In Zimbabwe I recently traveled in the back of pick-up truck with several other people.  At one point the truck stopped to pick up a man along the route to town.  In his attempt to get onto the truck, he held onto a woman who was seated next to me. She protested; she did not fancy any man besides her husband holding her shoulder.

There was an angry retort from the man, who felt that the situation called for a suspension of what he termed ‘stupid and immature’ moral stands. There was a chorus of condemnation of the woman; with some saying it was the likes of her who pretended to be saintly in public, but were in reality, ‘snakes’. As much as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to rape a woman.

I was not happy with the way the helpless woman’s rights were being violated and I said as much.  It was well within the woman’s rights to choose who held her shoulder and who did not; the circumstances did not matter. She did not want her shoulder held by another man, end of story.

Why should anyone ever say, what could I have done? The doctor asked me to strip me naked, what could I have done? You could have said you are not comfortable and you will not do it. I have heard people say it is backward for a woman to demand that a female nurse examine her. Well, it is within her rights to demand that a male nurse not touch her and that a male doctor not ask her to undress. It is well within her rights to be ‘backward’.

Malaysia recently introduced women only train coaches.  Those women who are not comfortable with harassment from men can travel in peace. Those who are okay with their bottoms being slapped and obscenities shouted at them are free to travel on the regular coaches. That is what I call upholding human rights!

Why should we see abuse of human rights only in the political sense; the burning of buttocks, burning of homes and so on. If someone is made uncomfortable in any way then a human right has been violated, it does not matter how many believe otherwise. Human rights, especially women’s rights, have been trampled upon so much that rape is now considered a small infringement that should be ignored. Young girls cannot move in peace as ‘suitors’ lay ambushes for them. I know of a number of young girls who refuse to be sent to the shops. They would rather face the wrath of their parents than face the vagabonds on the way.

As long as we do not see the violation of human rights as making someone or group of people uncomfortable regardless of their numbers or how trivial we think their case is, then we are a long way off.  No one should ever say, ‘what could have done?’

‘The teacher asked me to come to the storeroom and fondled my breasts, what could I have done?’

‘The doctor inserted his fingers into my vagina, even though I did not understand that my vagina had anything to do with my headache. What could I have done?’

‘The taxi driver asked us to pile into the taxi, women on top of men, what could I have done? The situation demanded it.’

‘The police officers whipped us, despite the fact that it is taboo for a man to lay hands on a woman without her consent. What could I done, he is a police officer.’

‘The human resources manager asked me to hold the desk. What could I have done, I wanted the job desperately?’

No one should ever say, what could I have done? Because there is always a choice, always a decent and dignified way out.  I remember a case when I was growing up of a man who used his wife to pay off his gambling debt. He instructed the guy he owed money to, to go to his place and ‘have’ his wife. The wife ‘consented’. After years of abuse, she could not think of going against her husband’s wishes, but she could have. In narrating her ordeal, the refrain was, ‘What could I have done?’  She could have said no, because she was not comfortable with the whole nonsensical setup. But she did not take the dignified way out.

In our fight for human rights, we should make sure that no one ever says, ‘What could I have done?’ What could I have done is not the dignified way out.

‘Religion is the opium of the masses’ so the saying goes and it would seem for many Zimbabwean women, Christianity is not just a religion – it is also an escape route.

Attending church, following the routine and keeping religious observances have become a form of escapism for many women in the age of HIV as they try to apply biblical teachings to their marriages, relationships and lives at a time when hypocrisy has become a prevalent trend in most churches.

Considering that a great proportion of women are Christians, most of them adhering to Christian doctrines, it follows that the impact of HIV on our society must be interrogated within the confines of religious teachings and what church leaders are feeding their flock.

A year ago, the Roman Catholic Church’s Pope Benedict XVI provoked much outrage for re-affirming the papacy’s position on condom use – a position that has been widely accepted by other Christian groupings who all teach that fidelity within heterosexual marriage and abstinence are the best ways to stop AIDS.

