Copac should not be a battleground

the Copac National Report is a case in point.
The panellists went to town to inflame the issue of national languages to be enshrined in the constitution.
It is true that the people identified 17 indigenous languages but the fact of the matter is that they cannot all become official languages.
The panellists were against the idea of English being used as a language of record.
Surely, the cost of translating every document into 17 languages would be enormous. Nowhere in the world is that being implemented.
Although the programme was in Shona, not one of the panellists could speak any other language except maybe, English and Ndebele beside the Shona all spoke on the programme.
What is acceptable is that Parliament could enact laws to promote these different languages in the areas they are mostly spoken. Churches have done this by translating the Bible into some of these languages. Besides school children being taught in English, they could also take the local language as one of the subjects.
Having dealt with this contentious subject, I am convinced that the definition of a constitution is a document that sets out the values and principles of how a country should be governed.
A lot has been said about a constitution being a supreme law of the land. But, what is missing from the debate is what kind of law the country should be governed under.
Should it be the Roman and Dutch Law or the English Law or any other concept of law that is foreign?
If the principles of the law are foreign then it is difficult to describe the constitution as home grown and encompassing the country’s unique values.
Maybe, it is difficult at this stage of constitution making to start another exercise of replacing the Roman and Dutch Law but to wait until this exercise is over.
The new constitution could make a provision of working towards replacing the Roman and Dutch Law with an indigenous law which the majority of the population can understand.
But what are the fundamental values and principles that should bind the people of this country through the constitution?
One of the principles is that of marriage. Marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman over the age of 18.
One can even go further to say that sexual intercourse should be between a man and a woman over the age of 18. These definitions must be written into the constitution to safeguard the values of the people in this country.
The question of polygamy should be left to the legislature that would define the law in detail to be put on the statute books. The constitution should provide a framework of principles from which Parliament can derive the laws in detail without infringing the articles of the constitution.
Another principle should be that all land shall become state land including the resources found on that land.
Parliament would then spell out the Acts of law that would grant ownership to certain pieces of land to individuals with the provision that the state could repossess the land under certain conditions in the national interest. I have always admired the African concept of law where compensation plays an important role rather than punishment by the state without compensating the victims.
For example, the state can fine or imprison an offender but the victim gets nothing.
If the offender has the means to compensate the victim, the sentence should also include compensation or if the victim has no means, the state should compensate the victim.
These are some of the values and principles that would make a difference to the ordinary person.
Should there be a fight over a constitution? The answer is no. The values and principles of a constitution should be simple and spelt out for ordinary people to understand.
Legal jargon should be left to Parliament when the flesh shall be put to the constitution.
Some countries like Britain do not bother about constitutions but rely on laws promulgated by parliament and their conventions passed from generation to generation.
As a young democracy, this country cannot allow lawyers to change our way of life but that values and principles must be written in a simple language for all the people to understand.
Political parties must not hijack the constitution making process for their own ends. They should bear in mind that all the people are on one when it comes to what values and principles that should form the cornerstone of the constitution.
What people want is to be given the means to elect their representatives that would safeguard their hard won independence and that would work towards the welfare of the people.
Political power play should not be allowed to define the constitution making process.
Why is it difficult to agree on what constitution this country must have?
Is it self interest by many diverse political or civic groups with their own agendas?
Some organisations hide behind impossible human rights provisions which are unattainable in any human society. An example is the right to shelter and food.
Surely, no government has any resources to provide shelter or even food to every individual. What the people can have is the right to fend for themselves. Where possible, governments should try to meet the needs of the people.
Countries in the Euro Zone are now the first to scale down on social welfare programmes or even cut out free provisions of food and housing.
Their economies are on the verge of collapse due debt crisis of borrowing for all those rights they promised the people without the means to create wealth for distribution.
Our constitution should not promise people a pie in the sky. Everything has to be worked for.
Yes, an environment must be created through the constitution in which individual enterprise can flourish without fear or favour.