SOUTHERN AFRICAN POLITICAL ECONOMY SERIES

Fortnightly Seminars Series on

POLICY DIALOGUE PROGRAMME

Thursday 19 August 2010
5pm – 7pm SAPES Seminar Room
4 Deary Avenue, Belgravia, Harare

NATIONAL INTEREST, NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND NATIONAL HEROES; DEFINITION, STATUS AND FUNCTION?

Presenter: Obert Gutu, MP and Deputy Minister of Justice, Government of Zimbabwe

Discussant: Ibbo Mandaza, SAPES Trust

Chair: Cyril Ndebele, Former Speaker, Parliament of Zimbabwe

ALL WELCOME

SAPES Seminar Club Membership Forms available at seminar.

NB.  $10 entrance fee is charged for non-members.

The Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN) has issued a statement on the role of the Zimbabwe Police Force in elections. Check it out:

18 August 2010 – Harare – This statement is a response to an article that appeared on the 13th of August 2010 in the Zimbabwe Independent on the opposition to electoral reforms by the Police Commissioner General Augustine Chihuri.

Earlier this year political parties in the GNU agreed to reform electoral laws in Zimbabwe and this included among others a change in the role of the police in electoral processes. The three political parties in the inclusive government agreed to restrict the role of the police in electoral processes to maintaining law and order outside the polling stations as per international standards.

ZESN welcomed this development as the police’s role in previous elections overstepped the boundaries of maintaining law and order.

ZESN has over the years raised concern about the presence of the police in the polling stations which it views as intimidatory. The electoral insecurity argument that the Commissioner is allegedly proffering in his reported efforts to stall electoral reforms is blind to a number of issues pertaining to the role of the police in enhancing electoral democracy.  It is outside the polling station that voters are barred from entering the polling station. Police presence outside the polling station will aid in restraining political parties that campaign within 100 meters of the polling station. In addition, the deployment of the police outside the polling station will deter other forms of electoral irregularities similar to those that took place in June 2008 such as the recording of names of voters by some political parties.

Further, past elections have shown that electoral insecurity takes place well before and after voting while polling days have been largely peaceful, making the insecurity argument even weaker. ZESN seeks to reiterate that the role of the police in providing security to citizens has not been effectively executed as shown by the partial manner in dealing with cases of political violence in the past. The many complaints by victims of political violence between March and June 2008 that they did not get police protection for their persons and property but rather that they were arrested and prosecuted at the instance of their attackers made the electoral changes attractive.

Assisting voters:

In previous elections the role of the police in electoral processes has been contentious as it went beyond maintaining law and order to being present in the polling stations and being present when assisted voters were voting. ZESN has since welcomed the move to remove police presence when assisted voters where casting their vote and further recommended that those who are illiterate bring a trusted friend or relative to assist them and braille ballot papers for the visually impaired.

Postal voting:

In addition, the postal vote has been a thorny issue as the vote has been free from observer scrutiny and has been shrouded in secrecy. The application process has not been transparent and this lack of transparency has extended to the actual voting on issues that relate to the number of people in the security sector that will be eligible for postal voting, the number of ballot papers distributed, the actual voting process and counting of votes and the documented partisan pre-election statements by the Commissioner General.

The proposed reforms that provide for police officers to vote two days prior to polling are a welcome development that can foster transparency. There is no need for the police to vote thirty days before the poll as this removes confidence in the integrity of the process as it allows for tampering with ballot boxes and the outcome of the election. While the police sector was not audited, there is evidence that not all police officers need to be deployed outside the areas where they vote and so can vote in their respective areas where they are based.

ZESN recommends special voting as the case in most countries and not postal voting for the police. Voting that takes place two days before the election and which is also open to ZEC officials, the body that is mandated to run elections in Zimbabwe. We recommend that this process must be transparent and open to observation as well by both domestic and international observers and political parties. In the past postal voting took place before the accreditation of observers, which resulted in an opaque process that lends itself to much speculation, criticism and controversy, which damages the credibility of the country’s elections.