Dismissed at the time as being ‘unrealistic and irrelevant’ the Pope’s position however reflects the dominant thinking within the Christian community in Zimbabwe and the response to HIV has been lukewarm, uninspired and in most instances impracticable, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, for married women the church prescribes fidelity and yet most married women have non-believing husbands who do not subscribe to the teachings of the church regarding fidelity and moral uprightness. This leaves the Christian women in the lurch as they cannot effectively apply Christian teachings to their personal lives without the cooperation, consent and sanction of their spouses.

Moreover, the Christian woman is not encouraged to assert any rights over her body because Christian teaching insists that she has no autonomy over her body, if it does not belong to the Lord then it belongs to her husband so using condoms is out of the question.

Needless to say, Christian women are not expected to negotiate for safer sex even in instances when they know their spouses have been unfaithful being advised by the well-meaning church leadership and counselors to ‘pray for their errant husband, fast and trust in the Lord’.

Whilst it is admirable for one to demonstrate their faith by praying for divine intervention to ensure that one does not contract HIV from an unfaithful partner with whom they go on to engage in unsafe sex with; how many Christian women find their way to an early grave as a result?

In many instances, pulpit sermons fail to address the specific needs, fears and concerns of congregants, of which women form the majority.

Women are not encouraged to actively take responsibility for protecting themselves from contracting HIV nor are they expected to demonstrate any inclination towards understanding and exercising their sexual reproductive rights.

In some instances, women who are married to dodgy religious leaders are often worse off than their congregants as they have to keep up appearances and often find no support system within the church.

The general assumption is that church leaders are beyond reproach, well they should be, but at times they too, succumb to the pesky desires of the flesh.

For most women, being cheated on is humiliating but for Christian women, the experience also casts aspersions on them as believers because people question where their God was when the hubby was romping around in the arms of another woman.

They blame themselves for not clocking in enough hours in the ‘prayer closet’ or for letting the devil in to their marriage by not fasting enough or some such nonsense failing to realize that they are victims and not the villains.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that Christian teachings often have a fall guy handy every time things go awry – quite simply, the devil takes all the blame and people just don’t take responsibility for their actions.

As a compromise, one may concede that they were ‘tempted’ and then ‘led astray’ none of which conveys any real conscience intent on the part of the individual to do wrong or make unwise and risky sexual choices.

By giving the sexual infraction, known as fornication or adultery in Christian discourses, a spiritual premise, i.e it’s the devil that caused it – the reasonable response for the average Christian woman is a spiritual one, that is, prayer and fasting to counter this spirit of adultery.

The very real threat posed by HIV is not addressed in all this spiritual abstractness.

It is possible that AIDS is one disease that has exposed the limitations of the church in so far as empowering and equipping women is concerned.

Some of the solutions women come up with are not only absurd they are really religious rhetoric emanating from reckless and overzealous pulpit outbursts.

Addressing delegates at a SAFAIDS workshop held to commemorate 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence in 2009, an exasperated Edinah Masiyiwa, the Executive Director of the Women’s Action Group (WAG), stated that some Christian doctrines were harming efforts to combat gender violence and curb the spread of HIV.

“We run all these awareness campaigns and yet it appears that things get worse instead of better. You talk of condomizing and then to your surprise you find grown women uttering silly statements like ‘ini handishandise condom nemurume wangu ndinongonamata kuti Mwari ngaave condom rangu’ (I don’t need to wear a condom because I just pray for God’s protection),” charged Miss Masiyiwa.

So while women ‘in the world’ may perceive themselves as being at risk of contracting HIV and take measures to protect themselves, the women in the church are exhorted to pray, fast and “confess the blood of Jesus” over themselves.

Based as much on patriarchal thinking as African culture, what real chance does Christianity have of offering women a refuge other than making them easier and willing victims of abuse as well as other forms of injustice while reminding them how ‘blessed” it is to be “meek”.

According to Arkmore Kori, a Kubatana subscriber, our Constitution making awareness programme is focusing on unimportant issues. He suggests that issues such as homosexuality and gender are clouding more major concerns relating to governance and leadership. Here’s his article:

Zimbabwe is being administered by an undemocratically elected government largely because of some constitutional challenges that have made elections worthless. Of course, we already know the election ‘winner’ if elections are held under the present constitution. Thus the current constitutional making process was mainly conceived to allow for free and fair elections so Zimbabweans would be governed by leaders of their choice.

