Include protection of sexual orientation in new Constitution
The First All-Stakeholders’ Conference for Zimbabwe’s new Constitution is set to begin later this week. Zanu PF has been asking that the conference be delayed, but the Parliamentary Select Committee insists it will go on as planned.
A lot of the debate about the new Constitution has revolved around the controversial Kariba Draft, and the question of how participatory the Constitution-making process will be. The National Constitutional Assembly has withdrawn from the process, insisting that the creation of a new Constitution needs to be people-driven, not Parliament-driven. They have also prepared a document highlighting the shortcomings of the Kariba Draft Constitution.
Less publicised has been the efforts of Zimbabwe’s marginalised communities to make sure their concerns are addressed and their human rights guaranteed in the country’s new Constitution. For example, a document by the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) outlines the reasons why sexual orientation should be included among the freedoms guaranteed in Zimbabwe’s new Constitution.
This document does not only argue for greater Constitutional protection for the rights of gays and lesbians. It also makes important points about a democracy’s need to protect the inalienable and inherent rights of all minorities, including the right to privacy and equality.
Fundamental human rights, existing by virtue of the holder’s very humanity, cannot be bought or negotiated, and cannot be reduced to a mere privilege dependant on State beneficence. As they derive from attributes of the human personality they exist perpetually and universally for all people and for all nations regardless of historical, cultural, ideological, economic or other differences.
I believe the more inclusive, participatory, and people-driven Zimbabwe’s Constitution-making process is, the stronger the document which comes out of it will be. This means not only including representation of a range of minorities at the All-Stakeholders’ Conference, but also protecting their rights in the document which is developed – regardless of the majority opinion about the “worth” of a community or the “morality” of their behaviour.