When some people say Zimbabwe is a lawless country, buffoons imagine it to mean warlords roaming the streets a la Siad Barre’s Mogadishu. Because white farmers are no longer being killed on farms, oh well, you see we are a law abiding lot. My ass! You only need the very bad example of belligerent and fictitious veterans of the liberation struggle and how they have been left by the law enforcement agents to run riot and threaten the life and limb of poor Tendai Biti.

Surely if anyone besieged any brazenly incompetent Zanu PF minister’s office we all know they would get the baton stick and tear smoke treatment and as many a dare devil activist knows – including lawyers by the way – blissless nights await them at Matapi and Khami. Hey, these scoundrels are threatening the life of an elected government official. It could still be disgruntled small-scale farmers bum-rushing the offices of the unelected Joseph Made rightfully demanding that the GMB pays them seasons-old debts! He would still get protection. You see, thence the law ain’t choosy, only the colours. Talk about a blind ass!

But then I feel silly saying it because everyone knows this. That’s where the lawlessness comes in. If there was respect for the rule of law, the hooliganism of these broke-ass louts would have been dealt with already. The rather eerie thing for me is that it usually takes one moron who has given up on looking for a job but firmly believes Biti is “refusing with our money” to throw a fist, a Molotov, a brick at the FinMin before everybody wakes up to the actions of these lawless and dangerous elements. Only then will Zanu PF start disowning them.

The irony is that each time some whacky outfits come out claiming mayhem in the name of Zanu PF, Secretary for Administration Didymus Mutasa, spokesperson Rugare Gumbo are ever as quick as an MDC supporter escaping Zanu PF midnight marauders that these Chipangano clones are not from the Zanu PF family of law-abiding Zimbabweans. But not when the vets physically accost a government minister! (Not vets as in veterinarians, someone said the behaviour of the veterans borders on the illiterate, so you have to juxtapose that with an illiterate veterinarian before you confuse the two “vets”! ) So what happened to the special protection unit for ministers if there ever was such a thing?

And I can already imagine them frothing in the mouth reading this – and their response to this blog? “We will beat the crap out of this guy.” I am laughing already.

I read a report carried in this week’s edition of the Sunday News on “civil societies” being part of the MDC’s 13th anniversary celebrations in Bulawayo.

It was in essence a reporter’s opinion veiled as a news item (but then that’s not new for Zimpaper scribes) and was very disapproving of these “civil societies” being part of the day’s proceedings. It is obvious these reporters don’t bat an eyelid about being Janus faced. We have hoards of fly-by-night jingoist CSOs who have openly come out breathing anti-MDC, anti-America rhetoric claiming Zanu PF allegiance. And indeed these have been reported by the same paper!

You even have a university students representative body that has come out blazing in support of Zanu PF at a time when every other student blames Zanu PF for murdering the UZ!

And this Sunday News story was written by a beneficiary of a US embassy journalism training programme!

Go figure.

Women are considered to win every argument especially in relationships because they raise their voice the loudest. Personally, at the back of mind right now I can hear the echoes of my voice of my last argument. This is one characteristic that I associate WOZA with. To me they strike me as women who will surely raise their voice. The kind of Zimbabwe that we now live in leaves no room for smooth talk, one has got to be aggressive and speak loud to be heard. I remember last year when WOZA took to the streets in a demonstration against ZESA. The women were chanting “Tinoda magetsi” (We need electricity). Everyone was so fed up with ZESA and we still are but it took the guts and bravery of WOZA to march outside ZESA’s office along Samora Machel Avenue in Harare. There has been a lot of other strikes and demonstrations by WOZA but yesterday’s demonstration is among one of the major highlights in the constitution making process in Zimbabwe.

