adminbe non-partisan.
Whether the civil servants are in the army, police or any other branch of Government, they are expected not to take sides in political matters save for the fact that they shall receive instructions from the political leadership to carry out their functions.
Once a constitution is in place, it is expected that all heads of government departments should be conversant with constitutional provisions.
There is no need for any agreements by political parties outside the provisions of the Constitution.
Members of the civil service can still belong to any political party in their private capacity but are not expected to hold any political office. The question arises when they make political statements. Surely, if the political statements are in support of government policies, there is nothing wrong with that. When civil servants criticise members of the government they serve, that is termed a breach of faith. All over the world, generals have been known to make political pronouncements on behalf of the government of the day.
If they make such pronouncements against a sitting president who is their commander in chief, then, that is regarded as insubordination which may lead to sacking or resignation of the official involved.
What is at stake, even though there is a constitution, is the convention or culture, which is developed in relation to the behaviour of civil servants if they are to play a non-partisan role in the governing of the country. It has been known that generals in the UK become Conservative Lords supporting the Conservative party. Surely, they would have joined the party while still serving in the army.
The same goes for those generals in the USA who even have gone to become presidents under another political party. In China, where there is one party, generals are part of that political party. It is very difficult to expect those that were in the liberation movement not to support or align with the party that nurtured them.
As for the media, the constitution is very clear that there shall be freedom of the Press.
The problem has been that, the freedom, in many instances, is being abused. Freedom to report without fear is not tantamount to undermining the authority of the state or the authority of the president. Besides being a political leader, the president is a symbol of the state.
In many countries, a president cannot be criticised while outside the country representing the state. It is not done, even in the USA itself. But, our so-called private Press, have no such qualms at all. This is surely, unacceptable. One cannot understand why the organs of the state should be vilified when fulfilling their duties of interpreting the law or the constitution.
In the USA, the passage of the Health Law, named, Obama Care ended up in the Supreme Court. That court ruled in favour of the president, and that was the end of the story.
Obama went on to win the election, which gave him an endorsement by the electorate of his policies.
Why should it be difficult for political parties in Zimbabwe not to accept the ruling of our own Constitutional Court? It shows that our political culture has to grow.
All what needs to be done is to respect the Constitution.
Political agreements outside the Constitution should be null and void.
Online Reporter