Members of the police as election officials:

ZESN is concerned with the fact that in the past police commanders have been engaged as presiding officers. The role of presiding over elections is best carried out by civilians and not the security sector. The role of the security sector in elections is to promote peace and ensure that the will of the people prevails. An independent and well resourced ZEC must be allowed free and unrestricted mandate to run the entire election while arms of government only play a supportive and not a participatory role. History has lessons.

It is against this backdrop that ZESN strongly condemns the proposed return of the police officers inside polling stations during polling and the use of police and security commanders as presiding officers when the police and military vote. ZESN continues to advocate for comprehensive electoral reforms that includes media reforms; security reforms; an overhaul of the voters’ roll; the creation of a conductive election environment; and transparency and accountability in the whole electoral process.

Zimbabwe Election Support Network, Zimbabwe Peace Project and Zimbabwe Lawyers For Human Rights have issued the following statement on violence during the current Constitutional outreach campaign:

A Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) outreach meeting was on Saturday 14 August, 2010 abandoned in Chipinge, Manicaland Province after some ZANU PF youths assaulted two villagers prior to commencement of the meeting.

The COPAC meeting was scheduled to be held at Checheche Primary School.

The villagers Charles Chovi and Charles Chunje were assaulted by some ZANU PF youths at Checheche Primary School, who were led by Tonderai Ngwendu and Gilbert Kombo, who used benches, boots and clenched fists.

The two villagers were accused of sitting on some benches which had been set up before the arrival of the COPAC team members for a meeting to solicit people’s input into a proposed draft constitution.

ZZZICOMP monitors who witnessed the incident reported that Chovi and Chunje sustained some injuries on their bodies and on the ear and sought medical attention at St Peters Hospital.

The COPAC meeting was called off after some villagers protested that the meeting could not proceed as some of them had been assaulted and intimidated before the arrival of the COPAC team members. Ngwendu and Kombo were fined by the police at Chisumbanje Police Station, who also asked Chovi and Chunje to pay an admission of guilty fine for engaging in public fighting.

Honourable David Chimhini confirmed the assault and the abandonment of the meeting. He said it was evident that some villagers had been intimidated before the arrival of the COPAC team and his team had to postpone the meeting to a date to be advised as tension was high at the meeting.

We featured an article on aid and NGOs in one of our Kubatana newsletters recently. Seems like the MDC’s Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga wants the government to monitor and audit the activities of NGOs in Zimbabwe.

All well and good but surely it should work both ways? When do Zimbabwean citizens ever encounter any accountability and transparency from the Unity Government? Like, for example, audited accounts of how revenue from toll gates is used? Or how revenue from City of Harare advertising is used?

Donors require strict financial and programming reporting from the beneficiaries of their funding. If NGOs don’t comply or perform to these high standards they lose their funding. Meanwhile, the Unity Government of which Ms Misihairabwi-Mushonga is a part of, seems to believe that they stand apart from any checks and balances.

Some of our subscribers responded like this:

Why does government all of a sudden want donors to account for its money? Do we know how government uses its funds; which by the way, come from tax payers? Why would government expect donors to be accountable to them when government itself is not accountable to its own citizens? I do not think this is a good move on the part of government, especially now when there is a dire need for funds and government is failing to meet its obligations. NGOs are providing the much-needed food, clean water, agricultural inputs to citizens. Government has clearly failed to meet its obligations. Look what happened in 2008 when we had the cholera outbreak. UNICEF and other NGOs moved in and provided clean water and treatment. Right now clinics are functioning, obviously thanks to NGOs, which ever ones they are. So, is this another example of government shooting itself in the foot?  It does not make sense for a man to start harassing someone who is feeding his family when he has no capacity to do so himself. Minister Misihairabwi-Mushonga should tell us the real reasons for this requirement; she surely does not expect us to believe that this is the norm everywhere in the world? Even if it is, other countries are normal with normal governments. We on the other hand, have a dysfunctional government and one would hardly describe our situation as normal. I hope the Minister does not think that we are all so stupid we would think government is worried about us-we know they are not, ZANU PF or MDC.

