The Sunday Mail
Zimbabwe has a new, agreed and approved Constitution in place.
The Constitution secured an overwhelming majority “Yes” vote in a national referendum in March 2013. The harmonised elections held on July 31 of the same year, were conducted under its auspices.
The Zimbabwean constitution-making process is long and arduous, dating as far back as colonial Rhodesia. This historical narration and analysis is not the focus of this particular account, but warrants exclusive consideration on another occasion principally for the benefit of future generations.
As a sovereign and respected State, one of our major preoccupations, currently, appears to be the alignment of over 400 (we are told) pieces of subsidiary legislation and other legal instruments to this supreme and fundamental law of the land. This is as it should be, and is most appreciated by all.
In doing so, it is my view that we should not allow ourselves to overlook the events and dynamics of our immediate past history, during the existence of the inclusive Government, which drove and led to the final adoption of this new Constitution.
We can only do so at our own peril.
The new Constitution, to quite a significant extent, was informed by a compromise reached by basically two major political parties with fundamentally different historical and ideological backgrounds; with the general citizenry being involved superficially in the background by way of the so-called outreach programme undertaken at the time.
On the one hand was Zanu-PF, constituted from the previous Zapu and Zanu political parties and their liberation struggle organs namely, Zipra and Zanla, respectively – which waged the bitter, hard-won and difficult liberation war that culminated in democracy, freedom and independence.
The leadership of these political parties and organs was broadly nationalistic and traditionalist in disposition, with a Socialistic orientation. They received assistance and enjoyed the favour mainly of African, Eastern countries and other progressive parts of the world.
Their membership in general was prepared to put life and limb on the line to achieve their great and noble objectives or to endure any such suffering as was deemed necessary at the time to attain the same.
The youthful membership bore the brunt and carried the heaviest burden of the armed struggle.
Indeed, thousands paid the ultimate price both within and outside our borders, yet numerous others lost limbs or were maimed, and further, still, millions endured immense suffering imaginable for the cause, and are all now remembered, honoured and saluted for their efforts every August of each year during Heroes’ Day holidays, among other national days set aside for their remembrance and honour.
On the other hand, we had various formations of the Movement for Democratic Change (a rather surprising name given the then prevailing circumstances after democracy had been attained in 1980), of which the original and combined MDC first came into being in 1999, although a few of their members were also remotely associated with the above mentioned political struggle mainly.
Their leadership viewed itself as modern “Social Democrats”, and is largely of capitalist leanings. They enjoy great favour with the West.
Quite a number, though, in the general populace of Zimbabwe, view these formations as mere puppets of the former colonisers, who founded and fund them by way of donations, grants and/or aid or such similar funding extended to them, through the instrumentality of various NGOs known by a variety of names to collectively and mainly serve the interest of their Western masters.
Their membership accepts and adores Western cultural norms and values, no matter how strange and unnatural these may be at times, and consider these as superior to their own, to be taken on board by themselves without question.
The greater number of their youth are born-frees (born after 1980), and have a confused view and an overstated and exaggerated imagination of their capabilities, had they had the opportunity to participate in the armed struggle.
Most of the members are even prepared to share their God-given natural resources with these foreigners and even defend the right of entitlement to the same by these mainly Western nationals, notwithstanding that they themselves may not enjoy the same benefits and privileges in the countries of origin of these very foreign nationals.
Given the radically different mindsets at play and going into the constitution-making process, it was not surprising then that at the very tail end of the finalisation of the tentatively agreed Constitution, Zanu-PF came up with not less than 200 suggested amendments to the presumed final document.
What is not obvious, though, to the generality of Zimbabweans, was whether these suggested amendments were accommodated in their entirety in the final Constitution that went to the referendum, or that they were partially so accommodated or possibly even disregarded altogether.
In the likely event that the last two scenarios were in fact the case, it is my humble submission that the now ongoing alignments of subsidiary legislation and other legal instruments to the new Constitution, presents an opportune space and moment to effect these necessary amendments to the approved Constitution.
Advantage should, thus, also be taken to rectify and plug other glaring weaknesses and inadequacies in the currently approved Constitution.
Also given rampant corruption, cases of gross incompetence exposed of late, and the recent positive feedback from the general public to public interviews conducted in respect of High Court judges seeking promotion to the Supreme Court bench; we should also endeavour to have the same procedure made mandatory in respect of suggested appointments to other senior public offices in the amended Constitution or subsidiary legislation or legal instrument, whichever is most appropriate and feasible.
The ruling party should now proceed in this suggested manner, secure and comfortable in the knowledge that this is both procedurally in order and legal, given the more than two-thirds majority it enjoys in both Houses of Parliament.
We should avoid being stampeded in this realignment exercise, lest we align to a Constitution with avoidable flaws. Realignment of subsidiary legislation and other legal instruments to the Constitution are not mutually exclusive processes, and can, therefore, be done parallel, simultaneously and concurrently, in my view.
Such an exercise is not only efficient and effective, but makes good sense, cut out a lot of bureaucratic sloth, and time, and also achieves good value for money over time.
At the end of the day also, there is no need for another referendum on the amended Constitution, as the likely verdict by the electorate is foregone, right from the beginning, ab initio.
Constitutions by their very nature are supposed to last long, serving both current and future generations. Though not cast in stone, they are meant to last for centuries, with minimal amendments being made over time, if any.
A case in point here is the American constitution, crafted after the North Americans attained their independence from the British monarchy, which has had minimal amendments, if any, over centuries because it was well thought out and crafted by their best legal brains then, right from the very beginning.
They did not see the need for an outreach in their case, I am informed.
A well-crafted and thought-out constitution is the pride of a nation, a legacy to be enjoyed and cherished by both current and future generations.
There is no reason why Zimbabwe should not aspire for one such, given our heroic and exemplary historical background; and the fact that we pride ourselves in being among the most educated people in the world and the most literate in Africa.
