These images show the official ZEC referendum brochure. Click on each image to view in a larger size. Once it has opened, you can use the 'zoom' feature to make it even bigger still.
These images show the official ZEC referendum brochure. Click on each image to view in a larger size. Once it has opened, you can use the 'zoom' feature to make it even bigger still.
The situation in the build up to the Constitutional Referendum is proving shambolic. Whilst delivering copies of the Summary of the draft this week in urban areas, it became apparent to those engaged in the exercise that scores of people did not even know there was a referendum taking place on Saturday! Those who did know were not prepared to go and vote as they had no idea as to the content of the Draft Constitution – in fact they were eternally grateful that finally someone was giving them a hard copy to study and perhaps now they will go and vote.
Most have no idea what a constitution is and why they should be voting for such a foreign concept. For the many who do have access to the internet a wealth of documents are freely available, but how many actually know where to look and more important how many are going to spend their data money on politics? The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) has printed an insubstantial quantity of the Summary of the draft for distribution and the ZEC appointed “educators” are poorly trained to answer any questions regarding the Draft.
I approached one of the ZEC “educators” roaming the streets of the suburbs, distributing glossy brochures with a query. I told her about a friend whose ID has an “A” for Alien on it, but she had since been issued with a Zimbabwean passport, indicating she is a Zimbabwe citizen. The officer told me she should vote using just her passport. However I responded that a Zimbabwe passport contains the holder’s ID number - with the “A” on it. So, can she vote or not? The officer’s response to my query… “Well that is a challenge you will have to overcome”. Thanks to the internet I was able to ascertain that I should tell my friend to take her passport and her certificate of citizenship with her.
These ZEC educators are in the main teachers, a body who went into a frenzy when the Minister of Education declared that the minimum number of teachers should be removed from the classroom to run the process. The main argument that was levelled against the Minister was the potential loss of revenue to them, their concern was not that they were committed to fulfilling their civic duty. Nobody seemed to care very much about the disruption to the lives of the children of Zimbabwe. These teachers have taken at least a week off work to undergo registration and training. It is only two weeks away from school holidays and why ZEC could not have delayed a further fortnight is more evidence that ZEC just does not care. Many of these teacher educators are now regretting their willingness to participate as there does not seem to be enough money to pay for their accommodation.
And once again Zimbabwe is shrouded in a pall of paranoia emanating from the heavy handed police, CIO and President’s office. I have heard numerous stories of visitors, tourists and business people, being visited in their hotels and interrogated by officials from the President’s Office to make sure they are who they say they are, ie not “foreign agents of regime change”, and staying where they stated on their visa applications. I wonder why the President’s Office is now doing the work meant to be done by Immigration.
Then there is a flurry of concern over the apparent anomalies in the Draft Constitution, in particular the clause from the section on Rights, with sub section (5) the problem:
56 Equality and non-discrimination
(1) All persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
(2) Women and men have the right to equal treatment, including the right to equal opportunities in political, economic, cultural and social spheres.
(3) Every person has the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on such grounds as their nationality, race, colour, tribe, place of birth, ethnic or social origin, language, class, religious belief, political affiliation, opinion, custom, culture, sex, gender, marital status, age, pregnancy, disability or economic or social status, or whether they were born in or out of wedlock.
(4) A person is treated in a discriminatory manner for the purpose of subsection (3) if—
(a) they are subjected directly or indirectly to a condition, restriction or disability to which other people are not subjected; or
(b) other people are accorded directly or indirectly a privilege or advantage which they are not accorded.
(5) Discrimination on any of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair, reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom.
(6) The State must take reasonable legislative and other measures to promote the achievement of equality and to protect or advance people or classes of people who have been disadvantaged by unfair discrimination, and—
(a) such measures must be taken to redress circumstances of genuine need;
(b) no such measure is to be regarded as unfair for the purposes of subsection (3).
I approached a human rights veteran who explained that this clause is perfectly acceptable and similar to the South African constitution.
36. Limitation of rights
1. The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including
a) the nature of the right;
b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
2. Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.
He emphasised that any person who would want to establish that “discrimination is fair” would have to do so in court. It is all based on the premise that “fair” is an arbitrary description that should be argued in court and is not an issue to be dealt with in the constitution, the burden of proof lying in the hands of the individual or group contesting an instance where “discrimination is fair”. So, the world celebrates the South African Constitution and I see my activist friend’s point, but it is still so confusing for the layperson.
Some of the comments regarding the referendum this week have been tragically comic, one woman I was talking to told me categorically she is voting No, when I asked why she said because the TV keeps telling her “Yes”, and we all know ZBC just cannot be trusted. Most are also saying they don’t want to waste their time because at the end of the day the constitution is just another useless piece of paper. I was asked if this piece of paper would change anything in reality. Just because it says women have rights is nonsense, women will never be treated the same, and in one conversation a woman told me her family would never allow her property rights just because the Constitution says so. Another strange comment I heard was that someone hopes the MDC is going to win. Really?
Six months ago COPAC erected glowing messages on billboards and there must be at least a thousand of these giant hoardings across the nation. So out of curiosity I asked an ad agent what the estimated the price tag is. We worked out that even with a hefty discount it must have cost in the region of $4 million to have the roads littered with COPAC platitudes.
The last referendum in 2000, saw the rejection crafted Draft Constitution and the launch of over a decade of decay, this is not forgotten and is the basis for the mistrust of the process in Zimbabwe. The sad reality in Zimbabwe is that the general population has lost faith in the power of the ballot box. Yet another vote, one which is generally not understood or nobody cares about, is knocking another nail into the coffin of the democratic process.
I am sick of the Constitution process and the sorry COPAC story, a tale filled with excessive expenditure, fraught with corruption and the end result is a deeply flawed Constitution. Once again NGO’s and CSO’s are being treated as criminals, people are anxious and the few who will go to vote are simply going through empty motions.
I have not yet decided if I am going to vote or not, a first for me in 23 years of independence.
http://online.wsj.com
March 14, 2013,
4:24 p.m. ET
Zimbabwe Approaches the Falls
By CRAIG
RICHARDSON
Zimbabwe, since its independence in 1980, has seemed
perpetually either on
the precipice of disaster or primed for great success.
Over the years, it
has been called the "jewel of Africa" for its impressive
gains in education
and its once-productive farming and manufacturing
sectors. But when the
government seized large commercial farms through the
2000s, largely for its
own political ends, it led to a decade-long economic
tailspin that now makes
Zimbabwe a third poorer per capita than it was in
1998.
On Saturday, the country's citizens will vote on adopting a new
constitution. The document emphasizes improvements in human rights, freedom
of the press and equality between men and women. But one important element
is missing: the restoration of property rights to all Zimbabwean
citizens.
That means commercial farmers who had their land seized will
have no redress
if the constitution is approved. The language, in short,
enshrines
government land grabs as perfectly legal. Meanwhile, even current
communal
farmers will not be assured of land titles, thus binding them to a
life of
grinding poverty, reliant on food aid and subsidies for agricultural
inputs.
What the authors of this proposed constitution—and indeed much of
the
development-aid community—have missed is that most Zimbabweans don't
wish to
be better farmers. Like most people since the dawn of civilization,
they
want to be released from a life of farming. They want the freedom to
try
other occupations that offer a better fit for their particular
strengths. A
title to land enables its holder to sell it to someone else who
may be more
skilled at farming. This freedom is the first start toward an
economy that
grows in richness and complexity, and is less dependent on the
vagaries of
world commodity prices.
Zimbabwe's strong economic growth
since it adopted the U.S. dollar in 2009
has distracted the government from
the hard work of rebuilding domestic and
international faith in its rule of
law, property rights and good governance.
The country now ranks near the
bottom of the world in these areas, according
to the Fraser
Institute.
Indeed, Zimbabwe's recent economic growth is largely a mirage,
with 65% of
it fueled by government spending that rose to $3.2 billion in
2011 from $257
million in 2008, according to the International Monetary
Fund. As a result,
government deficits have grown rapidly, and since
Zimbabwe can no longer
print money, it looks to China and the West for loans
and aid to fill the
gap. Recently, the government offered all the future
revenue from Victoria
Falls as collateral for a $381 million loan from
Beijing.
Unless Zimbabweans vote no on Saturday, one day Zimbabwe's
enviable physical
assets will be traded away, and its strongest asset—a
well-educated and
hard-working population—will miss yet another opportunity
for betterment.
Mr. Richardson is an associate professor of economics at
Winston-Salem State
University, in North Carolina, and author of "Zimbabwe:
Why Is One of the
World's Least Free Economies Growing So Fast?," a study
forthcoming from the
Cato Institute.
Harare-15 February 2013- The Zimbabwe
Election Support Network (ZESN), a
network of 31 non-governmental
organisations working on the promotion of
democratic elections in Zimbabwe
is observing the referendum set for
tomorrow 16 March 2013. ZESN is
deploying approximately 600 observers across
the country, drawn from some of
its member organisations.
This referendum, which is a culmination of efforts
by the Government of
National Unity (GNU) to draft a new constitution
according to the demands of
the Global Political Agreement (GPA), is an
historic moment for Zimbabwe.
ZESN therefore encourages all citizens to go
out and exercise their right to
vote in the referendum regardless of how
they intend to vote. ZESN is a
strictly non-partisan organisation and as a
network takes no position on the
merits or demerits of the draft new
constitution. Our role is simply to
observe the process in order to help
ensure that all Zimbabweans can freely
exercise their right to vote.
ZESN
notes that, the referendum will go ahead tomorrow amid concerns
regarding
the timing, funding, and lack of adequate awareness campaigns
undertaken
nationwide on the contents of the draft. ZESN hopes that despite
the
aforementioned problems, ZEC will be able to deliver a credible
referendum.
Already ZEC has conducted two observer briefings and ZESN would
like to
commend the Commission for the briefings which provided essential
guidelines
for observing the referendum.
However, ZESN notes with concern some of the
new regulations introduced by
ZEC. For instance, there is now a limitation
on the number of observers
allowed in a polling station at any given period.
ZESN believes that this
will imply that at some point our observers will be
asked to leave the
polling station or rotate with other observers and this
will compromise
observation methodologies of local observers who must
normally observe the
whole process from opening till counting. It would be
rational if this
provision was only applicable for regional and
international observers who
will be roaming from one polling station to
another. We urge ZEC to urgently
reconsider this decision to enable local
observers to carry out a
comprehensive polling observation exercise to
enable them to report
empirically.
On the issue of mobile phones, ZESN
has noted the explanation given by ZEC
that these could be used to
intimidate voters. However, observers should be
allowed to discretely use
their phones at polling stations as long as they
do not interfere with the
voting process. It is against this backdrop that
we strongly deplore the
continued introduction of new regulations as noted
in the two observer
briefings. We believe such spontaneous additions create
an atmosphere of
uncertainty which might culminate in the loss of confidence
in the
Commission as well as the whole electoral process.
Furthermore, ZESN is
concerned by the refusal to accredit ZIMRIGHTS and the
Director of the
Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP), Ms Jestina Mukoko who is also
a Board member
of ZESN, citing that they are “under police probe”. Given
that the two
organisations have not been pronounced guilty in the courts of
law, and
there is a constitutional right to be presumed innocent unless and
until
proved guilty, ZESN strongly urges ZEC to accredit these organisations
to
avoid the appearance of taking the law into its own hands. The ZEC should
let the courts decide on the merit of the cases against these
organisations.