As we are aware, COPAC produced a second draft constitution, which had been approved by all parties. Soon after its release Zanu PF’s politburo made a u-turn and made amendments to the draft constitution. The MDC stood by the second draft constitution and the party launched a ‘Yes’ campaign for the draft constitution. But back to WOZA, the brave women demonstrated yesterday outside the Parliament of Zimbabwe, to remind Zanu PF and MDC that they have gone several steps ahead of the COPAC constitution making process itself. This is so in the sense that Zanu PF has made amendments to the second draft released by COPAC and MDC is close to launching a Yes Campaign. Initially, COPAC had planned that when a second draft constitution was released, an All Stakeholders Conference was to be held to discuss the draft constitution and the way forward would be mapped from the outcome of the conference. Meaning if Zanu PF had amendments to make they had to table them during the conference and the MDC voting for or against the constitution should be made after the conference.

During this demonstration WOZA reminded the political parties that neither of them owns the constitution. The constitution is made by the people and it’s for the people. It should not in any way favour a political party but should always be found abiding by the interests of the citizens.

Last week I attended yet another ‘constitution meeting’ – this time organized by the Women in Politics Support Unit (WIPSU) to discuss the place and voice of women in the ongoing constitutional debate. I say yet another because this is easily the fifth or sixth I have attended of such nature in the past month. The meetings always fascinate me one way or the other, but the WIPSU one took the cup for two reasons.

First, a large group of women suddenly and disrespectfully stood up and marched out of the venue right smack in the middle of one of the esteemed panelists’ opening remarks. Their marching out process was so fluid, so mechanical and in your face that there was a hush momentarily as people tried and failed to comprehend what was going on. We were soon to find out that the people who had marched out had done so in protest of failure – apparently – on the part of the organizers to officially acknowledge Beitbridge Senator, Tambudzani Mohadi. Aptly dubbed by some in the meeting as ‘Mohadi’s people’, the Zanu PF supporters made it clear that they had been extremely slighted by the botched protocol to the point of actually ditching a meeting that was critical for them to participate in not as party minions, but as women in solidarity with others.

But if you really think about it, how many ordinary people in Zimbabwe actually know the names and faces of ten public officials? Not necessarily suggesting that the WIPSU representatives probably just did not recognize Senator Mohadi, but it is a possibility. However for her to actually storm out even after the usual ‘all protocol observed’ announcement was a tad childish and an unwarranted display of self-importance. I remember back in 2005 when I was as a cub reporter attending an event where security detail at the then Sheraton Hotel failed to recognize Minister Sekai Holland and demanded that she register her name like all other mortals. Of course, Holland was offended but simply informed them that her minions would do that for her, and the message was received loud and clear. I recall that even I didn’t know what she looked like till that day.

Secondly, I found it very interesting that one of the panelists, Hon. Priscilla Misihairambwi-Mushonga chose to deliberately mislead all the women in the room into believing that the current squabbles and draft disagreements between political parties were “at least not touching or affecting women’s issues”. Really? It really got me thinking of the one previous meeting I also attended where the Copac comedians clashed in a heated discussion to a point where Hon. Paul Mangwana lied through his many teeth to an audience of over 300 people, that he did not in actual fact sign the Copac draft, but only appended his initials. Signing and initialing: big difference. Fortunately, I had had the privilege of seeing the Copac draft and could not believe that the man could lie about something so easily verifiable. But then again, I know someone who believes and maintains that Zimbabwe is a nation of super-literate people who just don’t read stuff. Perhaps that’s the thinking Mangwana tried to harp on.

Anyway, back to the constitution draft squabbles not ‘touching’ women’s issues; I think this was the biggest understatement of the day. The most fundamental issues that Zanu PF wants amended are the very ones that to a significant extent affect mainly women. Issues to do with citizenship, devolution and electoral systems among others, are ones close to women’s hearts and lives. It also does not help any to make vague references to ‘women’s issues’ without assessing how the larger context affects the realization of those same issues.

