Guest Blog: Vote Yes To Your Own Deception

Today I have the pleasure of presenting a guest blogger to Echoes. Nkosinqobile Dube (Chris Nqo) is a Zimbabwean Law graduate and also the Editor in Chief of dECK Magazine in Bulawayo. Here he presents his views on the the Final Draft Constitution which will go to a referendum this Saturday in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe has the distinction of being one of the most literate countries in Africa. Our education system is envied across the continent, our academics are amongst the best in the world and we have a fearless and brave leader in Robert Mugabe. I could go on.

Our President is a blessing and similarly a burden to a country he has led for just over three decades. He has dictated his views,policies and decisions to the collective psyche of Zimbabweans but not without valiant opposition locally and internationally.

In March 2013, Zimbabwe stands at a cross roads, faced with making a decision that will shape the future of Zimbabwe in a manner as yet unknown. This Saturday the 16th of March, close to 5 million Zimbabweans over the age of 18 will queue across the country to partake in a referendum to approve or reject the Draft Constitution.

As you may know,politics is a matter of life and possible death in Zimbabwe. However, faced with such a life changing decision for their country, it is concerningly telling how little information ordinary  Zimbabweans posses about the Draft Constitution. For all our high literacy and brilliant academics, very few Zimbabweans are adept and capable of explicitly understanding legal english. Add to that, the cunning and deceptive nature of Zimbabwe's political hyenas and you have the perfect blindside. Let's depart from the legal terminology and examine the background against which this Draft was written. COPAC dedicated time and resources to obtaining the input of Zimbabweans towards the Draft Constitution. The question that should occupy our minds is, how much of what the people said actually made it into the spirit and letter of the Draft Constitution?
What we know now is the sad fact that Zimbabweans views are not accurately represented. Devolution of power, executive Presidency, Seperation of Powers, Right to Life, Youth aspirations are some of the points raised during COPAC meetings that did not receive accurate translation to the Draft Constitution.

What in effect we have is a document that is the perfect hatchet job of the views of many Zimbaweans. In reference to devolution of power, it is a watered down version of what the people said they wanted. Section 88 pertains to Executive authority and clearly spells out that this Draft is a political compromise between strange bed fellows who seek to serve their narrow political and selfish interests. All this at the considerable expense of crafting a water tight constitution that is reflective of the peoples true will.
I believe the aim of a constitution is not to simply react to history. Zimbabwe does not have the best example of a leader. Our Presidents actions and inactions will never serve as a fitting template. However,for all his shortcomings, the man does not have to be the stencil upon which our constitution is written on. The Draft constitution has been peddled as a document that seeks to prevent another Robert Mugabe. That, in itself is a wrong premise for any constitution.

A constitution should be a fool proof mechanism that safeguards a country's future. Not a set of laws that attempts to retrospectively fix and right loopholes in history.

Zimbabwe was brought to its knees by an Executive Presidency, a compromised judiciary, a weak parliament, a discriminatory and unfair land reform, a culture of human rights abuse and a lack of respect for the rule of law. This was precipitated by an economic collapse and followed up by a compromise Government of National Unity that has left us with the apparition of a new era with this Draft Constitution. Our new constitution should have been cast in stone against the above ills. However, a careful layman's examination of this draft reveals glaring loopholes.

Zimbabwe's Draft Constitution is in no way a reflection of the views of the majority of Zimbabweans, they just do not know it yet.
The executive Presidency remains entrenched in law. A President can dissolve Parliament,has legal immunity, still appoints Judges, Ambassadors and an unlimited Cabinet of Ministers.

Popularly elected Parliament can be dissolved for a number of reasons, even if it were to pass a vote of no confidence in the President. Add to this the fact that citizens still do not have the power to recall members of Parliament, once you have elected them only death will do you apart. The compromised land reform cannot be redressed by the new constitution. Whilst the supremacy of the constitution is entrenched by Section 2, the constitution can still be ammended by selfish politicians in Parliament, without going to a popular referendum. Many Zimbabweans do not know of this, yet they are tasked with making a Yes or No vote. The establishment of a Constitutional Court is a progressive move, however, it is shrouded in a deceptive clause that brings it to actuality seven years after the next election. How many ordinary Zimbabweans know of this? The office of the President of Zimbabwe has been inextricably tied with the personality of the holder of the office in the mind of many Zimbabweans. This is a sad legacy, yet that is precisely the same anomaly that the drafters of this important document failed to see past. The constitution was drafted with Robert Mugabe in mind, not with the future of Zimbabwe occupying the drafters' national conscience.

We do not have to safeguard Zimbabwe against another Mugabe, we have to safeguard Zimbabwe with a constitution that cements checks and balances in a progressive democracy. Zimbabweans outrightly expressed their desire for devolution, this was altered to suit  political negotiators seated at an oak table.