In pursuit of its legitimate mandate to promote a democratic
electoral
environment and processes, ZESN will be observing the entire
polling process
in the different provinces across the country. ZESN
encourages Zimbabweans
to participate peacefully in this process and to
exercise their democratic
right. ZESN has also set up hotlines for the
citizens to share their views
and comments about the referendum and its
contact numbers will be:
0774584669, 0715596701, and 0738918420. Citizens
can also participate on our
social media platforms;
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zimbabwe-Election-Support-NetworkZESN,
Twitter handle: #ZESN1 and Blog: www.blogspot.zesnblog.com.
As
part of its obligation to gather and disseminate credible information
ZESN
will make every effort to provide credible, objective and unbiased
information of the referendum processes and outcomes. ZESN intends on making
is preliminary statement on the conduct of the Referendum on Sunday morning
17 March 2013./Ends//
PROMOTING DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS IN ZIMBABWE
15 March 2013
PRE-REFERENDUM
STATEMENT
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), in accordance with its
mandate of
promoting a culture of human rights and constitutionalism in
Zimbabwe, has,
since the formation of the Inclusive Government (IG), been
carefully
scrutinising the general environment ahead of the National
Referendum on the
draft constitution, set for Saturday 16 March 2013. It is
vital to note
that, not only is the country in a pre-referendum period, but
also a
pre-election period. Thus the environment currently prevailing serves
concurrently as a telling indicator of the environment ahead of national
elections.
In this context, the Board, on behalf of the membership of
ZLHR, and in
accordance with long-held tradition and practice, now releases
its
pre-referendum statement ahead of tomorrow’s polling exercise.
ON
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VI OF THE GLOBAL POLITICAL AGREEMENT (GPA)
• In
relation to the national outreach process, ZLHR stands by the
findings of
the Independent Monitoring Mechanism in which it jointly
participated with
the Zimbabwe Election Support Network and the Zimbabwe
Peace Project under
the ZZZICOMP banner.
In relation to Article VI processes subsequent to the
public outreach
exercise, ZLHR concludes that:
• There was a
consistent failure by the Constitutional Parliamentary
Committee (COPAC) to
adhere to the timelines stipulated in Article VI and
the process lagged
severely behind time. A process that the IG agreed would
be completed in 18
months was extended to over 4 years, and timelines were
violated with
impunity.
• There was a general lack of sufficient and timely information
from
COPAC about the unfolding processes and developments and the general
population was largely unaware of progress.
• Civil society
organisations (CSOs) were largely sidelined throughout
the process as they
failed to independently and actively participate in the
formal activities
organised by COPAC. During the stages in which they
participated, such as
the Second All-Stakeholders’ Conference, they did so
largely as proxies of
the three political parties to the IG, and there was
little to no room for
alternative input relating to issues that were of
lesser concern to
political parties, but of vital importance to other
societal
stakeholders.
• The tampering of the draft produced as a result of the
outreach process
by the political parties to the GPA, and the subsequent
finalisation of the
draft constitution (including the “parked” issues) by
the Principals was a
process which was outside the mandate of, and which
violated, the agreed
Article VI process.
• The fast-track adoption of
the draft by Parliament without substantive
debate, and the subsequent
fast-track gazetting of the draft and referendum
date after periods of such
long delays in the earlier stages raises concerns
and questions around the
democratic and popular nature of scrutiny and
debate of the draft.
•
Essentially 3 weeks were provided to disseminate, publicise and educate
the
nation on the contents of a voluminous and intricate legal document. The
numbers of copies of the draft constitution, translations, and the
simplified COPAC version, were insufficient to ensure comprehensive
awareness of the draft. Concerns have also been raised about the accuracy of
the contents of the simplified COPAC version as compared to the full draft,
as well as poor attendance at the sensitisation meetings carried out by
COPAC.
• COPAC representatives utilised public and donor funds not
only to
sensitise and educate the public on the contents of the draft, but
also to
actively encourage the public to vote “YES”. In addition, pressure
was
brought to bear on CSOs to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with
COPAC
in order to be allowed to carry out civic education under threat of
disruption of activities of those without a MoA. Further, such organisations
were made to agree to promote a YES vote. Such practices are inconsistent
with fundamental rights and freedoms, and with democratic standards of civic
education that enlighten people without putting pressure on them to advocate
or vote for one position or another.
• Several incidents of
intimidation, arrest and vilification of those
advocating a NO vote were
reported, and this is contrary to promotion of a
free environment in which
dissenting opinions are encouraged and welcomed.
ON THE LEGISLATIVE
ENVIRONMENT PERSISTING DURING THE PRE-REFERENDUM PERIOD
• The GPA clearly
stipulates that laws impacting negatively on
fundamental rights and freedoms
of expression, assembly, association and
movement were to be amended to
ensure a conducive legislative environment.
These undertakings were ignored,
if not violated, with impunity.
• The position taken by COPAC
representatives, that they would encourage
law enforcement agents to
“suspend” the application of the Public Order and
Security Act to allow a
conducive environment for education and debate on
the draft constitution to
take place, was startling. If there is an
acknowledgement that such laws
repress freedoms, they should not be
suspended, but done away with. The
subsequent disruption of civic debates on
the draft constitution, and
heavy-handed police action to prevent political
players – including the
Prime Minister himself – from carrying out such
activities is a clear
indication that legislative and institutional reform
is not a government
priority and such repressive laws will continue to be
used selectively by
unreformed state institutions and actors to prevent
constitutional freedoms
from being exercised due to lack of political will
and failure to censure
heavy-handed action whenever it occurs.
• The publicly-owned but
state-controlled media (print and electronic)
did a disservice to the nation
by failing to provide programming and content
that enlightened people in a
comprehensive and educative manner about the
contents of the draft
constitution. There was inequality of access to such
media by
representatives offering dissenting views. Reform of the public
broadcaster
and state-controlled media remains outstanding despite their
urgency and the
GPA requirement that this is a priority for the IG.
• Other repressive
laws continued to be abused and selectively applied
against targeted CSOs
and human rights defenders (HRDs) during the
pre-referendum period. It is
disturbing to note an increase in the
criminalisation of free speech through
the abuse of insult laws, and the
reliance on the Broadcasting Services Act
to stifle lawfully operational
alternative media and voices. In relation to
the latter, the Zimbabwe
Republic Police (ZRP) has, since the beginning of
the year, arbitrarily
sought to “ban” alternative sources of media – namely
short-wave radios.
This has been followed by the confiscation of radios from
CSOs and
communities that have been searched or found to possess such
gadgets. This
unlawful confiscation of radios is directly linked to the
closing up of
access to diverse information and leads to a situation where
people in
communities are not able to get any alternative sources of
information as
they cannot afford to buy newspapers, and in most cases there
is no
frequency for state controlled broadcasting. This is a blatant
violation of
the right to freedom of expression and access to
information.
ON THE ROLE AND READINESS OF THE ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL
COMMISSION (ZEC)
• The ZEC was not consulted prior to the referendum date
being set.
Although they have worked comprehensively to prepare for rolling
out the
poll, the short notice will impact its readiness to fully manage the
referendum process and ensure adequate resources to carry out its
constitutionally mandated duties.
• New referendum regulations were
gazetted shortly before the date of the
referendum, and included provisions
altering some key aspects of the
observation process in a manner that
impacts good practices.
• The failure by ZEC to abide by the principles of
natural justice and
its refusal to accredit observers from Zimbabwe Peace
Project and ZimRights
adversely affected preparations by such organisations
and observers ahead of
referendum day and drew time and attention away from
proper preparation for
the referendum – both by ZEC and the affected
organisations due to ongoing
negotiations and litigation. They were
essentially found guilty before trial
by a body not qualified or empowered
to act in such a manner.
• The reduction in numbers of international
observers and refusal to
accredit those not considered “friendly” was also
problematic. What better
way to shame potential “detractors” than to invite
them and allow them to
see democracy at work?
ON THE OPERATING
ENVIRONMENT FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS AND HUMAN
RIGHTS
DEFENDERS
• The ongoing and intensifying clampdown on CSOs and HRDs ahead
of the
referendum remains a matter of the greatest concern and has impacted
negatively on the pre-referendum environment. The assault on CSOs has been
strategic, intentional, well-planned, well-resourced and implemented. It has
targeted organisations carrying out lawful activities that, for unknown
reasons, appear to be a threat to certain institutions and actors. These
include mobilisers, civic educators, human rights monitors, and service
providers.
• Since November 2012, police have, amongst others, raided
premises of 5
major CSOs, namely Counseling Services Unit, Zimbabwe Human
Rights
Association, Zimbabwe Peace Project, Zimbabwe Election Support
Network, and
Radio Dialogue. These searches have been conducted in terms of
search
warrants that are broad, vague and subject to legal challenge. As a
result
of these searches, personnel and Board members have been charged with
varying offences that range from operating unregistered organisations,
committing forgery, fraud and other related offences which beggar belief. A
total of 358 HRDs from CSOs have either been harassed through interrogation,
arrest and detention, although subsequently being released without charge in
the majority of cases since November 2012. Only 18 out of the 358 HRDs from
CSOs have been charged and taken to court. In most cases taken to court, the
prosecutors have declined to prosecute.
• The ZRP has used several
public platforms, including an appearance in
Parliament and press
conferences to intimidate and issue threats and false
information against
CSOs – some named, and some unnamed. The GPA requirement
for reform of such
institutions and actors, and a cessation of
politically-motivated attacks,
has been largely ignored.
• The state-controlled media and aligned outlets
have stepped up their
defamatory and false publications against these same
CSOs as part of the
sustained assault. Hate speech and incitement against
CSOs and HRDs has
become alarming, and has the potential to escalate out of
control due to
slow processes of achieving legal redress and general
impunity of such state
media practitioners and media
houses.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
One of the greatest challenges in the run
up to the referendum has been the
preoccupation of the three political
parties to the IG with ensuring that
the draft constitution is accepted in
the national plebiscite. This has
caused the IG to render secondary other
key reforms and processes outlined
in the GPA. These include substantive
legislative and institutional reform
as well as the stemming of bad
administrative practices and the escalating
impunity for violations of laws
and current constitutional safeguards. In
particular, the assault on civil
society must be comprehensively addressed
if the country is not to lose its
only remaining independent voice ahead of
critical elections.
ZLHR
believes that, in spite of the challenges that have faced this
constitution-making process, a step forward has been taken in terms of
generating debate and a greater interest in constitutional matters, as well
as debate around issues of constitutionalism. The process has taken place in
an extremely difficult environment, but nevertheless, there is a general
willingness and interest in the pursuit of a better constitution for
Zimbabwe and this must be encouraged and kept alive. However, the key issues
of concern remain – that we have an environment that has been less than
conducive to free debate, agents who continue with their old practices of
violating fundamental rights and freedoms with impunity, and preventing the
sharing and dissemination of information. An inch has not been moved towards
correcting this and this will adversely impact the efforts towards a free
and fair election if it is not addressed urgently and with political
will.
–ENDS–
http://www.independent.co.uk
DANIEL HOWDEN AFRICA CORRESPONDENT FRIDAY 15 MARCH
2013
Civil rights groups have called on Zimbabwean voters to reject a
new
constitution, accusing the political elite, including President Robert
Mugabe and former opposition leaders, of imposing a fraud on the
people.
Both Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC) of
Morgan Tsvangirai are pressing for a “yes” vote in a referendum on
a new
settlement. But respected Zimbabwean rights activist Lovemore Madhuku
has
called for a “no” vote calling the constitution a “fraud” that would
reinforce the country's dyfunctional political system: “The people of
Zimbabwe should vote “No” because the process has not been driven by their
collective wants and aspirations,” he said. “It was politically
driven.”
Mr Madhuku and his grassroots movement, the National
Constitutional
Association, accuse the unity government of railroading the
new settlement,
released only three weeks ago. Only 90,000 copies have been
printed in a
country with six million registered voters.