I do agree  with Jona Mapako who responded on ZimIand forum saying . . . I think the minister has lost it. The government can only decide where its own money goes. The fact that there are donors reflects failure on government’s part to care for its citizens. This however is very true . our country has made head lines not because of anything but our corrupt politicians whose corrupt minds and actions led to the fall of the Zimbabwean dollar. Channeling all funds to the government will only misuse this money just as they always do. Chakatanga ndicho chakachenjedza to hell with them wanting to own everything. Minister Priscilla is beginning to sound  Zanu pf or has she been promised something in all this. Is she being controlled by someone? “We try to put aid where it’s most effective, and I don’t believe having a rule that says everything must be one way or another. As it stands right now the bulk of our aid goes directly to communities and goes through NGOs,” as said. By the US Ambassador is very true. I believe there is nothing wrong with this. Even the Bible says there is more joy in giving than in receiving but rest assured if your efforts are directed to the wrong destination then you simply have not achieved your goal which is to help. My conclusion is NO to government control over the funds. Them controlling the NGO’s is okay but not their activities and funds.

I think the minister is very right, the government should know who the donors are dealing with, in a way it’s a matter of national security. This is our country Zimbabwe and it is the government which acts as custodian of our safety, our peace, and our resources. It is therefore prudent for them, as custodians, to know everything that transpires within or outside the boarders of Zimbabwe as long as it has a bearing on the life of any Zimbabwean. Whether it is aid or what, the government has to know because they are answerable to us, citizens of this beautiful country, Zimbabwe.  I salute the stance taken by Madam Honourable Minister.

I second the notion that the Minister, (Misihairabwi-Mushonga) has lost it, and has lost it big time. I am sure she has come along a saying which goes like, “beggars are not choosers”.Honestly , have they thought of what would happen if those donors decide to pull out?

Decision on NGOs threatens Western aid

A government decision to police non-governmental organisations working in Zimbabwe threatens future support from Western countries whose funds have been critical in curbing humanitarian disasters, a top diplomat has said.

Regional Integration and International Cooperation minister Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga said the government last week told donors and ambassadors from donor countries that they should inform government of their activities, total funding into the country and the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that they were working with.

But the United States (US), which is one of Zimbabwe’s biggest donors, warned yesterday that such a move would be disastrous, mainly because it was not practical to make such demands when donors were doing their best under the current environment where their options were limited due to restrictions levelled against some people in the inclusive government.

However, Misihairabwi-Mushonga insisted that donors and NGOs should abide by the rules and regulations government has set out for donor funding. Misihairabwi-Mushonga, who chairs the recently set up Government Development Forum in which 10 ministers sit with donors and ambassadors to discuss policy and problematic issues regarding donor funding, said government should be the dominant player in aid co-ordination and aid-distribution. She said she would soon be compiling a database of the total number of donors and the NGOs in the country, programmes that they finance, size and quantity of funding and the criteria they use to select their beneficiaries.

“It is the government that defines where aid should go. We now require everyone in the country to inform us about their aid work, how much they are spending and which areas they are working on. Right now we don’t know and are not sure who is doing what or working with whom and through which NGOs,” said Misihairabwi-Mushonga.

However, US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray told the Zimbabwe Independent yesterday that he did not believe in a government dictating rules on how they should operate, adding that what worked at the moment, because of the restrictions on Zimbabwe, was to channel aid through NGOs or directly to communities.

“We try to put aid where it’s most effective, and I don’t believe having a rule that says everything must be one way or another. As it stands right now the bulk of our aid goes directly to communities and goes through NGOs,” he said.

“The essential philosophy of US aid and the way I influence wherever I work is… I refuse to have someone write a set of rules and tell me that I must follow those rules, I look for what works.”

