Thematic meetings resume

concurrently the quantitative and qualitative methods to analyse data gathered during the outreach programme.
In a joint statement yesterday, the three Copac co-chairpersons, Cde Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana (Zanu-PF), Mr Douglas Mwonzora (MDC-T) and Mr Edward Mkhosi (MDC), said reports that had been done before would be revised to take into account the latest developments.
The trio said stakeholders had agreed to collapse three meeting points in a rural ward into one to equalise the disparity between rural and urban wards because the process is ward based.
Rural areas had more meetings in one ward due to logistical reasons and the MDC formations argued this would dilute the contributions by people in urban centres.
“Stakeholders agreed that both quantitative and qualitative approaches will be applied in data analysis. Where we use both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis, none shall take precedence over the other.
“In the qualitative approach, key attributes will include the following – attendance, gender, youth, disability and atmosphere of meeting,” reads the statement.
The parties also agreed that analysis of rural data and urban data would be done separately.
“Frequencies or preponderance will not be the absolute determinant of popularity or importance of an agreed concept,” further reads the statement.
Speaking at the Press conference, Cde Mangwana said the dispute was not about a choice between quantitative and qualitative analysis. “As Zanu PF, it was never our intention to do quantitative alone, the argument was at what stage (to use it),” he said.
Cde Mangwana said Zanu PF was of the view that during the initial stages the quantitative methods would be used and then in the later stages when reports would be compiled the qualitative method would take precedence.
Meanwhile, political analysts said ignorance and partisan views could have triggered the whole dispute.
Professor Jonathan Moyo said unlike the 1999 Constitutional Commission, the current process was heavily politicised.
“The main difference with what we had is that this process is being driven by political parties, ours was all-inclusive and lead by the Judge President (now Chief Justice, Godfrey Chidyausiku) and used best practices in constitution making. By definition, methodology is scientific and not political. All serious research encompasses both methods. The difference between the two is only taught to students who are beginning studies in research methods,” he said.
He said the boycott by the MDC formations was political grandstanding, as they should have raised objections about research methodology when the process started.
“You cannot start raising questions about methodology in the middle of a research. It is like a person starting a journey and then ask where they are going when they are just a mile away from their destination, that person would be insincere. The MDC-T wanted to delay the process and subvert the election roadmap so that elections are delayed,” he said.
University of Zimbabwe constitutional law expert Professor Lovemore Madhuku said the argument was premised on ignorance.
“They were arguing from ignorance, data collection is quantitative and data analysis is qualitative. You move from quantity to quality. In terms of data issues the two processes always go side-by-side. The whole argument shows partisanship in Copac, they are simply running away from their shadows,” he said.
The dispute broke out after Zanu PF insisted on using the quantitative method to measure the support of a view based on the frequency it was mentioned in meetings.
However, the MDC formations argued that this would disadvantage the urban voice since fewer meetings were held in the areas.
During the outreach programme, many rural people voiced their support for Zanu PF positions on various matters.