The document
sets out term limits for the president which cannot be applied
in retrospect
opening the way for Mr Mugabe to stay in power for another two
terms in
theory.
With support from both of Zimbabwe's rival political parties the
new
settlement is widely expected to pass, despite the fact that public
consultations were stage managed and often violent, with one man killed at a
town hall meeting.
The run up to the vote has seen further
intimidation with Zanu-PF activists
threatening, and in some cases
attacking, “no” vote campaigners. Western
monitors have been refused access
to the country for the vote which is
widely seen as a rehearsal for full
elections expected later this year.
A new constitution was part of the
peace deal between Zanu-PF and the MDC
that set up a unity government
following the last election in 2008. The
agreement saw Mr Tsvangirai, a
long-time critic of Mr Mugabe, become prime
minister while several
ministries, including finance were given to MDC
members. At the last
presidential Mr Tsvangirai took a first round lead over
his veteran rival
but withdrew from a run-off after a brutal campaign of
violence against his
supporters.
The only leader Zimbabwe has known since independence from
Britain in 1979,
Mr Mugabe was widely feted in his first decade in office
for broadening
education and overseeing economic expansion. Since 2000 he
oversaw a
disastrous and violent land invasion campaign which hobbled the
country and
turned Zimbabwe into a pariah state with its former allies in
the West.
Five million registered voters in Zimbabawe have an opportunity to change the lives of this country’s women. Women represent the majority, some 53 percent of the Zimbabwe's 12.6 million people. Credit: Trevor Davies/IPS
- “Ten reasons why women must vote ‘Yes’ for the draft constitution…” says the Constitution Select Committee’s campaign radio jingle that plays over the airwaves in a grocer’s store at Mukumbura border post business centre on Zimbabwe’s northeastern border with Mozambique.
Zimbabwe is holding a referendum on Mar. 16 to decide on whether to adopt the draft constitution that has taken almost four years to draft and gobbled 50 million dollars of donor funds from the impoverished country’s economy.
The Constitution Select Committee (Copac) is the constitutional parliamentary committee tasked with writing the draft constitution, and ahead of the referendum has been tasked with informing Zimbabweans about the draft and encouraging them to vote.
But the radio jingle is almost drowned by noise from a neighbouring beer hall’s jukebox.
Ironically the jingle’s message is seemingly aimed at women at the border post business centre, but they appear to be busy going about their daily chores – vending fruits and vegetables, almost indifferent to a process that local politicians have described as a game changer in this southern African nation’s political history.
A disinterested Maria Nyamasoka, 48, tells IPS that she does not care about the draft constitution.
“Nothing will change for me. Maybe for you people from Harare it will. Maybe that’s why you have travelled all this way to come down here to talk about this draft. In the last election my homestead was burnt and I narrowly missed rape from some party youths. I really do not want to talk about this…I don’t want to have anything to do with politics,” she says.
Despite attempts by Copac and political parties to push supporters for a “Yes” vote this weekend, some say they are unaware of the referendum or the draft constitution that they have been asked to vote on. Sithembile Mpofu, a Bulawayo housewife, is one of them.
“Maybe it is because I do not watch ZTV,” Mpofu tells IPS, referring to the national television station where programming has, in recent weeks, been dominated by campaigns asking registered voters to tick “Yes” on the referendum ballots.
“I cannot go and vote for something I do not know, even if I vote ‘No’ I will be dishonest,” she says.
But despite the lack of interest by some, five million registered voters here have an opportunity to change the lives of this country’s women. Women represent the majority, some 53 percent of the country’s 12.6 million people. The Women’s Coalition, a grouping of women’s rights NGO, has been campaigning for the acceptance of the draft constitution.
“Women have fought hard to get almost 75 percent of our demands adopted in the draft. Definitely life for women will never be the same again under this new constitution, if it’s adopted,” says Slyvia Chirawu, a national coordinator at the Women and Law in Southern Africa, and a member of the Women’s Coalition.
Chirawu says that women suffered particularly from Section 23 of the current constitution, which denies them equal rights as men with regards to custody and guardianship of their minor children.
“Under Section 23, a woman could not apply for a passport for her child without the consent of the father…(a woman) could not get her child’s birth certificate in the absence of the father of the child. But men could do all these things in the absence of the mother of the child,” says Chirawu. In the draft constitution women are now able to apply both for passports and birth certificates for their children without the consent of their child’s father.
Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Deputy Minister Jessie Majome, a member of Copac, tells IPS that according to the current constitution girls can marry at 16, while boys can legally do the same at 18.
“What this meant is girls had to drop out of school to be married off, while boys continued with their education. The boys had to wait to reach the legal age of majority, creating an unfair advantage against women. But according to this new draft, both boys and girls will be allowed to marry when they reach the legal age of majority,” says Majome.
The draft constitution will also ensure women relief from some harmful cultural practices that have been considered permissible.
Under-age girls have been married off to older men, while widows have been forced to become the “wives” of their late husbands’ male relatives.
“Although the (current) constitution had been amended recently to forbid some harmful cultural practices, this draft actually forbids and makes it unconstitutional for customary law to take precedence over common law. Women had been disadvantaged when it comes to inheritance, as they could not inherit family property. Widows also lost their property upon the deaths of their spouses,” says Majome.
Jane Chiriga, a gender researcher, says the draft is “a triumph for women.”
“There is a deliberate effort to address the flaws and gaps of the current constitution. What remains, I think, is to align this with the country’s laws,” Chiriga says.
In the past, the participation of women in politics has largely been left to the discretion of political parties to create quotas for women. But the draft constitution proposes to set aside 60 seats for women in the 210-seat parliament. In addition, women will constitute at least half the membership of all commissions and other elective and appointed governmental bodies.
“What takes the cake for me is the half membership for women in all commissions and other elective or appointed governmental bodies,” says Chirawu.
A legislator from the Movement for Democratic Change led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T), Tabitha Khumalo, says “it is a big step for women to be given prominence in the supreme law.”
“(In the past), women’s issues in this country have been addressed in token terms as if to appease us. But we have rights as equal citizens and this draft, if read with other laws, is something that will change both our public and private lives,” she tells IPS.
Constitutional law expert Alex Magaisa also believes that the draft could help stop the “politicisation of the security forces,” who have not hidden their support for President Robert Mugabe and in the process aimed their baton sticks at men and women alike.
The current constitution is silent about the key issue of political neutrality of institutions such as the army, police, and civil service.
“The draft has clear and extensive provisions that require these bodies (security forces) to be politically neutral and not to interfere with electoral processes,” he tells IPS.
*Additional reporting by Ignatius Banda in Bulawayo.
Ozias Tungwarara, Eric Matinenga and Dr Lovemore Madhuku talk to Violet in the programme Hot Seat
Broadcast: 14 March 2013
SW Radio Africa’s Violet Gonda brings you a special referendum debate on the Hot Seat programme with Minister of Constitutional Affairs Eric Matinenga, NCA chairman Dr Lovemore Madhuku and Ozias Tungawara, Director of the Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project – an Open Society Foundation project. Why are people being told to vote Yes when the majority have not been given adequate information and time to make an informed decision; what happens to the NCA in the event of a majority Yes vote; why does Matinenga believe the country is heading for a second government of national unity?
VIOLET GONDA: Let me start with Dr. Madhuku – your organization was arguing in the courts that the referendum date announced by President Mugabe was too soon for people to study and understand the draft constitution but this has been thrown out by the Supreme Court. Can you give us your reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision?
LOVEMORE MADHUKU: We are obviously disappointed by the decision. We had hoped that the courts would have found in our favour. The period given which was just one month, we sincerely thought that was too short but unfortunately the courts said no because they thought it was reasonable and they could not interfere with the decision of the President. So we are disappointed by the decision, unfortunately we have to work with it.
GONDA: And if you had been given an extra month, what difference would that have made?
MADHUKU: It would have made a big difference to the democratic culture we are building in the country. The difference is not made by the Yes vote winning or a No vote winning. We had not gone to court to say we want more time in order to win, we needed more time to ensure that we could be able to exercise our democratic right to sell our ideas and so forth.
GONDA: Minister Matinenga, the NCA says that people were not afforded adequate time to scrutinize the draft but the Supreme Court has said that the time which was set out by President Mugabe was adequate. What’s your take on this?
ERIC MATINENGA: I did not participate either at a personal or official level in those proceedings. I just worked on the basis that whatever the court says then that is what the court says and I conduct myself accordingly. Whilst the application was before the courts, my Ministry embarked on a nation-wide exercise to explain the draft to the people so that when the time comes for them to vote, at least they will vote from an informed position and I’ve been away from Harare, I think for the past two weeks, going province by province doing exactly that and I just arrived in Harare today – my last stop was Hwange yesterday. Whatever the court was going to say, that was never going to stop the programme and I accept that what the NCA wanted, as Dr. Madhuku says, was not to stop the referendum but simply to be afforded what they considered to be sufficient time in order to be able to get across to the Zimbabwean population.
GONDA: But what would you have lost as government if you had given people more time to scrutinize the draft document?
MATINENGA: Violet I don’t want to answer for somebody else. I think from the very beginning I made the point very, very clearly that the decision to identify the 16th of March was not my decision; it was a decision made by somebody whom I do not have control of.
GONDA: By President Mugabe?
MATINENGA: Yes.
GONDA: So your party in government had no say?
MATINENGA: I haven’t said that. I’ve said I wasn’t party to it. I can’t remember the date now but I know that I briefed Cabinet about the constitution-making process and I had started on the constitutional awareness programmes already. I left early to go to Mvurwi and I then came back to be told that a decision to hold the referendum on the 16th had been made.
GONDA: There are others, especially in the civil society, who say that there are at least five million registered voters in the country, but the government through COPAC only printed 90 000 draft copies of the constitution. So if this is the case, isn’t it worrying though that people are being told to vote Yes without the proper information if you only printed 90 000 out of about five million eligible voters out there?
MATINENGA: Violet I would have wanted more copies to be published but I think when you make reference to that figure, it is the figure for the English copies and does not include the figure for the other two vernacular languages which was in Ndebele and Shona. So yes it was necessary to make more copies available but what is important is this – one does not necessarily get information from getting a copy. There are a lot of other ways of getting information and what my Ministry was doing was to invite stakeholders and then request these stakeholders to go back to their communities and then spread the word.
GONDA: Mr. Tungwarara there is so much talk about the process – what do you make of this?
OZIAS TUNGWARARA: In a constitution making process, process is as important as the content of the final document on which people are asked to exercise a choice if they are going to make a meaningful choice. And I think we need to situate the level at which people have participated in a continuum and not only look at what is happening after a draft has been agreed to. I’m afraid, and it’s unfortunate, that the process has not allowed meaningful participation by a majority of the people. We all know what happened in the run-up to coming up with the draft and we may not want to rehash those issues but when you look at the level at which people have participated, it has been contaminated.
GONDA: So is the outcome of this referendum easy to predict then, given what you have said? Is there still a contest?
TUNGWARARA: It’s difficult to say Violet because people are going to have to exercise their choice and that cannot be preempted because it is a secret ballot but again looking at the context in which the constitution making process has happened I think there are fundamentals which we did not get right which then create an environment where the outcome is unlikely to be legitimate, both in terms of issues around popular participation in its real sense and also legitimate outcomes that are facilitated by an environment where people exercise independent and objective choice – with access to information, facilitated by an environment in which media is actually providing accurate information.
GONDA: Dr. Madhuku are you as an organization just criticizing the process or you are also criticizing the product?
