Dual Vice Presidency is not cast in stone

Joram Nyathi Spectrum Friday
I have just been rereading an article we ran in this paper on December 22, 2014 by Dr Alex Magaisa on the uniqueness of the Zimbabwe Constitution. He asked almost rhetorically; “Why does Zimbabwe have a dual Vice Presidency?” Rhetorically because Dr Magaisa knewthe answer. So he could easily have put it simply thus: “Why Zimbabwe has a dual Vice Presidency”.

He explained this peculiarity as a devise used to bring to an end what President Mugabe was to later describe as “a moment of madness”. The dual Vice Presidency came by way of the Unity Accord signed on December 22 1987 between the former PF-Zapu led by the late national hero Dr Joshua Nkomo and Zanu-PF leader President Mugabe. This followed disturbances which occurred in the Midlands and Matabeleland provinces between 1981 and the signing of the peace deal.

Questions linger on about the fairness of the deal, or whether the Zapu Vice Presidency was only a sop accepted because of power dynamics then. But that’s for another day, perhaps not far off given an interesting debate Nathaniel Manheru has broached around the issue of Gukurahundi and the dangers of regionalising “victimhood” from that dark episode.

My main interest in this article are the ways in which the issue of dual Vice Presidency was debated during the Copac constitution-making process and how this phenomenon came to be a part of the new Constitution on the one hand, and on the other, whether this must be a “fixed and permanent feature of our constitutional order” as Dr Magaisa suggests.

Needless to say, I am debating this from a political standpoint, not a legal one and my conclusion is that the MDCs’ approach to the dual Vice Presidency as narrated by Dr Magaisa was faulty and hypocritical and bound to fail while the result need not necessarily be a “permanent and fixed feature of our constitutional order” even after Section 92 of the Constitution requiring a presidential candidate to select two running mates becomes operational from 2023. That would be tantamount to admitting that we have failed to achieve full national integration by acknowledging our socially, politically and economically enriching ethnic diversities.

This is how the dual Vice Presidency was debated, according to Dr Magaisa;

“For the MDC parties, a dual Vice Presidency was an unnecessary economic burden on a nation that was already struggling financially. There was no sound economic justification for having two VPs in a small country like Zimbabwe. Further, they were aware of the circumstances under which the dual Vice Presidency had been established in the late 1980s and that it was tailored to suit the internal political dynamics of Zanu-PF.

“Zanu-PF, however, saw it differently, believing that the arrangement was not just a Zanu-PF affair but one that was necessary for preserving peace and stability in the country through equitable representation of the people. They saw the Unity Accord as not just a party affair but one of national significance. While therefore the arguments of the MDCs were based mainly on economic grounds, the reasoning on the part of Zanu-PF was mainly political.”

Now we rephrase the question a third time: “Does Zimbabwe need a dual Vice Presidency?”

Before we answer this vexed question, let’s first dispose of the MDCs’ arguments by exposing their hypocrisy and duplicity. First, the dual Vice Presidency was never an economic matter. It was politics pure and simple. It therefore makes no sense to argue that there is “no sound economic justification for having two VPs in a small country like Zimbabwe”. Which big country can adduce an economic justification for a dual presidency?

Second, here is a political party which first got into Parliament in 2000 when there were only 120 elected MPs. It has helped that figure balloon to 350 representatives today without complaining about “an unnecessary economic burden” on a nation already struggling financially. What is more burdensome to the nation between two VPs and the 230 additional MPs since 2000?

The argument was simply disingenuous and meant for the public gallery.

So back to the question; “Does Zimbabwe ‘need’ a dual Vice Presidency?”

My answer is No.

Perhaps we still do. But my feeling is the reasons and pressures now are not as existential and as compelling as they were in 1987 and soon after. The circumstances have changed significantly. That is why people, including senior members who negotiated the deal such as Dumiso Dabengwa, now take liberties to talk dismissively of the Unity Accord.

During the constitution-making process Zanu-PF had a stronger argument for the dual Vice Presidency than the MDCs. The Unity Accord was signed to “preserve peace and stability”. That’s national, not just “internal political dynamics of Zanu- PF”. It wasn’t a party affair. Supporters of the uniting parties had to feel that they were represented at the highest level in the political power structure, which was the Presidency, for security reasons.

But “preserving peace and stability” and “equitable representation of the people” should not be dependent forever on a figurehead as in a Vice President, let alone one appointed on ethnic lines. Thus I feel bad when I read in our national Constitution that in appointing ministers and their deputies the President must be guided by considerations of “regional balance”. And, as suggested by Dr Magaisa, we want this regional balance and the dual Vice Presidency to be “a permanent and fixed feature of our constitutional order” in perpetuity? What a country!

There is also a dangerous assumption not at all secured in the Constitution. The Unity Accord had an element of certainty and entitlement to the Vice Presidency by former PF-Zapu members. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution. Even the running mate system set to begin in 2023 doesn’t hint at such “regional considerations” when a presidential candidate selects his two running mates.

In principle, a presidential candidate can, in selecting his two running mates, violate the letter and spirit of the Unity Accord without violating Section 92 of the Constitution. He can select his running mates from any region and only consider regional balancing when it comes to appointing ministers and their deputies, thus provoking another debate about how many ministers have been appointed from what region and why!

The idea of permanence of the dual Vice Presidency seems to assume the running mate system in the Constitution shall forever be beholden to the spirit of the Unity Accord regardless of who or which party gets into power. This is dangerous as it perpetuates an illusion that former members of PF-Zapu shall automatically be entitled to have one of their own selected as a running mate so he can be one of the vice presidents.

Yet there is apparently an easy solution to this imbroglio. Our politics should rise above region and ethnicity; they should go beyond “equitable representation of the people” to “equitable” distribution of national resources to “preserve peace and stability”. There are too many regions and ethnic groups to try and squeeze them all into Cabinet or Parliament. A representative cannot eat on behalf of those he represents. Every region must feel and be seen to benefit from our national heritage.

That will obviate the need for a dual Vice Presidency which in any case doesn’t do justice to those regions or ethnic groups not targeted in the Unity Accord and are, therefore, not entitled to permanently have a Vice President.

I am reminded of Tomas Paine in The Rights of Man railing against those who presume that they can make laws to bind yet unborn generations in perpetuity. Why should the dual Vice Presidency be “a permanent and fixed feature of our constitutional order” Dr Magaisa? Did we make a Constitution which cannot be amended? Then that should be a bad constitution and people have a right to tear it up.

I believe people need food, peace and happiness as guarantees of peace and stability more than they do symbolic representation in party hierarchies. Perpetuating the latter forever betrays a failure to create conditions which are necessary to “preserve peace and stability”.