adminPresently there is much talk about the need to hold general elections this year, with, however, a rather strong opinion that the drafting of the national constitution followed by its approval or otherwise by the people by means of a referendum should precede general elections.
That means, in effect, that those advocating elections this year ought to use their power, administrative, political or cultural as is the case with the chiefs, to expedite the constitutional crafting process.
Those who feel that general elections cannot be held this year because the constitutional making exercise will not have been finalised must add their voice to the need to accelerate the process lest they may be understood to be saying that general elections should not be held this year.
To say general elections cannot be held this year does not mean the same as should not be held this year. The first implies inability, and should not connote inconvenience or inappropriateness or unsuitability.
Without a new constitution, elections would be held on the Lancaster House constitution whose unsuitability to Zimbabwe is shown by the fact that it has been amended 19 times in the past 31 years.
The importance of a constitution is in the fact that it is the base from which all other national laws derive their authority. A law, proclamation or by-laws that violate any constitutional clause or stipulation is ipso facto, invalid.
A democratic national constitution is a product of the nation concerned consulting collectively. The Lancaster House constitution does not meet this basic requirement because of the circumstances in which it was crafted in 1979.
Described by some constitutional analysts as authoritarian, one of its major objectives was to end the armed liberation struggle. It is to all intents and purposes an ad hoc document meant to usher in a new socio-political era with the minimum of economic and cultural dislocations and upheavals.
It was to achieve this objective that it had a clause guaranteeing the white settler minority 20 parliamentary seats for seven years.
The one being currently drafted will reflect the wishes of the masses of Zimbabwe in the light of their experience that has accumulated in the past three decades.
The experience created wishes in such areas as devolution of power, separation of powers, rule of law, freedom of the media, entitlement to citizenships, proportional representation and so forth and so on.
At Lancaster House, Zimbabwe’s black political leadership was more concerned with achieving universal adult suffrage (one person, one vote) than with say, freedom of the media.
At Lancaster House (and the author of this article attended that conference), it would have been unstrategic for the Patriotic Front to argue about or on some of the themes mentioned in this opinion piece. That could have divided the delegation and played straight into the hands of the Rhodesian regime and the British government.
Presently, we have high hopes that the constitution that will eventually be submitted to the people of Zimbabwe will truly reflect their wishes on the themes already mentioned.
The importance of having a people-created national constitution is that it generates national unity and pride on the basis that the nation can rightly claim ownership of it.
That should indeed be so since it is the nation’s fundamental law without which all other statutes would be without a foundation. It was precisely for the right to chart our own national destiny that we took up arms, leading to the birth of Zimbabwe in 1980.
The liberation struggle was for the emancipation of every Zimbabwean to express himself or herself without let or hindrance within Zimbabwe’s constitutional constraints. Those constraints having been determined by the Zimbabweans themselves.
There has been talk in the past about what were termed the advantages of what is called “guided democracy”, a form of governance where the political leadership decides and presents them to the people as fait accompli.
That is not democracy. It is a form of arrogance that is characterised by the usurpation of some of the rights and some of the constitutional responsibilities of the people by an elected leadership.
It is a type of paternalism that looks down upon the people, treating them as being unable to know what is good for their social, economic and cultural life. It is an insult to a people, particularly those who sacrificed blood and limb for their freedom.
Democracy at its very best involves people at grassroots level, enabling them to have and use power to improve themselves economically, socially, culturally and, of course, politically. Its main pillar is an environment where there are equal opportunities for all in every sphere of life.
The rationale is that equality of ballot should lead to equality in other fields, especially enjoyment and utilisation of social services such as offered by hospitals and schools.
Some political analysts very strongly feel that this can be achieved by means of the devolution of power, provinces or regions being responsible for providing some of their own social services as well as roads.
That would be democracy in practical operation, projects being identified by the local people, and their development being undertaken by the locals themselves by means of local financial and other resources where possible.
Proportional representation enables the minority to be heard in either the House of Assembly or in municipal council chambers instead of the present ballot system where the winner even if it is by a single vote, takes all. In that case the voice of the losers goes by the board irrespective of whatever wisdom it may be expressing. Democracy is meant to be all inclusive and not exclusive.
Online Reporter