The basic qualification for voting in the Referendum is stated in section 6 of the Referendums Act: “Any person who satisfies the presiding officer of a polling station that he or she is eighteen years or above and is eligible to be registered as a voter on the voter’s roll” is eligible to vote.

It is not necessary to be a registered voter. Eligibility to be registered as a voter is all that is required. Voters’ rolls will not be used in the Referendum.

Documents Needed to Vote in the Referendum
At the polling station a voter must be able to provide proof of eligibility to vote. The new regulations stipulate what documents are needed [Regulations, section 3]. All the voter needs to do is to produce one of the following documents, on which “it is legibly shown that that the person is a citizen of Zimbabwe of or over the age of eighteen [18] years”:

Zimbabwe national identity document [except IDs of non-citizens - see more below] issued in terms of the National Registration Act [metal or plastic]

OR

“Waiting pass” which includes a photograph of the holder. A waiting pass is the document that one gets when applying for a national ID and that serves as proof of registration until the ID itself is received.

OR

A valid Zimbabwean passport.

Source: Veritas

On Friday morning as people were rushing to work I paid a visit to the barbershop. After spending almost a month without getting my hair cut, and also missing the city gossip from my barber man, I made my booking early.

As I was sitting on the bench waiting my turn I could hear whispering coming from two men sitting next to me. So I moved closer so that I could hear their discussion. I remember when I was growing up my mom used to tell me that men should not gossip but here I was eavesdropping and pretending to be reading the newspaper. I was staring at the COPAC draft Constitution summary published in the state-controlled newspaper.  Still trying to position my ears like a satellite receiver, my turn arrived and I grabbed the chair with my ears still attached to the conversation.

“Haa unonyepa haihwine” meaning you lie its not going to win. At first I thought it was a soccer match but later I heard names of political parties being mentioned. Why are these men whispering I asked my barber man?  He replied with a smile and said they are talking politics. They are arguing over the draft constitution, he added. The two gentlemen were in a debate on who will claim victory if the ‘YES” vote prevails in the referendum and does it also mean a certain party can triumph in the coming elections based on the referendum outcome. All I could hear were arguments – not many facts – maybe this was due to self-censorship, or maybe they hadn’t read a copy of the draft constitution.

Since this barbershop is also frequented by Members of Parliament (MPs),  I was told the debate started a week ago when one MP was saying that after the “YES” he predicts a win for his party in the harmonized elections in July. I asked for an opinion from my barber man and all he could say was that it depends on the situation.

Since it was a public place he was self-censoring his opinion.

Critics of regimes where hardships thrive are quickly labelled anti-revolutionary, pro-white capital and every epithet from the lexicon of rabid nationalists who have doubled their resolve to right past economic wrongs but in the process lost sight of their goals.

I recalled this when I watched on TV young fellows walking in celebration of the President’s birthday where the spokesperson of the young patriots parroted the kind of language that has come to define Zanu PF.

I did not know whether to laugh or cry.

You have on one hand youth NGOs being harassed by the repressive state apparatus, while many more others such as those who have emerged from academic hallways as student activists being hounded by men in dark glasses.

On the other extreme you have fellow youths adopting the lexicon of hate speech and you have to ask why the circumstances of this demographic can elicit such radically polar interpretations.

Are these young people from the same planet, you wonder.

Surely one’s political beliefs are a democratic right, yet when such differences are extant, you have to view this as a typical case of privilege pitted against deprivation.

And when you look at it like that, you obviously conclude that these people who would be saddled with the same post-independence “born-free” epithet from the usual suspects have different access to state resources when in fact that wealth ought to be universal.

And that is the tragedy of present day Zimbabwe.

Those “eating” from the trough of patronage imagine a perpetuation of the status quo, while the laggards aspiring for a piece of the national cake seek its end.

With elections approaching, it is no wonder then to see young people fighting each other, and the political elites who many agree long lost their relevance find these young mouths to reclaim that relevance.

It is Benjamin Disraeli who wrote in the political novel Sybil back in 1846 that: “The youth of a nation are the trustees of posterity.”

You have to ask yourself if this at all holds true here.

“It doesn’t matter how many months you give,” Tsvangirai told reporters. “If you have not already made a decision, I am sure that even if you are given 10 months you will never arrive at any decision. One month is sufficient.”

These are words of the Honorable Prime Minister himself. Its plain and simple, time doesn’t matter. The undecided mentioned by the Prime Minister need not worry because due to time constraints decision making is a waste of resources so just grab the draft copy being distributed and prepare to join the queue to surrender your vote.

ILLEGAL POLICE ACTION MUST BE CHALLENGED

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) is astounded by the most recent actions of the Zimbabwe Republic Police on Tuesday 19 February 2013, where through a press briefing, they launched an unwarranted assault on freedom of expression and access to information by purporting to ban citizens from possessing and distributing radios and similar communication devices.

In terms of Section 20 (i) of the Constitution every Zimbabwean is entitled to receive and impart information without any hindrance and the use of common technology such as radio, television or mobile phone is protected by law.

The utterances by the police are patently illegal. This so-called ban has no basis in law. The lengths to which State institutions and actors are now going to deny fundamental rights and freedoms and act outside the law is alarming but is typical of paranoid State authorities who are contemptuous of any diversity of opinion and information.

ZLHR is deeply committed to freedom of expression and access to information. It is also our firm and unshakeable belief that the police are the least expected to act outside the law considering that they are mandated in terms of Section 18 (1) to act lawfully and uphold the Constitution. We refuse to be passive spectators of such blatant violations and impunity, and as such ZLHR is preparing to challenge this purported ban through the courts imminently.

There’s a COPAC advert in the Herald today encouraging a Yes vote in the upcoming Referendum. This is wholly unacceptable. COPAC helped draft a new constitution for Zimbabweans to decide on; it’s not for COPAC to tell them what to do. It’s like Zanu PF using all of its machinery (media, and other pillars of power like the armed forces) to influence the outcome of elections. COPAC is going out into the field to hand out copies of the draft constitution and to encourage debate. They shouldn’t be using their funding, their resources and infrastructure to lobby for a yes vote on behalf of Zanu PF and the MDC. COPAC is completely undermining the democratic outcome of the referendum.