MADHUKU: We have criticized both the process and the content of the document. We have been very critical of the process – that has been widely publicised but our criticism of the content has not received media coverage – and perhaps that is why some people don’t understand what we are saying. But we have gone through all; our criticisms on the powers of the president which have generally been retained in the draft, the size of the legislature – it’s keeping on ballooning and a number of points that we have raised. We have a document with about 37 points.
GONDA: So are you able to mention a few more since you say you have not been receiving media coverage on the actual flawed document as you see it?
MADHUKU: We are clear that they have retained a very powerful president; there are areas where we even think that the president has more powers than he has currently under the constitution. The country would survive more with a president who is not as powerful as being provided by the draft. The second thing is that the government created in terms of that constitution is very big; two vice presidents, an unlimited number of ministers – dependent on what the president decides what the size of cabinet will be – parliament has been increased – currently the total number is about 303, there will be 350, if you add five ministers that the president may appoint from outside parliament, you will have more or less 355 MPs. For a small country like ours, that is not really desirable.
Then you move onto a provision they have put for the next ten years there will be no by-elections for the president. If the president dies or resigns from office, we will have the party of the president giving us a nominee and so that is not acceptable. If the president dies we should be able to elect a president or at least parliament should be allowed to elect a president.
Then you have issues related to the amendment process: they still provide in the constitution that except for the Bill of Rights and some provisions on land, the rest of the constitution can be amended by parliament with a two thirds majority like we have currently. So you’ll have the problem of continuous amendments of the constitution when it becomes law. And so on and we can go on; we have had some criticism given to the way they have formulated the Social and Economic Rights Act.
GONDA: What would you say are some good parts in the constitution?
MADHUKU: I wouldn’t want to say that there are any good parts that are different from the good parts in the current constitution. The only one that I can mention offhand would be the inclusion of social and economic rights in the constitution. But those I always qualify them – social and economic rights in a context where you still have a very powerful executive may not mean anything because it’s the executive that would decide whether there’s money or not. Each of the social and economic rights they are subject to the availability of resources and who will say whether there are resources or not? I think it’s likely to be the executive that will say there’s no money and that kind of powerful executive will water down the rights there. So if you were to insist that I must mention positive points, the only positive point I find in the draft is the Bill of Rights that has been widened to include rights related to social and economic rights and some of the civil and political rights have been generously defined.
GONDA: Minister Matinenga what can you say about some of these issues raised by Dr. Madhuku?
MATINENGA: Violet I don’t think you’ll have a constitution wherever you are in the world which makes everybody in that country happy, it’s impossible. So in any country there is going to have to be a decision made by somebody as to what to include in a constitution or not… (interrupted)
GONDA: But given our past history, why is it good to have a document, as Dr. Madhuku has said, which retains a more powerful executive president; which has a huge government, which has no by-elections for the president and which continues to have a continuous amendment process.
MATINENGA: Let me just address that issue – if you have been reading the papers in this country, you know you had one paper saying that the presidential powers have gone up in smoke; you have one saying that imperial powers of the president are removed; you have another paper saying imperial powers or presidential powers are not interfered with – so you can see the different interpretations of different people in regards to the clauses of that Chapter, I think it’s Chapter Five which is on executive authority.
I just want to address one issue where it is said that this particular constitution is weak in the sense that it does not provide an opportunity for the election of a president in the event that the incumbent meets some mishap. What we’ve done in this constitution is to introduce the running mate clause and in any running mate clause provision, you don’t have an election – you are saying that the person who is the running mate automatically becomes the president in the event that the president meets some mishap or something. That is what we have done and the issue of a political party having to look for somebody to succeed an incumbent is a provisional transition.
But generally going to the powers of the president, when you look at the checks and balances which are created – let’s look at the situation of the declaration of war, the state of emergency – in all those sections you will notice that the president must report to both houses of parliament and that both houses of parliament, by a two thirds majority must endorse what the president has done. In the event that they don’t endorse what the president has done, then the president is obliged to revoke whatever action he has taken and in both instances if somebody is so upset, he is free to take that issue up to the constitutional court. In so far as the Bill of Rights is concerned where it is said ‘oh well a powerful president is going to ride rough shod over those rights’ – no – we again are not looking at the various arms of government and what each arm of government contributes for the better and good governance of a country. The assertion of a right is not a matter of the executive, it is a matter for the courts.
GONDA: Dr. Madhuku what do you say about what Minister Matinenga has said? He basically says there’s no perfect document and on the issue no by-elections for the president, he said the running mate will automatically become the president in the event that the president is no longer there and also that there are checks and balances created where for example the president will have to report to the legislature. What is your response to this?
MADHUKU: Violet that is a very good question you have posed. In fact when we talk about a democratic constitution making process, we are actually referring to a process where there’s debate. The points raised by Minister Matinenga, the points I raised earlier on, we debate them in the public, we exchange views over a considerable period of time, other citizens get involved and so at the end we see whether or not we can say that there has been any checks and balances. And I can tell you there are no checks and balances at all, at all. And I maintain that the executive president in the draft constitution is more powerful than the current president- but where does the debate go? I can keep on saying this, he can keep on saying other points he is raising but this shouldn’t be a debate between lawyers, it should generally go down to the ordinary people.
When he (Matinenga) went around, we were following his trips around the country? He was explaining to the people what the draft meant but at the end of it he always asked them to vote Yes and so on and that is problematic. What we would have wanted, why we were requiring more time, was precisely for that point. Let those who are supporting the draft come out in the open and say that but let also those who think that what the minister is saying is not reflective of the situation to be allowed to say it in the media. Now the minister is lucky because he is covered in the media, we are not. The debates we are doing at the moment through your station would not be found anywhere in any of our ZBC stations, not in the Herald, not in the papers. He is correct in saying that one paper will tell you this, another paper will tell you that but there has not been the kind of debate we would have expected. So I can say in short, I’m simply maintaining what I’m saying but it will not solve a thing. These remain different opinions which are acceptable in a democracy but let those opinions be more widespread and more people participating in it and at the end when you have a proper referendum they should be able to exercise Yes or No on the basis of what they see the balance is.
The running mate issue – he should tell you that they have suspended that clause for the next ten years. When I talked about no by-election, I was referring to the next ten years – we’ll get the president from a nominee not a running mate in the next ten years. It will be a nominee of the party of the president. So if president Mugabe wins the next election in July or June and he decides to retire or he dies, then we will just be sitting around, all of us in the country, wait for what the Zanu PF politburo or congress or central executive does and if they tell us that it’s Mnangagwa or Mujuru or they fight among themselves, we’ll just be sitting around until they decide who is going to be our president. That is not acceptable. I’ve not come across it anywhere else in the world so you can’t say that it’s a good constitution. We have never had that provision before. In the past we would have an election in parliament at the very least.
GONDA: Let me go to Mr. Tungwarara – are you still there?
TUNGWARARA: Yes, still here, I’m listening very interestedly.
GONDA: Some parts of the constitution like the issue of dual citizenship are confusing and could be interpreted in different ways – do you agree with this?
TUNGWARARA: Yes I do, but let me just comment on the points that both Dr. Madhuku and the Honourable Minister Matinenga made and I fully agree with the Honourable Minister that a constitution is obviously an aggregation of diverse views. So the issue he mentioned about checks and balances, I think is critical to any governance system but when you look closely at the draft that is going to the referendum, I think we could have done more in terms of enhancing and strengthening those checks and balances.
So for instance if you look at the independence of critical institutions that are supposed to preside over good governance and democracy, their independence is still not guaranteed. Look at the Judiciary for instance: the president still has powers to refuse nominations that would have been forwarded or people who would have been nominated by the Judicial Services Commission. And when you look also at the fact that the majority of the people on the Judicial Services Commission will be appointed by the president, the independence of that institution becomes undermined.
Then there are other institutions like the Land Commission which is supposed to preside over a very critical and central issue to the Zimbabwean political socio-economic processes and again its independence is not reflected in the constitution in the sense that members of the commission are to be appointed by the president and the policy formulation is primarily done by the minister.
So one would have taken an opportunity like that to actually create independent institutions especially in terms of how they are appointed in order to inspire people’s confidence that there will be impartiality but that has not happened and I think it’s a missed opportunity.
If you look again at the whole issue around the right to nationality, citizenship rights, which again is a key issue especially with regard to the number of Zimbabweans who have had to leave the country for one reason or another and are going to be impacted upon profoundly by citizenship provisions in the constitution, one – it’s a bit confusing and secondly it could have actually taken best practices in terms of what best protects people’s rights to nationality.
So for one thing, it falls short in terms of Zimbabwe complying with the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights especially as it relates to issues of statelessness because children who are born in Zimbabwe or rather who are born outside Zimbabwe and who cannot get citizenship from either parent are likely to remain, to end up stateless and so that could have been an opportunity to strengthen Zimbabwe’s obligations under international law.
Coming to dual citizenship, or dual nationality, the provision is again confusing because the direct reference to dual nationality is made in a clause that says Parliament may pass laws to prohibit dual citizenship for citizens by descent or registration , which would imply that citizens by birth are entitled to dual nationality – but again we have already seen conflicting interpretations with the Minister of Justice saying dual nationality is out, the Prime Minister saying dual nationality is in. So it’s those sort of things that I think, like Madhuku is saying, that if there had been more debate, if there had been more engagement, better clarity would have been brought, but it ended up being compromises that were driven by what I think are partisan interests as opposed to the general good.
GONDA: Let me just ask Mr. Matinenga about that particular issue of dual citizenship. Minister what is the correct position?
MATINENGA: Well the correct position Violet is that with respect to the Minister of Justice, he’s not properly interpreting the constitution. In fact even if you go back to the current constitution you will note that we have got the same provision and a lot of Zimbabweans who claim citizenship through birth have taken the Registrar General to court and the courts on numerous occasions stated quite categorically that those persons are Zimbabwean citizens by birth. This is why that section is very clear: that you are distinguishing between persons who are citizens by birth whose citizenship cannot be interfered with by parliament and persons who are citizens by descent or registration.
GONDA: So Mr. Tungwarara, coming back to you, is there a danger that if this constitution is passed this weekend, it can be interpreted in a way that will suit whoever is in power?
MATINENGA: (laughs) Can I just come in again Violet before Tungwarara? I think maybe this is the problem with us Zimbabweans. We have put executive power on such a pedestal and have not realized that there are certain arms, there are other arms which are equally important. The interpretation of this clause is not a question of what a particular government is thinking at any given time, this is a matter for the courts.
GONDA: But Minister Matinenga we all know that in Zimbabwe individuals can do whatever they like with or without a court decision or court order, but let me just go back to Mr. Tungwarara to respond to my question that is there a danger that the constitution can be interpreted in a way that will suit whoever is in power?
TUNGWARARA: I think the position that Minister Matinenga has articulated is a position that pertains to a functioning democracy where the interpretation of the constitution and the law is the realm of the judiciary, that arm of government – but I think we need to again situate our particular situation in a context, in its proper context because a big issue that has led also to where we are in terms of threat to democratic governance is the perceived partiality of the judiciary and it has stemmed from the way that members who serve in the judiciary have been appointed. So it’s one thing to say that it is the responsibility of the courts to interpret the constitution and to give proper interpretations that accord with the constitutional provisions but it is another thing when that institution’s independence and impartiality is not guaranteed. So there is no guarantee that the interpretation of the constitution is going to be done objectively in this current set-up unless there is a true revamp of the judiciary that we saw for instance in the Kenya process where after their constitution, they really went out to revamp their judiciary and we’re seeing the direct results of that.
GONDA: Dr. Madhuku?
