Copac shortchanges disabled persons

were only a flavour of the mouth as their views would be relegated to dustbins leaving the views of the strong to prevail.
This is synonymous with the ‘Social Darwinism Theory’ premised on the survival of the fittest.
Persons with disabilities in particular cannot keep mummer this gravy train. Indeed such a fiasco has left them wondering where the drafters got the disability-related issues purportedly gathered from this group.
Persons with disabilities with the pains of exclusion rising to a crescendo and being always taken for granted were shocked to discover that despite several representations by their organisations and individuals, provisions in the draft constitution that attempt to address disability issues were completely out of sync with international laws and best practices which any informed drafter would be expected to benchmark against.
Schooled by the moribund and thread bare medical disability model which views persons with disabilities as sick, the draft constitution refers to persons with disabilities as: ‘People Living With disabilities’ in synonymity with people living with Aids.  In terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities (UNCRPD), the right terminology to use is ‘Persons with Disabilities’.  It is also disgusting that the draft constitution does not provide a definition of ‘disability’ even though they refer to ‘physical and mental disability’, other disability categories not falling under the two (physical and mental) will not be protected if it passes the litmus test. Let me now enlighten the drafters on the subject of disability, which appears quite hazy to them. In terms of the UNCRPD, persons with disabilities include those with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others ‘pursuant to Zimbabwe’s Disabled Persons Act of 1992 a person with a disability is defined as: a person with a physical, mental or sensory disability, including a visual, hearing or speech functional disability, which gives rise to physical, cultural or social barriers inhibiting him/her from participating at an equal level with other members of society in activities, undertakings or fields of employment that are open to other members of society.’ These two definitions are similar in that they are both broad and view disability as a Human Rights and developmental issue.
There are both informed by the ‘Social Disability Model’.  The two definitions emphasise that the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life is only possible if there are no socially constructed or imposed barriers. It is quite mind boggling to have subsidiary legislation in the form of the ‘Disabled Persons Act of 1992,’ having superior rights which are ironically reversed by the country’s future supreme law.
It is also disturbing that other disabilities emanating from intellectual and sensory impairments and skin pigmentation will not be protected by the draft constitution if ratified. This draft in its current state would be a barrier to the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in all life’s spheres on an equal basis with others.
Part of Section 2.12. Subsection 2 of the Draft constitution reads:
“All State and governmental institutions and agencies at every level must endeavour, within the resources available to them; to assist persons living with physical or mental disabilities to achieve their full potential and to minimise the disadvantages suffered by them.”
The Phrase ‘within the resources available to them’ is too apologetic to be a constitutional provision. Further it makes this provision a mere pie in the sky. It exonerates government from fulfilling such a provision.
It seems to me that the provisions in the Kariba Draft were taken and no reference whatsoever was made to the issues raised by persons with disabilities.
Unless and until the draft constitution is fully representative of the concerns of this group, persons with disabilities feel betrayed by the three political parties involved in this process.
Tsarai Mungoni is the Research and Advocacy Officer — National Association of Societies for the Care of the Handicapped (NASCOH)