Despite a lot of resources being channelled towards new constitution making, it is unfortunate that two relatively trivial issues – homosexuality and gender – which can’t retrieve us from our leadership and governance crisis, have dominated the constitutional awareness campaigns.

Although most claim homosexuality is alien to Africa, there is evidence it was practiced in Buganda (now Uganda) in the 19th century particularly by Kabaka Mwanga who assumed kingship (or Kabakaship) at the age of eighteen in 1884. This is no justification for legalising homosexuality in the new constitution because who should care what people do behind closed doors? By and large, homosexuality is a bedroom issue, which does not influence the leadership and governance in this country.

Similar concerns can also be raised on gender, which is repossessing the fame it had soon after its invention, although gender sensitive legislation such as the Domestic Violence Act have been passed. Perhaps gender activists are justified to complain about gender legislative implementation and of course, more and more women opportunities, regardless of competence. But constitutional advocacy for women’s rights have been used to shroud discussions on the main issues as if the new constitution is largely intended to address gender imbalances.

Among others, the current constitution gives the Executive too much power. This has stifled democracy, good governance and the rule of law. The President’s power to appoint the Attorney General and the Chief Justice, for example, has compromised the judiciary’s independence and consequently, election processes and outcomes.

The release of the March 2008 election results, for instance, were unlawfully and deliberately delayed. Court appeals by the opposition were ignored.  Political activists have been incarcerated and arbitrarily arrested whilst some have been tortured or murdered by known people who have never been prosecuted because the judiciary has not yet been given the instruction by its proprietor.

Similarly, one would expect discussions on the Access to Information and Privacy Act (AIPPA) to top the constitutional discussion agenda ahead of gender or homosexuality. The electronic media has been a monopoly of the ruling party, and has enabled it to spread its election propaganda at the expense of other political parties. Its polarization and the extent to which its owners dislike a new constitution have been shown by the absence of constitutional awareness information on both radio and television. If ‘station identification songs’ were composed for Fast Track Land Reform Programme and bearer cheques awareness raising, why can’t the same be done for the new constitution?

This prejudice is augmented by the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), which has seen major election meetings of the opposition being indefinitely postponed or called off. Historically, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been fearless to take up such ‘sensitive’ issues. Unfortunately they are receiving binding instructions from the state controlled community entry points. Permission into communities for constitutional discussions is given on condition NGOs and communities do not talk about anything concerning the Executive’s dictatorial powers, President’s term of office; the Kariba Draft, AIPPA, and POSA. Possibly, this is why some have turned to ‘soft’ issues such as gender and homosexuality.

During the month of April, Kubatana opened up the phone lines, SMS receivers and email addresses to solicit questions about the Constitution making process from across Zimbabwe. Throughout May, Advocate Eric T. Matinenga, Minister of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs, answers these questions.

Every weekday, we will be posting a new question for people to listen to – phone 0914 186 280 up to 7 to listen to the answers now, in English, Shona and Ndebele.

Each week, we will also be posting the answers on www.kubatana.net

1. What is the purpose of the Constitution of Zimbabwe? How does the Constitution of Zimbabwe differ from an organisational Constitution – e.g. a youth group

Now, when we are talking about a Constitution, we are talking about a law which overrides any other law in the country. In legal parlance, it is called the Supreme Law of the Land. Because it is the supreme law of the land, everybody resident in that country is obliged to obey it. And anything or any law which is inconsistent with that Constitution is invalid. So you can see that whilst a Constitution should be obeyed by everybody in the country, the Constitution of a voluntary organisation only binds those members who belong to that organisation.

I notice that this question came from Mutare. So if you’ve got maybe the Sakubva choral society, it means that that society has got a Constitution which only binds the members of that organisation. I stay in Harare, and I’m not in their choir. So I’m not bound by the Constitution of that choral society. But, whether you’re a member of that choral society, or whether you are Minister Matinenga who is in Harare, if you are a resident of Zimbabwe, we are all bound by the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

2. Today’s question came from Kudzie, who asked How long is the Constitution making process going to take? When will the outreach programme start, and why has it been so delayed?

Firstly, Constitution making is a process. It is not an event. So when we hear people saying that there is nothing happening in the Constitution making process, one needs to know what is happening on the surface and what is going on in the background, so as to know whether we are still on track, or have gone off track.