MADHUKU: The Minister
is obviously in agreement – he may not be saying it openly. If you leave
everything to the courts you run the danger that if the courts are not
independent as Mr. Tungwarara has indicated, then there’s problems. I was in
court today and I realised that there was no way the judges or five judges were
ever going to decide that the president acted unreasonably. To them and the
context in which they live, to say of Robert Mugabe that he acted irrationally,
is not a decision we have got in this country. Ever since president Mugabe
became president those judges think that those principles of law which say
irrationality, unreasonableness, will never apply to the president. That is the
particular attitude of the judges who are not as independent. So if we give the
example of dual citizenship, what they have done as the Minister has correctly
said is that they have said if you are a citizen you cannot lose your
citizenship of Zimbabwe even if you become a citizen of another country but for
the rest – to become a citizen by birth it appears to be a difficult thing. They
have used the concept of what is called ordinarily resident so if a person is
born outside Zimbabwe to parents who are Zimbabwean citizens, the parent must be
regarded in terms of the draft as being ordinarily resident.
So when the
Minister of Justice was referring to the issue of no dual citizenship I think he
had a different understanding of what is meant by ordinarily resident. In my
view, most people who are Zimbabweans who are outside the country may not
qualify to be regarded as ordinarily resident if they have been out for some
time so that is a problem. I think it could have been made clearer; this kind of
conversation that we are having now should have been the kind of conversations
which people should be involved in and you get the drafters and others taking
into account those debates. That’s what happened in Kenya, that’s what happened
in South Africa. The constitution making process benefitted immensely from
genuine debate.
GONDA: You have had so many people asking you what is the alternative, so can you spell it out for us and also what happens…
MADHUKU: The alternative now is very clear, clear, clear – is to reject this document. If people were to take heed of that, just reject it, we go to the elections in terms of the laws that exist now which are more or less the same laws that we get in the draft, then thereafter we do a careful constitution making process led by an independent body. In a year or two after the elections we should be able to get a genuine constitution. That will be the way forward as I see it.
GONDA: And what happens to the NCA if there’s a majority Yes vote?
MADHUKU: What happens to the NCA if there is a majority Yes vote?
GONDA: Yes.
MADHUKU: Why should the NCA be affected by the referendum? The NCA is an organization that exists to push for a democratic constitution; if the people believe that this document is a democratic one and they vote Yes, that doesn’t change the NCA view of that document. Our view of the current constitution was never affected by the majority. When we started the NCA, you were there Violet in 1997. If we’d had a referendum in 1997 you would have been surprised that the majority of the people in this country would have said we have a good constitution in place. So even when we have a constitution regarded by those participating in the referendum on Saturday to be good, the NCA will not change its perspective that it’s a bad constitution! So we will continue. We might change our call for a new constitution tomorrow; we might change our strategy now and start educating people extensively on what a good constitution entails and then thereafter we go to a new process. So we might use the next one, two, three years just doing civic education without calling for a new constitution and when we realize that the public is now clear, we’ll start again the game. We will never stop. The NCA will never stop until our country has a democratic constitution in terms of how we see it.
GONDA: Minister Matinenga some people say if the people vote No then it means that the GPA is still valid, is this the case? If there’s a NO vote in the referendum, what happens?
MATINENGA: Well it simply means that the current constitution carries on. It is the current constitution which has Amendment Number 19 created an inclusive government and as to what’s going to happen to that inclusive government – I think it’s more of a political process rather than a legal process.
GONDA: So we may just continue with a second GNU?
MATINENGA: (Laughs) Look I do not know what format it will take but what it means is that we have then to go to an election in terms of the current constitution and what the parties then do thereafter, to be honest, I don’t know. What I’ve said previously is that from my assessment, you know and I make this statement in all honesty and seriousness, we may be heading for another GNU.
GONDA: Did you say we may be heading for another GNU?
MATINENGA: Yes, yes, yes, yes. I don’t think this is the opportunity for me to go into the reasons why, I opine in that manner, but I have explained my way of thinking and I think if one is to look at our particular environment on what we can and cannot do, then that has to be looked into in a very serious manner.
But just before I go, I don’t hold a brief for the Judiciary in this country but I think this constitution has certainly done much, much more in trying to establish a judiciary with a modicum of independence. Yes the president does appoint but what you’ve not been told is that the persons who would want to be judges are going to be interviewed, it’s going to be a public process. Yes he may reject the list but if another list is given to him then he must make an appointment from that list. But another important issue which looks at the independence of this institution is that you now have term limits. Currently you lived under a system where your allegiance is going to be towards one person for a period of you don’t know. But now you know – look this person is going to be here for ten years and he goes away and therefore the element of patronage I believe which would have affected a performance of a judge has now been addressed.
GONDA: Mr. Tungwarara what do you make of what Minister Matinenga has said that we may be heading for another GNU?
TUNGWARARA: I’m not sure of that position. I respect his opinion but for me I think there seems to be a misplaced perception that a Yes vote for the draft constitution will deliver a credible election. That is not going to happen for a number of reasons. One, the GPA I envisage a situation where certain fundamental reforms were supposed to be taking place in tandem with the constitution making process. So the constitution making process was not supposed to be an exercise in a vacuum. That has not happened so the political environment that is hostile to democratic engagement still exists and in terms of the dates that are being touted for the presidential, parliamentary and the harmonized elections, there won’t be sufficient time to undertake the necessary reforms. So the point that he is raising about the judiciary having to be publically interviewed and people being in place so that if there are disputes you have impartial people presiding, will not happen. So we are likely to have again a contaminated electoral process which the constitution is not going to impact on and where that will leave us is anybody’s guess – it could be another 2008.
GONDA: The principals issued a directive that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission had no right to refuse anyone the opportunity to observe the referendum but I understand that ZEC has said that ZimRights has a pending court case related to issues to do with elections and therefore will not be allowed to observe the referendum. Is this a good sign coming from ZEC? Are they trying to act independently of the government?
TUNGWARARA: No. Again it goes to the fundamental issue that I’m raising in terms of the context and environment within which all this is happening. So again the very evident increase in terms of onslaught against organizations for one reason or another that are perceived to be doing unlawful acts and so on and so forth doesn’t auger well for a context in which the premise is being given to actually allow for robust engagement as opposed to limiting it. Yes people have to abide by the laws but I think what we are seeing is no different from the repressive environment that a lot of organizations have been fighting against in order to have an environment where people freely exercise their choices. So it doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence and again the institution of ZEC in terms of its independence and impartiality I don’t think it’s guaranteed at this stage.
GONDA: Minister Matinenga it possible that we may head for another GNU even if the people vote Yes?
MATINENGA: When I spoke about the GNU, this was a post-referendum scenario. I am confident that people or the majority of people will vote Yes and that we have a new constitution with time. But my view on the potential of another GNU is actually premised on the outcome of a political/legal process. Are we going to have an election which is not challenged? I think that is important. Let me say that I agree with what Tungwarara says about, not in the words he used, but I’m concerned that ZEC would have adopted the attitude it did towards ZimRights. To be honest I thought that at this time in our history, in our democratic development we need to think outside the box and with respect I think this also applies to members of our security services. You notice that people were being denied permission to hold meetings to explain the draft constitution to the people. I really thought that was unfortunate. And when I moved around I made the point that people must be allowed to criticize the constitution if they won’t – in fact when I was in Gweru a particular chief asked me what do I do when I see these people come and this is what they say, and I said those people have got a right to stand up and say what they need to say because the constitution affords them that right.
GONDA: A final word Dr. Madhuku especially on the issue of a second GNU where we heard Minister Matinenga say we may be heading for another inclusive government.
MADHUKU: I think he’s being very polite there. They are actually working on having a new GNU. The GNU is quite evident when you get all three political parties campaigning for a Yes vote in the referendum. All three political parties are agreeing that the time given for the people is completely irrelevant. Some people wanted more time but they have not even been complaining about all things that have been happening and so on. So what we can say whichever party wins the election I think would want to stay, in the name of what they call stabilization, which is why you have got that clause that says that in the next ten years we won’t have a presidential by-election in the event of the death of the president. It enables whichever party wins the president to appoint one of the two vice presidents, a person from the other party. I mean let’s take the hypothetical situation where President Mugabe wins the election as president; it would be perfectly okay to appoint the current prime minister as the second vice president because he will not be president under the constitution. Those are the indications which we see in the draft for I think. I am very much convinced that a GNU is more or less likely whatever the result. If they are currently working on a Yes vote, go to parliament, I think none of these parties would really get a very much outright majority in the houses.
GONDA: Dr. Lovemore Madhuku, Minister Eric Matinenga and Mr. Ozias Tungwarara thank you very much for talking to us on the programme Hot Seat.
http://www.bdlive.co.za/
March 15 2013,
05:40
ALMOST everyone in Zimbabwe agrees that the draft
constitution that is the
subject of Saturday’s referendum is seriously
flawed. But it is the
compromise the country’s ruling coalition managed to
come up with on the
understanding that changes will be made once real
progress has been achieved
on the political front.
To ensure that it
served its immediate needs, the parties to the global
political agreement
that resulted in the governing coalition — President
Robert Mugabe’s Zanu
(PF), Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC-T and the
parliamentary
Movement for Democratic Change of Welshman Ncube — agreed on a
draft that
was initiated largely by themselves.
They were so keen to ensure their
narrow interests were served that they did
not involve other political
parties or civil society in any meaningful way.
The process has given new
meaning to the word "exclusive". Had they bothered
to research how other
countries have reformed their constitutions, they
would have discovered
that, in Kenya, the process was driven by parliament
but included all
parties, and civil society and ordinary citizens had an
opportunity to make
presentations in a process hailed as a landmark for
Africa.
By
contrast, the Zimbabwean draft constitution entrenches the already
immense
powers of the presidency, meaning that Mr Mugabe will be even
stronger and
more powerful after the referendum than he is now — if that is
practically
possible given his 30-year iron grip on power. The draft also
limits dual
nationality, clearly to prevent would-be Mugabe opponents from
enjoying the
security of being citizens of another country while being able
to return
home to vote against Zanu (PF).
Everyone in the coalition says they will
repeal large chunks of the
constitution should they win the elections that
are due to be held in July.
That is not ideal, but it was never going to be
possible to please everyone.
And, as a considerable improvement on the old
order, it is a step in the
right direction for Zimbabwe and the region. If
the terms of the draft
constitution are adopted and adhered to, Zimbabwe
will — on paper at least —
become a place where elections can be held
without intimidation and where
Zimbabweans can emerge from a decade of
stagnation and misery to reap their
beautiful country’s true
potential.
It would appear a given that the draft constitution will be
supported by
most Zimbabweans who vote in the referendum. After all, the
three major
parties are in agreement that it should be a "yes" vote. There
have been
mutterings about the likelihood of a free and fair vote, including
concern
over reports that nearly double the number of ballot papers have
been
printed than there are registered voters, and that the voter’s roll
still
contains many dead people. And, of course, Mr Mugabe has insisted that
the
only foreign observers allowed to monitor the poll will be those from
the
Southern African Development Community.
These are bad signs even
if there is genuine majority support for the new
constitution. The
credibility of the process is everything — the best
constitution in the
world can be undermined by perceptions that it came into
being through
fraudulent means. The referendum is an essential precursor to
elections, and
the way in which the process is handled will signal how well
prepared
Zimbabwe is to hold those elections. One would expect that any
hitches
arising at this referendum would be tackled before the election.
Whatever
Harare says, the referendum will also affect Zimbabwe’s relations
with the
international lenders and donors in the West, who Mr Mugabe so
despises. The
European Union and the US in particular have signalled a
willingness to
engage more with Zimbabwe and help it to get back on track
economically,
including reassessing the sanctions situation, but there will
have to be
give as well as take.
http://www.bdlive.co.za/
by Gwinyayi A Dzinesa,
March 15 2013, 07:42
ZIMBABWE will hold a referendum on a new
constitution on Saturday. This will
be the second time that Zimbabweans vote
on a proposed constitution to
replace the much-amended post-war Lancaster
House constitution of December
1979.