What are women’s issues anyway? Because as a woman, I believe that if Zanu PF is trying to scuttle progress by removing clauses on devolution; removing the clause on the establishment of a peace and reconciliation commission; removing provisions of an independent constitutional court; restoring a wide range of unlimited executive presidential powers including appointments of the judiciary; reintroducing a compulsory national youth service – those are the very issues that affect me and my kin directly. So, which issues was Misihairambwi referring to? I certainly do not take any comfort in being informed that at least 70 percent of ‘our issues’ as women are covered and remain untouched if they do not include positive clauses on the above. I am particularly concerned that we are being encouraged to celebrate the 70% percent victory partially with the reasoning that after all, women can always challenge or advocate the other 30% through the proposed constitutional court. Somehow, people seem to conveniently forget that the subject of an independent constitutional court is one of the issues Zanu PF wants scrapped too from the draft. Nonnegotiable.

Nonetheless with all its shortcomings, the COPAC draft is still worth voting for because it reads like a much better devil and is a significant step towards the democratization agenda. It is just unfortunate though that because of the latest ‘deadlock’, the majority of women have actually not seen or read the draft constitution. They will vote whichever way without having clarity of what the actual content of the document entails for their future.

In the Zimbabwe women’s movement I have observed three kinds of people; there are those who know what’s really going down but choose to misinform people on technical issues while trying to push own political agendas by playing on the ignorance of the populace. There are those who know squat and sit there clueless like puppets just waiting to be instructed to make either a yes or no vote just because they foolishly answer to being referred to as somebody’s people. Then there are those who genuinely know stuff, want to impart knowledge as best as they can but whose efforts are undermined and frustrated by extenuating political circumstances. I look forward to a day the women’s movement actually operates as such and not as fragmented sections caught up in politicking at the expense of people’s welfare. This is the movement’s Achilles heel.

Trouble Brewing in Zimbabwe – Constitution-Making in Crisis

Everyone knew that the constitution-making process in Zimbabwe would be fraught with tension as the two MDC formations and ZANU-PF battle out the terms of the country’s new Constitution. Much has been said about the futility of this process since ZANU-PF repeatedly indicated its eagerness to go into elections under its current Constitution. But much can be said for the clever shenanigans of the ZANU-PF negotiating team which appears ‘hell bent’ on creating a deadlock in the process.

Below are some of the less well-known aspects of ZANU-PF’s constitutional-drafting endeavours that came to light this week.

Some background first – in July 2012, the official constitution-drafting body, COPAC, published the second draft Constitution – something that can best be described as a negotiated settlement between the key parties after a politically motivated community consultation process. The draft Constitution did not bode well for the interests of ZANU-PF officials, so with a good dose of confidence, they rewrote the document to their liking and presented it with fanfare to COPAC and the nation. Of course this flouted the entire purpose of democratic constitution-drafting and lead to the MDC formations declaring a deadlock – thereby strengthening ZANU-PF’s argument for the need to go into elections under the current constitution, exactly what they wanted.

ZANU-PF‘s constitutional drafting is an absolutely fascinating read, revealing much of the inner psyche and paranoia of the party, and also their political skill and determination to hold on to power.

The first strategy of the Party focused on amending the draft Constitution to afford more power to the President – essentially, the amendments limits executive power to the President allowing him to do anything he wants without the need for consultation or accountability. According to ZANU-PF, Vice-Presidents should not be elected, but appointed by the President and they should be accountable to the President and not parliament. The amendments have removed any purpose in having a Cabinet or Speaker of Parliament. If ZANU-PF had their way, the President would also effectively be able to veto all Bills which they do not agree with. And when the President dies, or becomes incapacitated, his party can decide which of the Vice-Presidents should take over.

Giving the President more power is in direct contrast to the previously discussed proposal of devolution of power to lower structures and communities. This concept was widely supported by communities during the constitution-drafting process and included in the draft Constitution. Needless to say, devolution of power is not supported by ZANU-PF and was accordingly not included in their amended draft version of the Constitution.

The second strategy seems a calculated move to show their benevolence. ZANU-PF has inserted deliberate points aimed at appeasing communities who might be upset by the increased authoritarianism of ZANU-PF’s draft Constitution, for example:
• A new section has been inserted providing for the economic empowerment of war veterans;
• Youth between the ages of 15 and 35 are entitled to various rights in the amended version, including education and training (in addition to the rights already provided for children up the 18 years of age) and a separate right to sport and recreation has also been added to the Constitution;
• ZANU-PF’s amendments reduce the age of elderly from 70 years to 65 years and include access to free health care for the elderly.