We go back to February 2009 to start the Constitution making process in this country. And we go back even further to September 2008 to the agreement between the political parties as to how the Constitution making process should be conducted in this country. After February 2009, with the swearing in of the inclusive government, we were then obliged to put in place the Select Committee. That was done. We were then obliged to hold the first All Stakeholders Conference. That was done in July 2009. I think a lot of you, particularly those of you who have access to television, remember the real disturbance we had in July, and some of you will remember that after that disturbance, the three principals addressed a joint conference, and stated in very clear terms that the Constitution making process was not negotiable, and that this process will be seen to its very end. I am glad that the indications up to now are that we are on our way to fulfil this important requirement of the GPA, even though we are a bit slow.

Now after the First All Stakeholders Conference, we were able to establish Constitutional Themes, in respect of which persons identified are to address these themes. The persons who are going to address these themes have been identified. These are the persons who are going to take part in the outreach programme which will get under way very shortly. We have also trained the rapporterus, who are the persons who are going to be reporting what each and every person says during the outreach meetings.

The outreach programme will be rolled out, I believe, around the middle of May. It may be towards the end of May, but I am confident that come mid-May we will be able to roll it out.

After the outreach, the draft Constitution will then be crafted by the experts, and I can assure you that it is not going to be the Matinenga Draft. Nor is it going to be the Tsvangirai or Mugabe or Mutambara Draft. It is going to be a draft which is going to be crafted by experts who are going to be looking at what you said during the outreach, and who will then gather what you said into a draft Constitution.

After that draft has been done, we are going to go to a Second All Stakeholders Conference. From there, we go to a referendum, which gives you the people the chance to see whether what you said in the outreach is contained in the draft and is what is being presented to you in the referendum. I am sure that that will be in order and that what the people say is not going to be tampered with. I foresee, in terms of time table, that by April 2011 we should have a Constitution that has passed through Parliament and has been adopted by Zimbabwe.

3. Today’s question came from Philebon, who asked: What is the role of the Kariba Draft in the Constitution making process?

People must not fear. They must not be taken in when people say the Kariba Draft will determine the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Let me assure people that there is no special place for the Kariba Draft in the Constitution making process. What we have agreed as the three political parties is that the outreach team should be gathering information on the basis of talking points. These talking points have been agreed by the political parties, and whilst the persons involved are obviously not going to be too particular about these points – because they need to be as inclusive as possible – nobody is going to be waving the Kariba Draft, nor any other draft for that matter, in the outreach meetings. So people should feel free, when they attend these outreach meetings, that they need to contribute to the making of the Constitution for Zimbabwe.

4. In Matabeleland and Midlands, if there is no devolution of power we will vote no in the referendum. What is the position on devolution of power?

This comment is about how the people of Matabeleland and Midlands will respond if presented with a Constitution which they believe does not provide for devolution of power.

Now let me clarify this point. When you talk about devolution of power, we are not talking about devolution to particular provinces. When you talk of devolution of power, you are talking about devolution to every province, to every local authority. So it is not an issue which should only be a concern for Matabeleland or Midlands, it is an issue which should be a national concern. What is important is that the people in the Midalnds and Matabeleland provinces, and the people in all the other provinces, must understand what devolution is, and what they want for devolution in the Constitution, and then must articulate this position when the outreach programme comes to their area.

When you talk about devolution, you must talk about meaningful devolution. You must talk about both economic and political power at the local level. People talk about devolution and they say we have it now. But when you look at the type of devolution we have now, we have got a devolution which unfortunately answers to the central authority. Your governors are appointed by the President. Your local council answer to the Minister of Local Government. And when you look at economic devolution, you will find that there is really nothing at local level which builds local institutions. So when we are talking about devolution, we must know what we are talking about, and proceed to articulate positions for meaningful political and economic devolution.

5. Today’s question has come from a number of people, including Malile, Marlene, Peter and Cicely, who asked: What are the provisions for citizenship? How will citizenship by birth be determined?