Zimbabwe has an unequal and uneven distribution of wealth, opportunities and resources. Devolution would have aided in correcting this imbalance. Mutare should be able to develop from its own wealth, Victoria Falls should prosper because of its natuaral resources, Gogo Sebata should speak Sotho when she goes to the clinic for free health care at Gwanda Clinic, Takesure Choga should graduate at University with the assistance of student loans, Tete Agnes should be able to vote by postal ballot from Melbourne in Australia, that criminal Chidumo Jnr must value his right to life whilst enjoying the comfort of solitary confinement inside Chikurubi, former MP, Mr Mukwevho must be left to ponder his fall from grace after his parliamentary constituency recalls him from a Parliament seating in Gweru, ZBC TV must be able to screen live political debates without fear, favour or incessant power cuts from local power supply companies. The Auditor-general should order investigations into misappropriation of funds by Government departments. The Constitutional court must seat in Masvingo to decide the constitutionality of the President sending troops to aid a falling dictator.

Ask yourself the question how much of what is illustrated above will ever be possible in a Zimbabwe that votes Yes on Saturday 16 March 2013.
Young people's hopes for a future Zimbabwe are relegated to simple National Objectives, not enforceable by law or creating a legislative duty for the state.

The Draft constitution is a watered down version of the views of Zimbabweans. Politicians did not have the hindsight to include necessary checks and balances for a strong constitution safe from arbitrary abuse.
You want to know why politicians sat down and agreed to decieve Zimbabwe into voting Yes? They did so because they selfishly put the interests of their party above the interests of the country. Voting yes would be adding your  weight to your continued oppression by a system that only gives you perceived power by a ballot. A constitution should never be a compromise, it should reflect a country and its people's explicit expectations set in law. This Draft constitution is not that. Lancaster brought us an imperfect constitution. Every Zimbabwean knows that,however, the current constitution is a choice we can afford to live with. That is, until we vote for a leader who will truly and honestly allow Zimbabweans the chance at a new people driven constitution. The leader who will promise Zimbabwe a new constitution, driven by an independent commission is what this country deserves. This can only happen if Zimbabweans Vote No.

The politician who asks Zimbabweans to Vote Yes, is deceiving you into giving away your country's future for the illusion of a progressive constitution.

Follow ChrisNqo on Twitter!
@ChrisNqoe

If I could, I wouldn’t: Five reasons I wouldn’t vote for the Draft Constitution

We the People of Zimbabwe...

It begins with so much promise, so much hope but somewhere along the way it teeters horribly towards the edge before catching itself in its skirts and tumbling into an oblivion created by its own self contradictions. The Zimbabwean ‘Final Draft’ Constitution which has taken several years and an obscenely large amount of money to create fails to live up to the task that its creators and the people of Zimbabwe had set upon it. Its genesis was mired in controversy and this less than auspicious birth is reflected in its one hundred and seventy two pages.

As a Zimbabwean living in the diaspora I have also been alarmed by the complete lack of information surrounding the document. Many of my friends had never seen the document let alone read it. Many did not know what the fundamental differences between it and the Lancaster House Constitution it was replacing were and yet more did not have the slightest inkling of an idea what its implications were.

So out of the infinite goodness of my heart, I have summarized my top five biggest gripes with the ‘Final Draft’ Constitution. Comment is free so let’s talk about this document that is supposed to dictate the direction that the Zimbabwean sovereign experiment will take.

1.       Process, process, process

My first issue with the document itself has nothing to do with the document itself but the  way it was crafted. For those of you who follow Zimbabwean events, the Zimbabwean government spent millions of dollars reaching out to the Zimbabwean populace, trying to get their views on what they wanted in a new Constitution. At the end of all this information gathering what then happened? The two principal political parties bickered for months on end, grandstanding and posing, until they finally came up with a compromise ridden version that suited their needs.

Which begs the point, why ask the opinion of Zimbabweans if they opinion was not going to be of paramount concern ahead of the interests of Political Party X vs Political Party Y. Where were the civic organisations, the human rights groups, the universities, the Lawyers and the Intellectuals during the bickering phase? Where were the people of Zimbabwe? Oh yes, that’s right, their voice didn’t count did it.

2.      Executive President

The ‘Final Draft’ Constitution retains the post of Executive President amongst other things that should have been thrown out with the bathwater (more of that soon). The President is described as “the Head of State and Government”.

Most countries like the United Kingdom and Germany separate the two functions, for example David Cameron is the head of government and Elizabeth II is the head of state, François Holland is the Head of State and Jean-Marc Ayrault is the Head of Government. The reason in most cases is to split power and avoid vesting it in the arms of one person. In a country like the United States of America which combines the two, a complicated system of checks and balances is put in place to counteract the resulting concentration of power. Failure to do that means one person elects all Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, Ambassadors, Chiefs, Judges of the Supreme and Constitutional Court, Commissioners of all entities whose function is to provide oversight of the Presidency…. The problem should be apparent.