Misihairabwi-Mushonga said what they are doing is the accepted norm in any country in the world. “They have to know that they are dealing with a country which has a government and they will have to follow certain rules. They can’t just operate in this country the way they want.”

Source: Faith Zaba, The Zimbabwe Independent

In a Kubatana newsletter in June we asked our subscribers to state what they believe to be the most serious political issue in Zimbabwe today, and suggest a solution. Please read the submissions below and let us know which one tops Your list.

1. Inability to consider the impact of one’s actions and how this affects others, the environment and future generations.
2. Consider the impact of my actions on a daily basis and to teach this by living it out in my life.

1. The social or political issue in Zimbabwe is that leaders stay in power too long. They know that they have cases to answer to and that the law will catch up with them.
2. To have new broom and have all new leaders and I am sure from this you will have a country with actual laws.

1. The only serious or critical issue in Zimbabwe is governance. Once this country is properly governed all the shortages of everything required for a person to live a common life will disappear.
2. What is required is not only the change of government but a democratically elected government with a democratically minded leadership. All I can say is that the shambles we are in at the moment is caused by mismanagement. Zimbabwe is rich but where our natural resources are channelled is a mystery. All the government arms are corrupt so unless we appoint dedicated and dynamic leaders in all government institutions we will become poorer and poorer when our country is rich with natural resources which require committed people to manage.

1. I am convinced that the most serious political issue in Zimbabwe is greed. All our political leaders tend to forget their past promises in pursuit of self aggrandisement. Had it not been for greed, our dear comrades from the MDC could nave quit this malfunctioning inclusive government. But because they still have porous backgrounds to fill the Mudzuris are being quite bitter about being called under performers.
2. I think the most practical solution is to have a leadership code that determines what those in power should own and how much money they earn.

1. I consider the Constitution Making Process to be the most serious social or political issue in Zimbabwe. We can only come up with a meaningful constitution if it really represents the needs of the people of Zimbabwe. However, one is bound to question its credibility if the outreach phase is marred by violence.
2. The three principals should facilitate campaign awareness programmes to stop violence during the outreach programmes. In addition, the legislators should not stifle the process by demanding exorbitant allowances. Finally, the sample should be representative for validity and to avoid bias.

1. Zanu-PF
2. Trials

1. The most serious political issue is the Dictatorship of Zanu-PF.
2. This can be solved through the unity of the people standing up and speaking with one voice.

1. I think the most serious political issue in Zimbabwe is the probability of having free and fair elections.
2. The only major step to solve the problem is coming up with a constitution that that gives a platform for free and fair elections.

1. The most serious social or political issue in Zimbabwe is leaders who cling to power regardless of their failures to rule the country.
2. The practical steps I would take to address the issue is to highlight to them the areas in which they have failed.

A couple of weeks ago I published a blog about Africa’s Old Men and how they insist in staying in power for so long. In a print publication we re-published this blog and asked Zimbabweans to text us their suggestions as to why these old men don’t, or won’t, take early retirement.

Here are some of the text messages that we received:

Dictatorship keeps african leader in power for so long. They use guns and the army to put fear in people.

African leaders stay in power due to undemocratic methods they use to rule their states.

They kip in pwer 4 so long becoz they are 2 greedy and ful of coruption.

Afraid to be arrested greedy cruel uneducated etc

AFRICAN LEADERS FEAR THAT ONCE OUT OF POWER ICJ WIL AREST THEM THEY KILED TORTURED IMAGINE HOUSES DEMOLISHED ZIMBABWE

African leaders keep in power for so long because of (i) Power hungury & (ii) they don’t respect the voice of us unpriviledged poor and the majorite.

African leaders keep in power for so long becaz they are all dictators and they fear to answer cases if the leave the office.

Many afrcn leaders abuse public offce and as a result they fear to resgne and wil hold on to power even if it means starving or killng their people they d.nt mind.

African leaders stay in power coz they are all dictators. Most of them comited crimes of genocide so they hang on 2 power 4 fear of possible persecution.