In the February 2000 referendum,
26% of about 5-million registered voters
participated, and the new
constitution was rejected by 54.31%.
The ruling Zanu (PF) had campaigned
vigorously for an endorsing "yes" vote,
while the opposition Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) and the National
Constitutional Assembly (NCA),
aided greatly by the prevailing socioeconomic
morass and the general
disenchantment with Zanu (PF), orchestrated a "no"
campaign.
There
are no opinion polls to help predict how Zimbabweans will vote this
time
around, but the referendum is likely to be a mere formality, given that
the
three coalition government parties — Zanu (PF) and the two MDC
formations —
approved the proposed constitution last month and have
implemented a blitz
campaign for an endorsing "yes" vote.
The referendum will in turn set the
stage for elections, probably in July,
in line with the Southern African
Development Community (Sadc)-mediated
Global Political Agreement of
September 2008.
After the disputed 2008 elections, Zanu (PF) and the two
MDC factions
entered into a power-sharing agreement to avoid plunging the
country even
deeper into conflict.
Given Zimbabwe’s history of
election-related violence, the adoption of a new
democratic constitution,
after consultation with the people, is central to
the Global Political
Agreement’s goal of creating an environment conducive
to peaceful, free and
fair elections.
However, there remains concern that the constant need to
bargain in order to
accommodate numerous divergent political party interests
may have resulted
in a give-and-take constitution that does not mirror
popular views.
The fact that the leaders of the three parties suddenly
struck a deal last
month on a compromise constitution, ending more than
three years of debate,
raised the question whether the constitution-making
process had been
hijacked by the political leaders.
The constitution
select committee of parliament comprising the three
coalition parties, which
drove the constitution-making process, has been at
pains to emphasise that
the proposed charter embodies the ideals and
aspirations of the nation as
part of efforts to fend off possible voter
apathy.
The proposed new
constitution retains the executive presidency’s dominant
role in relation to
the other branches of government. It still allocates to
the president the
power to appoint and dismiss public figures, including
cabinet ministers,
ambassadors, security chiefs; to dissolve parliament; and
to declare states
of emergency or war.
The president will have the final say in the
appointment of all commissions,
including the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.
The head of state will also
have the final say over the appointment of
judges.
While there is provision for a judicial service commission to
interview
prospective candidates, the president can order the commission to
submit a
fresh list, should he or she consider the candidates unsuitable for
the
bench. Under the proposed constitution, the president approves salaries,
allowances and benefits for all public servants.
Although the
proposed constitution imposes a two-term limit for the
presidency, it
proposes that this should not apply to terms served by the
existing
president, which would allow the incumbent, Robert Mugabe, to serve
additional terms.
Importantly, it clarifies the terms of succession
in case of the sudden
death, resignation or incapacitation of the president
by providing for the
first vice-president to take over the presidency for
the remainder of the
term.
Significantly, however, the leaders of the
three parties shelved a clause on
presidential running mates — which would
have resolved Mr Mugabe’s
succession problem, which has reportedly divided
Zanu (PF) for the last 10
years.
The president is entitled to
absolute immunity based on his acts or
omissions while in office and can
plead that such acts or omissions were in
"good faith", after departing from
office.
The president will have the right to pardon individuals, which
can also be a
political act that promotes cronyism and undermines the rule
of law. Critics
say this effectively shields the president and his allies
from prosecutions
for past human-rights violations.
Set against the
backdrop of the security sector’s partisan involvement in
political
processes in order to influence the outcome of elections, the
draft
constitution requires the security services to discharge their duties
on
neutral and nonpartisan grounds. An act of parliament should provide for
an
effective and independent mechanism for receiving, investigating and
remedying complaints from members of the public about misconduct by
Zimbabwean security personnel.
One of the proposed changes is the
devolution of governmental powers and
responsibilities to provincial and
metropolitan councils and local
authorities in order to improve government
efficiency and effectiveness,
while enhancing people’s participation in
governance.
An act of parliament will provide for the demarcation of the
boundaries of
the country’s 10 provinces.
Provincial chairpersons
coming from the party with the majority seats in the
specific province will
replace the 10 provincial governors.
However, this new arrangement does
not entail a fully fledged federal
system.
The draft constitution
gives the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission a broader
role in which it
supervises the election process and environment in which
elections take
place.
It proposes a comprehensive set of fundamental human rights
including civil
and political, economic, social, cultural and environmental
rights, as well
as specific protection for the rights of minorities and
vulnerable
populations.
There will be equal representation of women
in all elected institutions and
commissions.
Significantly,
Zimbabweans will have limited right to dual citizenship and
Zimbabweans in
the diaspora will not be allowed to vote in the next
election.
Zanu
(PF) has steadfastly opposed dual citizenship and the diaspora vote,
ostensibly since the latter would be a logistical nightmare for the
cash-strapped government.
Critics point out, however, that Zanu (PF)
is actually fearful the large
numbers of diaspora-based Zimbabweans would
vote against the party in the
next election while party officials under
sanctions would be unable to
campaign in certain countries.
The draft
charter provides for an independent national prosecuting
authority. An
attorney-general handles legal advice to the government and
prosecutes on
behalf of the state.
The document does not allow for compensation to be
provided for land
compulsorily acquired for resettlement under the agrarian
reforms of 2000,
except for improvements effected on it before its
acquisition.
The National Constitutional Assembly, formed in 1997 to push
for a new
national charter and which masterminded the "no" vote with the
then
opposition MDC in 2000, boycotted the constitution-making process to
protest
against what it perceived to be a flawed parliament-led top-down
process.
The NCA has dismissed the proposed constitution as undemocratic
in its
creation and content, and has already committed itself to campaign
for a
"no" vote in the referendum.
Like the rejected constitution in
2000, this draft retains the "imperial
presidency".
Yet, the lobby
for a new home-grown constitution for Zimbabwe was largely
driven by
concerns about the authority of the president, which appeared to
have no
boundary.
Significantly, the successful "no" campaign in the 2000
referendum was based
on the argument that the proposed constitution ignored
the provincial and
thematic-committee reports that had been submitted during
the public
outreach phase — particularly people’s views on the need to limit
the powers
of the executive and ensure an even balance of power between the
legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.
Finance
Minister Tendai Biti has confirmed that the cash-strapped Zimbabwe
government has secured funds to conduct the referendum. However, concerns
remain that most Zimbabweans are being asked to decide on a document they
have not seen.
Meanwhile, the supreme court this week dismissed
attempts by the NCA to
delay the referendum by a month to enable thorough
debate of the draft.
The jury is still out on how the Zimbabwe Electoral
Commission will cope
with the logistical nightmare of conducting the
referendum within such a
short time frame.
The referendum is supposed
to serve the purpose of setting the democratic
tone of the framework to run
the election, unlike the 2000 referendum when
the defeat of the Zanu
(PF)-backed constitution served as a warning for the
party to launch a
violent campaign strategy, and avoid sleepwalking into the
June 2000
parliamentary elections.
Zimbabwe’s new constitution will inevitably spur
new battles to terminate
the shaky coalition government that both President
Mugabe and MDC leader
Morgan Tsvangirai have conceded is
dysfunctional.
There is the danger that Zimbabwe’s political temperature
could rise as the
election battle lines are drawn.
The violence
accompanying the 2008 presidential run-off, the last time the
country went
to the polls, and recent reports of a police crackdown on
rights activists,
have been matters for concern.
As guarantors of the Global Political
Agreement, Sadc and the African Union
have a responsibility to support
Zimbabweans by deploying heavyweight teams
of long-term monitors — and not
"tourist teams" — to help to ensure a
peaceful referendum and elections
later this year. It remains to be seen
whether Sadc will consider giving its
electoral advisory council a more
comprehensive mandate to ensure that
Zimbabwe’s elections are held in
conformity with regional standards for
democratic processes.
• Dzinesa is a senior researcher at the Institute
for Security Studies in
Pretoria
After four years of bitter fighting, $100-million spent and many moments of doubt and fear, Zimbabweans on Saturday will finally have their chance to vote for a new Constitution.
With all parties campaigning for a "yes" vote, challenged only by a feeble "no" campaign, the Constitution is likely to be voted through on a low turnout.
Ahead of the vote, there is little public excitement, with the dominant sentiment being relief rather than enthusiasm.
The bid to stop the referendum by the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), a pressure group that has long campaigned against the process, has been dismissed in the courts and largely ignored by voters.
"Judging from an assessment of the attendance of people in the Copac [select parliamentary committee] campaign meetings, the referendum will be marred by apathy and a low turnout and, by any standard, will be a sign to politicians that the people of Zimbabwe are not happy," said assembly spokesperson Blessing Vava.
However, Paul Mangwana, one of the three co-chairs of Copac, said he expected a good turnout as voters responded to the "Vote Yes" campaign, which has been cranked up over the past week. A youth rally was expected in central Harare on Friday in a late attempt to whip up young people's interest.
Change
in power
This poll is in stark contrast to the constitutional referendum in
2000, which gave President Robert Mugabe his first electoral defeat and
announced the arrival of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as a serious
threat to his rule.
That year, various interests – the MDC, white farmers, the assembly and other groups – united against the draft, mounting a strong campaign that resulted in 1.3-million people voting, with the "no" vote winning by 54.7% to 45.3%.
Things have changed since then.The MDC is now in power alongside Zanu-PF and the two opponents are campaigning on the same side, whereas the assembly, once a potent coalition of rights groups, has been pushed to the margins.
Few voters who voted in 2000 actually read the draft and few have read this one either. In both cases, voters have simply gone along with the directions of their party leaders.
Voters are also disillusioned because they have had much less time this time round to study the draft, which has reached only a few. Copac printed only 90 000 copies of the draft Constitution for distribution throughout the country.
Despite the expected low turnout, the referendum is a turning point in Zimbabwe's search for reform. Although Zimbabweans will be happy that the long process is finally over, there will be some anxiety as this vote opens the way for elections.
The referendum is a double-edged sword: it finally rids the country of an old charter, amended 19 times, but it also signals the start of a new election campaign.
Greater representation
As soon as the Constitution is
passed, electoral laws will have to be amended to bring them into line with the
new supreme law, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai said this
week.
That process would probably usher in another long period of uncertainty, shown by Tsvangirai's response when asked by reporters when the elections would be held after the referendum.
"It could be July, it could be June. It will depend on the various stages [of electoral reforms]," Tsvangirai said, before saying: "Perhaps July, or August. It is impossible to predict."
Although there is a clear lack of interest, the constitutional referendum will be a victory of sorts in a process that seemed unlikely ever to reach this point.
At the first "all-stakeholder" conference on the Constitution in 2009, War Veterans Association leader Joseph Chinotimba danced on top of a desk, singing loudly and rallying his militants.
Clearly organised and deliberate, they caused such a riot that the crucial meeting had to be abandoned, and police called in to clear 4 500 people from the conference centre.
There were rows on issues as wide-ranging as gay rights, presidential terms and the influence of the military.
And, just when it seemed that progress was being made, Zanu-PF prodded the MDC to the edge by claiming that it wanted to make more than 200 amendments to a draft already agreed by all parties.
The MDC threatened to withdraw and President Jacob Zuma's team, on behalf of the Southern Africa Development Community, made countless trips to Zimbabwe to mediate.
Zimbabweans will also be happy finally to see the end of a process that has taken attention away from the economy.