3.      Retained too much of what was bad about Lancaster

In this section I include: an unlimited number of Ministries (Zimbabwe has almost double (40) the amount of Ministries than South African(25) despite having an economy a tenth of the size [USD550 billion versus USD6 billion], incidentally Switzerland has 7 Ministers), a Senate (again a matter of size), reserved seats in Senate for Chiefs (really? Why?), an amazing ability to grant a right then add a ‘but…’ several chapters down the line. A glaring example is the constitution’s lengthy declaration that men and women are created equal then several chapters later prohibit execution of female criminals under any circumstances (think about it carefully: a man could kill one person and be executed, a woman could kill an entire village of children and receive nothing worse than jail time). Others include property rights which are granted then curtailed for foreigners/descendants of foreigners whose land was “redistributed” (this also after a lengthy description that all citizens of Zimbabwe are equal whether by birth or descent) or in the case of the class of land identified as Agricultural Land which can be seized by the Government with no notice at all (contradicting a previous article), not compensation (contradicting another article to respect International Law [SADC law obligates a government to compensate the owner of the property for the value of the land]), and removing the possibility of the owner approaching the courts (which contradicts the article on the inviolability and supremacy of the courts).  

4.      Too much of what was talked about by Zimbabweans is missing

In this list I will include: multiple citizenship, voting rights for Zimbabweans living outside of the borders of Zimbabwe, retroactive application of some of the provisions of the Constitution (a controversial one I admit but still,,,we wanted it, we should have gotten it), protection or declaration of any sorts of LGBT rights (the writers decided to skip the issue entirely), an attempt (even a weak one) at decentralization of power from the centre….

5.     A compromised document no matter what you call it is a compromised document

It reflects that in its lack of defining anything. The “Yes…but” nature of it all. Government is tasked with protecting freedoms, “within the means available to it” (what are those means? Who decides what’s reasonable, what is sacrosanct and can’t be touched). At the end of the day it is a lawyer’s paradise, you can argue your way out of anything by referring to another chapter within its pages and that’s exactly the problem with long constitutions, especially long bargained ones. It is a dictator’s dream, you get to choose who overlooks your work and Parliament is given the side kick role of rubber stamping Executive Orders. At the end of the day, and most frightening of all, it is a citizen’s nightmare and that’s why I would vote NO, if I had the means to vote this coming Saturday.  

You should too. 

The Final Draft Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe

As part of my civic duty as outlined in Chapter 1, Section 7 subsection (c) of the Draft Constitution, I am posting the "Final Draft Constitution" of the Republic of Zimbabwe for the consumption of my fellow citizens.

This act no way implies that I agree, endorse or support this draft in any way or form. I am simply acting in the interests of my fellow citizens reaching an informed decision by themselves and reaching a decision on whether to support this document or not.

I will post a summary of my thoughts on the document soon.

Click here to download the document as a Microsoft Word document.

Voices of Africa

Are you ever one of those people who complain (loudly) about the portrayal of Africa in (Western) media? I know I am one of them and I have written about it several times (including here on the Global Changemakers site). Well I was told long ago that complaining and then proceeding to do nothing about the thing which you complained is just as good as keeping quiet and I want to challenge you all 'complainers' out there take part in an amazing project that has been doing something about the image of the African continent and the people who populate her lands.

Voices of Africa is an ambitious project launched by the Mail and Guardian some years ago that aims in their own words to: 

"..tell the stories the world doesn’t hear often enough. We believe the everyday accounts of Africans getting on with life and showing adversity the middle finger deserve more attention. From the fashion-crazy women in Dakar to the eligible bachelors in Somalia; from the extravagant weddings in Tanzania to the nightlife in Nairobi, we want to showcase life in Africa by those who live it."

I find a quote by the Editor of Voices quite profound, she talks about the negative vs positive extremes we see so often in the media and says something that for me sums up the whole project: "An emerging market”, “exotic” women, technology booms, safaris, and National Geographic-worthy sunsets don’t sum us up either. They reduce us."

We are people before we are Africans. Just like the Europeans, the Asians, the Asians; we are just people with all their consequent faults, strengths, joys and profound sorrows. And that is the story the world needs to see more than exclamations about how great it is that our literacy rates are improving or how sad it is that wars have blossomed in several African states. The fact that those Africans fighting those wars, those African grandmothers learning how to read in a shack in some distant rural village are just people. Add your voice, head on over to the Voices of Africa site, take a look at the guidelines and submit your story for publication. :)

I dare you to change the way the world views our continent.