The third strategy appears to be to limit international influence over ZANU-PF’s vision of an autocratic state. ZANU-PF has sought to delete, or ‘water down’ provisions aimed at applying international law to Zimbabwe. They deleted the provision providing for domestication of international instruments. To ensure that constitutional provisions cannot be given a broad interpretation, the party removed every phrase in the draft Constitution which referred to an “open, just and democratic society”. ZANU-PF also included a phrase allowing rights to be restricted based on “national security”.

The fourth strategy looks like typical electioneering politics, trying to appease conservative, traditional and religious sectors, and force the opposition to come out in support of minority groups. If ZANU-PF had their way, freedom to demonstrate and broadcast would be restricted to citizens and permanent residents. Dual citizenship is prohibited, and a foreigner married to a Zimbabwean can only obtain permanent residency after ten years, as opposed to the current requirement of five. The broad right to make decisions on reproduction included in the draft Constitution has been deliberately limited in ZANU-PF’s amended version to decisions on contraceptives, child-spacing and family-size. From the right to privacy, ZANU-PF has deleted the right not to have one’s health condition disclosed. Similarly, from freedom of the press, they have removed the protection of confidentiality of journalists’ sources. Finally, the status of traditional leaders is further strengthened. Specifically, ZANU-PF’s amendments remove the clause in the draft Constitution which prohibited traditional leaders from acting in a partisan manner, participating in political parties or violating the fundamental rights of persons.

As part of their fourth strategy, to present themselves as a ‘morally pure’ party, ZANU-PF has gone on an all-out attack on gays and lesbians. The organisation Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) has been experiencing increased harassment for the past two weeks, with disruption of their meetings, assaults on their members, repeated arrests of members and staff, and raids on their offices. As part of this move, ZANU-PF’s draft amendments to the Constitution explicitly ban same-sex marriage and prohibit “homosexuality, gays and lesbian practices”. Whatever this unwieldy clause might mean, it suggests a full onslaught on people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in the run-up to the elections.

As everyone holds their breath to see what will happen, the deadlock is an ominous sign of a party in crisis, holding on to their power with determination.

Written by Anneke Meerkotter, lawyer at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre
www.southernafricalawcenter.org

Yesterday the Herald headline read ‘ZANU PF popularity surges: Poll’.

I was shocked to see how the Herald, which is a state controlled paper, was quick to praise this survey titled “Change and ‘New’ Politics in Zimbabwe” done by a US based NGO Freedom House. The survey like any survey poses challenges to its findings due to its delimitations and as noted in the report it mostly concentrated in the rural areas. Honestly in Zimbabwe where freedom of speech is non-existent who would answer saying that they support or belong to opposition parties? According to the survey 47% of the respondents refused to indicate who they would vote for. Of the 53% who declared their preference 31% chose ZANU PF and 20 the MDC. My point of fear of disclosure is brought to light as shown that many people feared disclosing their political affiliation.

It’s so easy to say I support ZANU PF because you know you are not stepping on anyone’s toes. But when one publicly says they are for the MDC you are mostly likely to irk a few people and place your life at great risk in your community especially in rural communities. I was enlightened in the other findings of the survey, which somehow newspapers reporting on this story ignored.
-85% are ‘sure’ or ‘very sure’ that they will be casting their ballots in the next elections
-47% of those who said they would vote in the next elections stated ‘this is the election that will make the difference’.
-A total of 35% respondents in this survey (compared with 16% in 2010) now believe that the next round of elections will be free and fair.

These are among other findings summarised on the Freedom House website.

The last time such a report was published saying MDC was the most popular ZANU PF quickly rubbished this report and Herald did not even report on it. And because this year’s report shows ZANU PF as the most popular party, the Herald took the story to their front page and the MDC was quick to rubbish this report. I believe the ballot in a free and fair election will show who the most popular party is. May the best party win in the next elections!