While all the bickering has gone on, the promise of economic recovery in the first years of unity government has faded, replaced with the stark reality of worsening service delivery and company closures.
The worsening manufacturing environment was confirmed by the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries recently, which said that capacity utilisation for the sector in 2012 remained subdued at 44.2%.
Huge number of ballots, small
turnout
About 12-million
ballots have been printed and distributed to 9 449 polling stations across the
country.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission expects a turn-out of about six million voters. The commission's acting chairperson, Joyce Kazembe, said the large number of ballots are needed because it is not known how many voters will turn up at a particular station as the voting is not based on constituencies.
Voting takes one day. Vote counting starts at each polling station as soon as it closes at 7pm.
According to the law, the results must be released within five days. Early results would be a huge victory for the commission, whose credibility was shredded in 2008 after the vote count came in a trickle, with the final tally for the presidential vote not released until close to a month later.
This week, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai said he believed "the shenanigans" of 2008 would not be repeated. "There was so much interference in the last elections. We want to avoid that."
The commission will be relieved that it does not have to deal with some of the more controversial issues that have blighted previous polls. Constituency boundaries will not be a factor in the referendum as anyone can vote at any polling station in the country. Voters need only produce an identity document. The voters' roll, which the MDC and other electoral observer groups have said needs an overhaul, is not needed.
Although political parties may observe counting, they are not allowed to announce the results.
Nevertheless, many civic groups have threatened to boycott the referendum in protest over the barring of some observer organisations. ZimRights, one of the country's biggest civic groups, has been refused accreditation because its leaders are accused of fraudulently obtaining copies of the voters' roll.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/
Posted: 15 March
2013
· Crackdown includes a ban on short-wave radios to limit
access to
external news
· Human rights monitors arrested and
charged
· People with outstanding charges banned from observing
elections
Amnesty International has warned of ‘game playing’ by
the Zimbabwean
authorities ahead of Saturday’s referendum and has said that
the way in
which this referendum is conducted will serve as a litmus test
ahead of
elections in the country later in the year.
A constitutional
referendum in Zimbabwe is due to take place this coming
Saturday, 16 March,
and an election is likely to follow in July. In the
run-up to the
referendum and election, the government has amplified a
crackdown on
criticism and dissent. The crackdown has included a ban on
short-wave
radios, in an apparent attempt to curb access to alternative
sources of
news.
A number of NGOs and civil society organisations have been raided
by police
and charged with spurious offences ranging from ‘causing malicious
damage to
property’ and ‘smuggling’ radios into the country.
An
announcement last week by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission stated that
organisations facing police investigations would be prevented from
monitoring the referendum.
Amnesty International’s southern Africa
director, Noel Kututwa, said:
“The Zimbabwean authorities must stop this
game playing and allow the
referendum to take place in a context that
ensures the internationally
guaranteed rights to freedom of expression,
association and peaceful
assembly.
“Previous polls in Zimbabwe
have been marred by political violence and human
rights abuses. Saturday
offers the country a chance to prove it can make a
break with the
past.
“This referendum is a litmus test for the elections that will be
held later
this year. Rather than using it as a practice run for suppression
and
intimidation, the government must embrace it as an opportunity to
reinforce
respect for human rights and the rule of law.”
In
Zimbabwe’s last Presidential elections in 2008 more than 200 people died
in
election-related violence. Tens of thousands were internally displaced
while
more than 10,000 were injured. Injuries were so numerous that
hospitals ran
out of crutches.
In the past six months, Amnesty has documented
police raids on seven
organisations. At least five of these are groups that
have been involved in
voter registration and other polls-related activities.
Some of them have
provided local election observers in previous
elections.
Amnesty is urging the Zimbabwean authorities to allow civil
society
organisations to observe the process without harassment and
intimidation and
is calling on Zimbabwe's neighbours, the Southern African
Development
Community (SADC), to use its influence to ensure the elections
are free from
violence and fear.
To call on SADC to ensure the
elections are free from violence go to
www.amnesty.org.uk/zimbabwe
By Associated Press, Updated: Saturday, March
16, 2:15 AM
HARARE, Zimbabwe — One campaign ad on the Internet shows
video footage of a
lawmaker in Zimbabwe’s tenuous coalition government
punching a Cabinet
minister appointed by President Robert Mugabe. Another ad
attacks the
president’s rival and coalition partner, Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangirai,
with a clip of him defending gay rights, an unpopular stance in
many sectors
of Zimbabwean society, during a television
interview.
Ahead of a vote Saturday on a new constitution, Zimbabwe’s
main political
camps are urging their supporters to approve it, making the
outcome all but
certain. But you wouldn’t know they were in agreement from
the tone of some
campaigning, which amounts to a test run for national
elections slated
around July, a high-stakes event expected to end coalition
rule and
determine whether Mugabe retains his tight grip after decades in
power.
The referendum this weekend mirrors the hopes and fears of four
previous
elections which were marred by violence and vote-rigging since
Tsvangirai, a
former labor leader, founded his Movement for Democratic
Change party, the
first real challenge to Mugabe, in 1999.
Already,
tensions erupted in the volatile western Harare township of Mbare
on Friday.
An alliance of rights groups said eight supporters of the
Zimbabwe prime
minister’s party were assaulted while putting up ‘Vote Yes’
posters for
Saturday’s poll.
The Crisis Coalition said injured victims of the Friday
attack included
future parliamentary candidate Sten Zvorwadza.
A
visiting British Broadcasting Corp. news crew witnessed the assault.
BBC
correspondent Andrew Harding said “an increasingly large and agitated
crowd”
tried to grab the crew’s camera, threw dirty water at the journalists
and
punched them on their arms and backs without inflicting serious
injuries.
The Mbare township has recently been the scene of violence
blamed on a youth
gang known as Chipangano, or, in the local Shona language,
brotherhood, a
group loyal to Mugabe.
Nelson Chamisa, a Tsvangirai
party official, said the “complicit police”
failed to stop the
assault.
“The ghost of violence has reared its ugly head. We were
expecting a
peaceful referendum but once again the safety of the voter and
the vote is
no longer certain,” he told The Associated Press.
All
political groups have called for a ‘Yes’ vote on a constitution whose
reforms would reduce presidential powers and grant more democratic rights.
However, even if the constitution is approved, arrests and harassment of
rights and democracy activists this year by police loyal to Mugabe raise
doubts about whether such changes would be seriously enforced.
The
draft constitution, for example, imposes a limit of two five-year terms
on
the office of president but it is not retroactive, enabling Mugabe to
rule
for two more terms to age 99 if he were to win the next two
elections.
Mugabe’s loyalists have posted United States-style
presidential campaign
advertisements on the Internet claiming that
Tsvangirai’s Movement for
Democratic Change Party even resorts to violence
by punching and assaulting
members of the Harare parliament while Mugabe
spurns violence. Gay rights
have been rejected by Mugabe, an outspoken
critic of same sex partners he
has described as “lower than pigs and dogs,”
a well-received stance in many
generally homophobic African communities.
AFP
March 16, 2013, 4:01
am
HARARE (AFP) - Zimbabweans go to the polls Saturday to vote on
a new
constitution that would pave the way for elections, but many believe
the
army and police, not voters, may ultimately decide the country's
fate.
While the referendum on the constitution is largely expected to be
fair, the
main event -- elections slated for July -- may be decided by the
outsize
influence of a handful of those close to President Robert Mugabe,
89, the
country's leader for the past 33 years.
Those allies include
police chief Augustine Chihuri, who reportedly told
senior police officers
at a retreat late last year that anyone who did not
support Mugabe's party,
the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front
(ZANU-PF), had no
business being on the force.
Lest there be any confusion, Chihuri also
denounced Mugabe's opponents,
including Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, as
"stooges of the West".
Police officers across the country were also
ordered to register as voters,
and, reportedly, to vote for
ZANU-PF.
Chihuri, a key Mugabe ally, is a veteran of Zimbabwe's
liberation struggle.
He is also Zimbabwe's longest-serving police chief
since independence in
1980.
He is one of many senior security force
officials in Mugabe's inner circle.
Oliver Mandipaka, a senior police
officer, is reported to have thrown his
hat into the ring as a ZANU-PF
parliamentary candidate in Buhera, in
south-east
Zimbabwe.
High-ranking army officers such as Brigadier General Douglas
Nyikayaramba
have also publicly declared their allegiance to
ZANU-PF.
In 2002 Nyikayaramba served as chief election officer of the
Electoral
Supervisory Commission, but by 2011 he openly described Tsvangirai
-- who
leads the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), ZANU-PF's main
competition -- as a security threat.
Takavafira Zhou, a political
analyst from Masvingo State University, said
high-ranking police and army
officers' reach extended deep into the
electoral process.
"The
security chiefs are the ones calling the tune," said Zhou.
"Their
subordinates are among the polling officers and form part of the
machinery
that can manipulate the vote in favour of ZANU-PF if need be, but
I am
surprised the MDC is turning a blind eye to all that.
"Security chiefs
will determine the outcome and what happens after the
outcome, and they will
certainly not accept an MDC victory."
Police spokeswoman Charity Charamba
was not available for comment.
Already the police force has launched a
crackdown, raiding the offices of
rights groups and seizing documents and
communication equipment.
Activists have been detained and charged in what
critics say is a campaign
to silence Mugabe's critics and instil fear ahead
of the July vote.
"You can already see the state security agents continue
to play a
significant role to ensure a ZANU-PF victory through the
criminalisation of
civic society on the basis of trumped-up charges," said
Thabani Nyoni,
director of the civic group Bulawayo Agenda.
"The
whole machinery of intimidation, repression and propaganda has been
reawakened and as we approach the elections, where the stakes are higher,
they will intensify the campaign to silence any dissenting
voices."
Essie Ncube, a political analyst based in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe's
second city,
said the security forces "have the potential to destabilise the
capacity to
have free and fair elections."
But not all observers
agree.
Bassie Bangidza, from the University of Zimbabwe's department of
security
studies, said the military poses no threat to the vote.
"The
only way they can influence the elections is by voting," Bangidza
said.
Political scientist Ibbo Mandaza, head of the Harare-based Southern
African
Political and Economic Series (SAPES) Trust, agreed the threat posed
by the
security forces was exaggerated.
"If they were ever involved
in influencing the vote, it was to the extent to
which the political
leadership has allowed them to do so," Mandaza said.
By Violet Gonda
15
March
National Constitutional Assembly chairman Dr. Lovemore Madhuku says the new constitution does not allow a by-election for a new president. So if Zimbabweans vote Yes in the referendum and President Robert Mugabe wins the next election, then dies in office, ZANU PF will put up the nominee for president.
Madhuku was speaking in a panel discussion on the Hot Seat programme with Constitutional Affairs Minister Eric Matinenga and analyst Ozias Tungwarara.
He said there is a provision that the political parties in the inclusive government put in the draft charter that says there will be no by-elections for the president for the next ten years.
“If the president dies or resigns from office, we will have the party of the president giving us a nominee. That is not acceptable. If the president dies we should be able to elect a president or at least parliament should be allowed to elect a president,” Madhuku said.
However Matinenga defended the clause saying: “What we’ve done in this constitution is to introduce the running mate clause and in any running mate clause provision, you don’t have an election – you are saying that the person who is the running mate automatically becomes the president in the event that the president meets some mishap or something. That is what we have done and the issue of a political party having to look for somebody to succeed an incumbent is a provisional transition.”
Madhuku argued that this is a worrying development saying in the current Lancaster House constitution there is a provision that says at the very least parliament would decide.
He added: “So if president Mugabe wins the next election in July or June and he decides to retire or he dies, then we will just be sitting around, all of us in the country, waiting for what the ZANU PF politburo or congress or central executive does.