When you talk about citizenship, you are talking about belonging – not in terms of a club, but in terms of the country. So if you belong to Zimbabwe, then you are a citizen of Zimbabwe. But you are only a citizen of Zimbabwe if you can trace that belonging, that citizenship, by birth – either because you were born here, or because your parents or grandparents were born in Zimbabwe. You can trace your citizenship by descent – because your parents or grandparents were Zimbabwean. Or by registration, whereby you have sufficiently stayed in Zimbabwe that the laws of Zimbabwe consider you as somebody who already is a Zimbabwean.

I know that this issue is a major concern in regards to two types of person. Firstly, this issue is a concern for those persons who come from neighbouring countries, or whose parents come from neighbouring countries, like Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique. These people were born in Zimbabwe, but in the last elections were rudely told that, because they claim another citizenship, they are not allowed to vote.

I also know that this issue arises for persons who were born in Zimbabwe, who have been in Zimbabwe for quite a bit of time, but who have been forced by circumstances to leave Zimbabwe and stay in other countries. This is what we call the Diaspora.

Now I have always held the view that it is very unfair that in 1980, the people whom we now call non-citizens were allowed to vote. And they voted for certain political parties. But because we now believe that maybe those persons are going to be voting differently, now those persons should not be allowed to vote because those persons are considered non-citizens.

I think this Constitution should address this very critical issue, and I think this Constitution should seek to make it possible for persons who are born in this country to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship, to enjoy the right to vote, and the right to hold a passport. Also, when you look at the Diaspora, I think it is also important that, until such time that we get our politics and our economics right, that we should allow for what we call dual citizenship so that these people in the Diaspora are able to participate in the political and economic activities of this country.

You can listen to the Minister answer these questions here and view pictures too.

If you have a question on the Constitution that you’d like him to address, please leave a comment on this blog.

Social and political commentator, Psychology Maziwisa, suggests that the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is taking the support of Zimbabweans for granted, and that they need to reassess their priorities.  Here is his latest article:

MDC doesn’t get it

Taking things for granted has for a very long time been the hallmark of African politics and apparently the MDC is no exception.

Over the years Zimbabweans have come to share a common and overwhelming detestation of Mugabe and his selfish mob engendered by repression, extra-judicial killings, torture, mismanagement, self-aggrandisement, plunder and all the rest of it.

When Zimbabweans felt they were being taken for a ride by Mugabe, they very readily and rightly transferred their confidence to the MDC. They did so in the full and fervent belief that their concerns as a people were likely to be much better understood by a government under MDC leadership.

Unfortunately attempts to democratically elect a government in accord with the will of the people have all but failed because Mugabe and ZANU PF are allergic to democracy.

However, when Tsvangirai agreed to share power with Mugabe in 2008 the overwhelming opinion was that, although to share power in circumstances where he clearly was the winner amounted to a travesty of fairness and democracy, his options were limited.

Equally overwhelming was the sense that things would improve for the better – and they have to some extent. However, the improvement has not been fundamental enough to offer a clean break from the past. It has not been enough to restore the dignity of the majority of Zimbabweans.

To be fair to the MDC, the tyrant has not made it, and will never make it, particularly easy for Tsvangirai to bring about reform as quickly and as decisively as he probably would have wanted. That is the simple reality.

But here is another simple reality: anti-MDC sentiment is mounting and it is mounting at a pace so swift that it just may become impossible to contain if people’s support is continually taken for granted.

While support for the MDC abroad may still be intact, in Zimbabwe it is falling to pieces.

The reckless regard for Tsvangirai and the MDC as political saints and, to the extent that reform has not been as smooth as it could be, as victims, is misplaced.

The fact of the matter is that, almost two years into the arrangement, Tsvangirai is still very much a part of it- clear evidence that despite its imperfection, there is some kind of understanding between the parties in government.

When that government fails it is not just Mugabe that fails, Tsvangirai and Mugabe necessarily fail together.

For their part, Tsvangirai and the MDC have not done enough to deal decisively with real issues such as teachers’ salaries, tertiary education, media reform, inhuman prison conditions, poverty and disease.

Annoyingly the explanation usually given in response to questions about why, two years on, not much has been done, is simply that government has no money.

It was the MDC’s Tendai Biti who approved an expenditure of over R100 million per semester for the education of Zimbabwean students at South African Universities, most of whom are the offspring of the political elite of this country. (Bear in mind there are two semesters in an academic year and an average degree spans three years.)

