakeholders’ Conference. – makumbe60@gmail.com
Post published in: Opinions & Analysis