“And if they tell us that it’s Mnangagwa or Mujuru, or they fight among themselves, we’ll just be sitting around until they decide who is going to be our president. That is not acceptable. I’ve not come across it anywhere else in the world so you can’t say that it’s a good constitution.”
Tungwarara pointed out that if there had been more debate on the new draft and more engagement, “better clarity would have been brought, but it ended up being compromises that were driven by what I think are partisan interests as opposed to the general good.”
Zimbabweans will vote on Saturday on a proposed new constitution, five years after a presidential election that led to a disputed result and widespread violence.
You can listen to the full referendum debate on the Hot Seat programme, where the panellist also discuss some of the contentious issues in the draft charter: Listen here to Hotseat
CONSTITUTION WATCH
20/2013
[15th March
2013]
News
Flash
There
has just been a Government Gazette Extraordinary to say
Referendum
Day is a Public Holiday
Referendum
– The Question being put to the Vote
The
“business side” of the ballot paper [the reverse side] has a few introductory
lines identifying the draft Constitution as the one prepared by COPAC, adopted
by Parliament and published in the Government Gazette.
It
then spells out the question to be answered, as follows:
Are
you in favour of adopting the draft Constitution as the new Constitution of
Zimbabwe?
If
you are in favour, make a cross in the rectangle opposite the word
“YES”
If
you are against, make a cross in the rectangle opposite the word
“NO”
|
YES |
|
|
NO |
|
Judging
by the number of Requests we have had for the wording of the Question for the
Referendum – it has not been well publicised
All
the Referendum
Proclamation said was:
“WHEREAS
I consider it desirable to ascertain the view of voters on whether or not the
said draft Constitution, should be enacted as the Constitution of
Zimbabwe;
AND
WHEREAS it is the function of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to conduct
referendums in terms of section 100C of the Constitution of
Zimbabwe:
NOW,
THEREFORE, under and by virtue of the powers vested in the President as
aforesaid, I do, by this my proclamation—
(a)
declare
that a referendum is to be held in order to ascertain the view of voters on
whether or not the draft Constitution which is published in a Gazette Extraordinary together with this
Proclamation should be adopted as the Constitution of
Zimbabwe;”
The
Question was set by ZEC based on the wording of the Proclamation.
The
Question was not gazetted and there is no requirement in the Referendums Act or
Regulations that it must be gazetted.
ZEC
have said that they presented
the sample ballot paper to stakeholders and members of the public at ZEC
headquarters in Harare on 22nd February.
The story was picked up by some media reports but ZEC did not advertise
the Question in the press.
Nor
did they indicate the wording of the Question in their voter education
outreach. Their pamphlet on the
referendum does not have it.
This
failure to publicise the Question probably does not matter as it is a simple
question and it has been clear all along that the Referendum was about saying
YES or NO to the draft constitution.
The
Result of the Referendum will be decided by whichever answer – YES or NO – gets a simple majority
.
Apologies:
The
Constitution Watch bulletin sent out on 13th March, was incorrectly numbered
18/2013. It should have been
19/2013. Also – for those of you who had
difficulty accessing the smart phone/tablet App of the draft Constitution on www.constitution.veritaszim.net – this has
been rectified with our web host and either that address or
constitution.veritaszim.net will get through to the download
instructions.
Veritas makes every effort to ensure
reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information
supplied
CONSTITUTION WATCH
21/2013
[15th March
2013]
The
Referendum – Progress Review
ZEC set up
Committees
National Logistics
Committee: this was divided into
subcommittees: Human Resources; Transport and Communication; Finance;
Infrastructure. Members of were drawn
from Ministries and their departments and parastatals. Both ZEC and the subcommittees visited
provinces to assess progress.
Media Committee:
to
monitor media reporting on the Referendum and ensure they fulfil obligations
laid down in the Electoral Act to give
equitable and fair coverage to all sides, be accurate, factual and fair, rectify
errors promptly, refuse to promote stakeholders encouraging violence, avoid
language encouraging discrimination or inciting hatred, violence or contempt.
Observer
Accreditation Committee: details of this
committee and the accreditation process and fees were given in Constitution
Watch 16/2013, and an update on observer accreditation will be in the next
Constitution Watch.
ZEC Voter
Education
The Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission [ZEC] deployed two voter educators per ward to inform the
electorate on their legal entitlement to vote, what documents to bring to
polling stations, the times when polling stations will be opened, how assisted
voters will be processed; and generally information relating to the actual
conduct and management of the poll [not on the contents of the draft
Constitution, as this was done by COPAC and other stakeholders]. The teams used door to door visits, addressed
gatherings and meetings and distributed pamphlets. This outreach programme started on 6th March
and ran until 13th March. ZEC also
accredited 15 civic society organisations who had been vetted and trained to
assist in voter education and also flighted advertisements in newspapers.
Successful Training
of Polling Officials
ZEC
managed to train the 70 000 plus polling and other staff needed for the
Referendum – this included 56 736 polling officers, with the rest made up of
supervisors and returning officers. ZEC
drew on the pool of personnel used by ZEC previously, drawn from the Public Service
Commission; local authorities; statutory bodies; and the Health Services
Board. Although,
because the Referendum falls in the middle of a teaching term, the Minister of
Education asked that teachers should not be used, ZEC in fact had to use
teachers, especially in rural areas. First,
trainers were trained, who then trained the other necessary staff. Training was decentralised to provincial and
district levels. Two days wecre allowed.
One returning officer
and six referendum officers will be deployed at each polling station. The deployment took into account gender. Because of transport logistics most personnel
were deployed several days before polling.
Polling Stations
Ready
9 456 polling
stations and have been indentified and set up, as have command centres at
provincial, district and constituency levels.
Polling compartments and a sufficient number of translucent ballot boxes
have been provided at every polling station, along with indelible ink for
marking voters’ fingers. 12
million ballot papers have been printed and distributed according to anticipated
demand per province.
The
work of ZEC and its subcommittees should be fully reported on in the ZEC
Referendum Report which has to be presented to the President and Parliament and
the Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs [the Ministry responsible for ZEC] as
soon as possible after the results are announced, and in any event not later
than 6 months thereafter.
Referendum
Time-Frame Too Short
Minister
of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Eric Matinenga has said his personal
opinion is that the Presidential proclamation of 16th March gave too short
notice of the Referendum. This short
time-frame between the gazetting of the final draft on 15th February and the
Referendum date has impacted on every aspect of preparing for the referendum
from funding, to producing Referendum regulations and training, etc.
This
was confirmed by a ZEC commissioner at an observer briefing who said ZEC did not
have enough time to effectively prepare for the Referendum.
On
the whole ZEC has managed well in its administrative decisions given the short
notice, but some of its decisions that have legal or political overtones have
been made without opportunity for querying them.
Consequences of Short
Time-Frame
ZEC without
substantive chairperson until last minute Justice Makarau has been sworn in as the new
ZEC chairperson less than a day before the Referendum, meaning that all
preparations were headed by the acting chairperson, who, with due respect to her
other skills and experience, does not have the legal qualifications specified
for a chairperson, a fact which has led to a court challenge.
No postal votes
Diplomatic and other
government officials or Zimbabwean on national duty outside the
country have the right to
postal votes in all elections. But
application forms have to be sent to them and ballot papers delivered and returned, and ZEC
said they did not have time to do this.
Diaspora – the Referendums
Act says all Zimbabweans of 18 or above are entitled to vote, but in spite of
many requests and the recent ruling of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples Rights, the millions of Zimbabwean in the Diaspora have been
excluded.
No provision for
prisoners to vote
According
to the Constitution prisoners have the right to vote unless serving a jail term
of six months or more. But no prisoners
will be able to exercise their rights in the Referendum. ZEC has said that limited resources and time
prevented them organising voting for prisoners.
No time to change
IDs
The
Referendums Act says any citizen entitled to register as a voter can vote in a
Referendum. ZEC changed the requirements
to to prove entitlement so as to make production of a
valid passport, ID or waiting “pass” showing citizenship essential. Many Zimbabweans, especially those of
Malawian, Mozambican or Zambian descent, are in fact citizens entitled to
register for the vote, but hold old ID cards marked “alien” because have not
been able to get new IDs because of the expense, time and travel involved in
doing so. For purposes of the Referendum
they have effectively been disenfranchised, as have those who have taken out
citizenship but because of delays do not have IDs.
ZEC website out of
date
The
Referendum regulations stipulated that the polling stations must be posted on
the ZEC website at least 48 hours before the Referendum. This has not been done. However, ZEC met the stipulation that polling
stations must be gazetted and published in the press at least 48 hours before
polling.
ZEC telephone enquiry
provisions inadequate
Review of Draft
Constitution Familiarisation Exercises
COPAC Familiarisation
Outreach Meetings
A few days ago,
Manicaland provincial co-chairperson for the parliamentary committee responsible for the draft
constitution said he was worried by the poor public turnout at events called to
review the draft. He said political
parties had not done enough to mobilize and publicise the COPAC outreach
programmes. IRIN
reported that rural communities were largely unaware of the impending
referendum: "There has not been adequate
publicity around it. People have not seen the draft, and because the entire
process was politicized, people generally shunned the process and lost
interest."
Not enough copies of
draft
COPAC
did not produce nearly enough copies of the draft constitution or of their
summary – and most were in English.
There were only 200 Braille copies of the draft
constitution for a population of 40,000 blind people.
The
summary was criticised by some analysts as not an entirely accurate reflection
of the full draft constitution, and this caused some mistrust.
Complaints over short
timeframe
These
complaints were raised at meeting an in letters to the press
MDC pull out of COPAC
familiarisation campaign
The
MDC led by their President Welshman Ncube were only allocated outreach meetings
in the Matebeleland provinces in contrast to the other two GPA parties who were
both to cover the whole country. They
objected to this and pulled out of COPAC schedules and did their own education
programme throughout the country.
Civic Society
organisations
were asked to help COPAC familiarise citizens with the draft constitution. They were expected to sign a memorandum of
understanding saying they would promote the YES vote and some objected to
this. Also, the short notice prevented
CSOs and other parties raising funding and producing enough materials for
education campaigns.
Police stopped some
meetings
·
The
Prime Minister’s meeting to promote the YES vote in a Harare suburb was
cancelled by police who threatened to disperse the crowd by
teargas.
·
Meetings
by those advocating a NO vote, such as National Constitutional Assembly, some
unions and youth organisations, were not given police
clearance.
·
A
meeting at the Media Centre was refused clearance.
Other
Problems
·
There
has on the whole been very little education done by the media on the draft
constitution owing to its having been gazetted only a month ago. What was offered pushed for a YES vote, and
those advocating a NO vote were not given opportunities to explain their
position.
·
Churches
are now making objections over some aspects of the constitution which they have
only recently become aware of and some are belatedly advocating a NO vote. But most have said they will accept it but
negotiate for changes later.
·
Smaller
parties have been left out of the whole process. Some, such as Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn and MDC99,
have advocated a NO vote
·
All
three GPA parties have promised to change the constitution if they get into
power.
·
Above
all there is a general feeling that the two major parties used the YES vote
campaign for promoting their parties ahead of the elections.
Effect
of These Problems
These
problems are unlikely to affect the outcome of the Referendum. With the three GPA parties advocating a YES
vote, it is sure to be approved. But
this could also mean that except for party members turning out to vote on the
instructions of their party, there will be considerable voter apathy.
This
apathy and the number of people excluded from voting are of concern. The whole object of the constitution-making
exercise was to produce a constitution which citizens were enthusiastic about
and for which there was a sense of
ownership, and to promote a culture of
constitutionalism.
Veritas makes every effort to ensure
reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information
supplied