It was the MDC’s Tendai Biti who just recently disbursed an estimated US$6.3 million to the Information and Technology Ministry headed by Nelson Chamisa.

While up-to-date communications and information technology (CIT) is vital in the modern world, it is not a top priority for Zimbabwe right now.

It boggles the mind, therefore, how and why that kind of money could be made available for those purposes when the country’s constitution-making process has been stalled because the government is failing to make good on its obligation to fully provide the US$8 million required for the process to get under way.

Chamisa wants millions of dollars to revive the ‘veins and arteries’ of communication. An estimated 2 million of our people will need food aid by the end of this year and all he cares about is revive the ‘veins and arteries’ of communication! Who is going to revive the veins and arteries of our starving people?

What the hell is wrong with these people? What is needed is decisive action on the real issues and not on self-serving agendas.

Despite the ignominy our dear old dictator heaps on the United States, Hillary Clinton recently revealed that her country pledges US$300 million each year in aid to our government. $US300 million per year is not enough to bail Zimbabwe out of its economic crisis but it is a lot of money nonetheless. And since Tsvangirai and the MDC have been in government for over a year they are just as accountable for it as Mugabe is. Where is that money?

When Zimbabweans insist on more being done even as they are aware that the country has no money- thanks to individuals who are pocketing the proceeds of Chiadzwa and several other mines and companies- they do so not because they are naive. It is because they believe that more time could be spent on pleading for aid and less, if any at all, on calling for the removal of targeted sanctions.

It is because they believe that more time could be spent on making sure that all the proceeds of our natural resources are used for the sole purpose of benefiting the country and less, if any at all, on harvesting blows at Harvest House.

That is what a serious government does. It is what the MDC is failing to do as a partner in the unity government.

There is much more to Tsvangirai and the MDC’s task in the unity government than to always and ineffectually declare anything and everything ‘null and void’.

It is their task, among other things, to bring about political reform. It is their task to plead with the donor community to put ideology aside, to open their hearts and help the people of Zimbabwe in every way possible. That is not happening right now. If it is, it is not being pursued vigorously and effectively.

Zimbabweans invested so much hope and expectation in the MDC yet today there is little to show for it. To date there remains a deep-seated, underlying economic anxiety in our country. That is why teachers are increasingly threatening to go on a nationwide strike. It is precisely why the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) is becoming increasingly critical of the MDC.

Many are now of the justified view that the MDC is losing sight of what it is fighting for in the struggle against ZANU PF.

That struggle, they correctly argue, is about putting the needs of people before claiming and clinging to leadership positions.

It is about guarding against treating teachers as cheap labour.

It is about ensuring that university students throughout the country are able to study in well–resourced colleges- more particularly, that they can sit for their exams without fear of being barred because of unpaid tuition.

It is about ensuring that thousands of precious children do not die needlessly every year from preventable diseases.

That is what the struggle is all about. Sadly these hopes and expectations are not being realized even with the MDC as part of government.

The MDC is really going to need to pull something special out of the bag to renew their covenant with the people.

No party can claim to have an absolute monopoly over the politics of our country. Not ZANU PF. Not the MDC. If the MDC continues to take the support of the people for granted, it does so at its own peril.

They can no longer continue to circumvent the ever loud and clear calls for swift, tangible and decisive action without serious consequences for the image and support base of their party.

My morning yesterday at HIFA was filled with a sense of awe when I attended a play titled “The Woman Who Didn’t Belong To A Political Party”. I absolutely loved this play. It is really about what Mbuya Nehanda went through and that she gave birth to a spirit of resistance that ushered in a new Zimbabwe. I must honestly say that being born in Bulawayo I have always seen her as a Shona people heroine more than an Ndebele people one. But I changed that view now that I know that her selfless act was for all Zimbabweans young or old, black or white who now live together as one. What made me see things differently in this play is that it is done by cast members from Bulawayo.This made me really realize that Mbuya Nehanda’s story is relevant to all Zimbabweans at large. Its a pity that their show is now finished because I would have really loved the young people of this generation to see it and maybe they would see things differently . . . that its ok to do good; praises can still be sung about you long after you are gone.