OPINION: Now that draft constitution is out . . .

Its production has taken well nigh three years, and has cost about $50 million, much of which came from foreign sponsors.

At the time of writing, Zimbabweans interested and involved in national affairs were passionately discussing the document in twos or in much larger groups, especially its acceptability or otherwise.

In Matabeleland as well as Manicaland, Masvingo and the Midlands, there is much disappointment about the draft’s watered down reference to devolution of power. That type of governance is deemed by a very large number of people to be solution to the country’s socio-economic development programmes said to be more pro-Mashonaland provinces than those mentioned above.

Without making a clause-by-clause analysis of the draft, we can rightly say that some people feel that its provisions fall far short of their expectations. Those who produced it, the two MDCs and Zanu-PF, say it was bound to disappoint some and please some because it is a result of negotiations … a give-some and take-some process “mina nika wena lo, wena nika mina lo” to put it in the old fashioned “fanikalo” pidgin (pijjin) SiNdebele used by the British colonialists.

They eventually came up with a draft that can hardly satisfy all the parties concerned.

Meanwhile, it is an utterly futile exercise to point accusing fingers to one or the other of the architects of the draft for whatever shortcoming in it. What is of national importance now is whether or not it should be accepted.

Before stating what this article’s author thinks to be a plausible opinion on the matter, we should all remember that the decision to craft a new constitution was taken to bring about a change in the country’s governance.

We should also bear in mind that there are bound to be some inconvenience wherever and whenever a change occurs whether it is from a worse to a better situation, let alone from a better to a worse one.

The most important question to answer when such a change occurs is: Who will be most inconvenienced in a situation where a nation is involved in a power tussle between actual and aspiring leaders on one side and the masses of the people on the other?

If most of the inconveniences will be against the leadership, actual and aspiring, the change is inevitably from worse to better. If the inconveniences will be felt mostly by the masses, that change is from better to worse.

The main wish to most Zimbabweans is to have the right and authority to select and elect their representatives from the lowest to the highest levels of their lives, and to be able to change them regularly as and when circumstances so require.

They wish also to associate politically, socially, culturally and economically without let or hindrance.

It is also their wish to have politically independent judicial and security institutions and a governance system whose policies emanate from the grassroots and are progressively channelled upwards rather than the other way round.

It has also been repeatedly argued among various stakeholders about the need to create an environment permitting multiple news media. That is, in effect, the basis of what is generally referred to as freedom of the Press, a phrase coined decades before the invention of the electronic and iconic media.

In the field of culture, it has been the publicly pronounced wish of speakers of some marginalised languages for those tongues to be given constitutional national status.

It is most interesting to note that with regard to this fundamental cultural right, the draft constitution states; “The following languages namely Chewa, Chibarwe, English, Kalanga, Nambya, Ndau, Ndebele, Shangani, Shona, Sign language, Sotho, Tswana, Venda and Xhosa are the official languages of Zimbabwe, and that an Act of Parliament may prescribe other languages as official languages and may prescribe languages of record.”

In addition to this, the draft constitution has some aspects that give power to the House of Assembly, taking it away (inconveniencing) the Executive. It also emphasises the non-political role of a number of national institutions.

It is by comparison more people-oriented than the amended Lancaster House Constitution.

Voting for it would be supporting a process of transformation in the country’s governance although that transformation will not be as radical as some people had prayed for since most probably 2000.

Rejecting the draft may result in an election based on the amended Lancaster House fundamental law. We are aware of the undemocratic characteristics of that document.

A rejection of the draft could lead to continued use of the current one for the most likely five (if not 10) years.

Crafting another constitution would be not only time-consuming, but also prohibitively expensive for Zimbabwe, especially at this time when the national coffers are virtually empty and the economy in comatose.

*Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu is a Bulawayo-based retired journalist. He can be contacted on cell 0734328136 or through e-mail: [email protected].