adminBut what is the compromise? A total of 40 percent strongly agree that proportional representation should form our electoral system with only 26 percent not in agreement. What this means is that, all political parties that contest an election could be afforded the right to representation in Parliament if they garner an agreed threshold percentage of the votes.
This system works well in South Africa and has been refined in Switzerland where any party that gets at least 5 percent of the votes is guaranteed a seat on the Cabinet. Of course the party with the most votes will have a right to choose a prime minister who shall include members of other parties with 5 percent or more votes into the Cabinet. This system works well in countries that have different ethnic communities such as Switzerland and South Africa.
Zimbabwe has also different ethnic communities that should be represented in the Government. Some may say that the system of proportional representation could be abused by many ethnic communities fielding their own parties. In Zimbabwe, we have passed that phase where a political party can survive purely by propagating tribalism. What is of importance is to allow parties to come together to share power in a peaceful environment.
Although the British Electorate recently shot down in a referendum the system of proportional representation, the voting trends which denied any party the right to govern alone, is an indication that they approve or want a system of government where all parties must compromise to govern the country.
Whatever form the system of proportional representation will take has been strongly supported by 61 percent of those that feel a compromise on the two systems of first past the post and proportional representation is desirable. The problem many people see is the fact that our major parties are playing politics while trying to come up with the constitution for Zimbabwe.
No one denies that the political parties may not see eye to eye on what constitutes political power.
What they fail to appreciate is that the people are more interested in what constitutes their welfare.
The people’s welfare must be served in this constitution making process not which party wants power at all costs. What has gone wrong all over the world is when politicians, once elected into office, serve their own interests not those of the people. Many have seen this when local government councillors or MPs were elected.
The first thing that came to their minds was to economically empower themselves, with new cars, and some repossessing houses that belonged to the widows.
Some were demanding allowances so they could by suits to look presentable in Parliament or other chambers. Meanwhile, the electorate did not have enough food to feed their families or even the means to produce that food for themselves.
Now the very people in the rural areas have told Copac – the Constitution Select Committee, that they want an electoral system that guarantees every party the right to participate in Parliament or in any other elective assemblies.
What must also govern the constitution making process should be the affordability of setting up expensive institutions which the country cannot afford. There should be room to state what is needed but also what is feasible. Can the economy we have sustain all these constitutional provisions?
Too much Government has been the major problem in many democratic countries which led to armed conflict when resources became scarce to satisfy the aspirations of the people.
Like one economic expert said, “Seek the means to make money first before anything else.” The policy of economic empowerment must be seen in this light. Everything else derives from wealth creation.
What then is a way forward in this constitution making exercise? What Copac has done, to publish their national report is commendable. The people who elected MPs that are charged with this constitution making process want more information and transparency not secrecy. Yes, it may be another thing to put what the people want in a legal form or language, but the fact of the matter is that, a constitution must bring peaceful political disagreement or interpretation which can be sorted out by our legal system.
The constitution must not be subordinated to political parties but to the people of Zimbabwe. Political parties will come and go but not the people of Zimbabwe. We need the culture of disagreeing in a civilised manner not resorting to violence to air our opinions. But the spirit of compromise should be embedded in this constitution making process.
Another aspect which must not be overlooked is that of what symbolises the state or the nation. It is the presidency whether executive or non-executive.
From the Copac national report, there is no doubt that the people’s preference is that of an executive presidency. If we have to go back to our culture, there were kingdoms everywhere in Africa. The king symbolised the state or nation. He was head of the army but he did not rule alone. Every tribe was represented in his administration right down to the grassroots level. The same should happen with the presidency.
Even today, if we were to look at the way chiefs administer their areas. All tribes are represented through heads of areas. If a form of proportional electoral system is adopted, this would go very well with the African tradition of inclusivity.
What runs through Copac national report is the quest for peace by the people. The people deserve peace in their way of life. Disagreement is the way of modern politics. There are many instances where parliamentarians hurl insults at each other during debates on major issues. This is the nature of politics. What is wrong is to inflame the public to rise up against each other. That is the worst of modern politics.
It is important to put to the people a constitution which does not contain contentious issues. All political parties must find compromises so that the constitution of Zimbabwe shall become wholly owned by the people of Zimbabwe.
Online Reporter