I was biking up the road the other day and had to slow and detour. The City of Harare was painting white centre lines and lane markings, and traffic was discombobulated. While negotiating around this mess, I had time to think. Why is this new regime in the City painting road markings?

Well, the immediate answer is obvious, to guide traffic! But, the real question – why did the previous regimes not paint, and allow what was painted to deteriorate to invisiblity – and why can this new one now do it? The obvious answer (it is the answer to everything) …  Sanctions!

That knee jerk answer is a) a lie, b) a cover for total incompetence. On the second point I know, as we have succeeded in turning MacDonald Park Pool (Cambridge Road, Avondale) from a green pond where a Hammerkop fed on frogs, into the bestest public pool in Harare, that makes more on gate takings on a Saturday than it does to shut it and hold a wedding on the grounds! And how did we do it? No sanctions busting involved. The chlorine gas comes from the atmosphere (the air we breath) which does not respect borders. The labour came from the community, where we also borrowed a pump. The paint came from Astra (a local company). Etc. No sanctions busting involved!

On the second point, we know there have NEVER been sanctions against Zimbabwe. It is a lie, so often repeated that even the ruling party (that is, the new ruling one – with the majority of seats in Parliament, not the old ruling/losing party – that brought us democracy) talks about ‘removing sanctions’. It is easy to see which ‘ruling’ party has the better verbal gymnasts and brains.

So, back to the original topic – road paint and sanctions. Why is the new regime able to overcome sanctions and paint road markings, while the previous regime was only able to… well, did they do anything?

The new regime at least tries to give the people some of what they want – while the real agenda is to take power, now that they have legitimacy. The old regime has only one agenda, hold on to power, now that they have lost legitimacy.

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) recently launched their publication titled “Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Drafts – Comparison and Recommendations”. In the foreword ZHLR notes that constitution-making is not a new phenomenon in Zimbabwean history, and that since independence Zimbabwe has had one constitution and three major draft constitutions. During the launch, ZLHR Director, Irene Petras said her organisation hoped that those involved in the COPAC process would use the publication as well as the SADC Protocols as guidelines for the constitutional draft.

The publication reviews key provisions of the three major constitutional drafts and seeks to set out critical issues which should be addressed in any constitution under various thematic areas.

Guest of honour, Human Rights defender Beatrice Mtetwa, also noted that Constitution making has become a habit in Zimbabwe. She deplored the conditions in which the current process was taking place, and said that if a constitution did result it would only serve as a transitional document.

The COPAC process has been marred by reports of violence, intimidation and coaching. These charges are largely levelled at ZANU PF and some factions of war veterans. Despite the appearance of heavily influencing the views included, ZANU PF has increasingly distanced itself from the current process.

A Central Committee report tabled by President Robert Mugabe at the party’s conference in Bulawayo last year, resolved that “ZANU PF reserve[d] the right to dissociate itself from a draft constitution which seeks to undermine the cardinal goals of our national liberation struggle and our national culture and values.” It is likely that this decision was informed by a critique prepared for ZANU PF COPAC Co-Chairperson Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana by Goodwills Masimiremwa and Jacob Mudenda, both of whom are technical experts seconded by ZANU PF to oversee the Constitutional process. The critique was allegedly leaked to an online news publisher. Subsequently the first four chapters of the draft Constitution were leaked and published in the Herald.

The critique alleges that the Constitutional drafters are misdirected, and are drafting a constitution informed by their individual values, characterised by reference to constitutions of other countries they admired. Further, Masimiremwa and Mudenda state that the drafters have not been given the National Report to use as a reference, thus the draft does not accurately reflect the views canvassed during the outreach programme. The issues of contention include the rights given to LGBTI persons, abolishment of the death penalty, expanding citizenship by birth to include citizenship by descent and allowing dual citizenship.

In Zimbabwe, it is clear that the opposition party MDC (MDC has lost the mojo and has been weakened by in-fighting) is not the party that will bring down Mugabe (as it was hoped), but expect a potential split within the ruling ZANU-PF party. As Mugabe’s health continues to deteriorate, we expect infighting as members vie for control and Mugabe’s position.

Read Ndumba Kamwanyah’s assertion that “Southern Africa’s ‘democracies’ do not produce citizens but subjects controlled by governments due to the hierarchical nature of the region’s politics, which demands obedience.”

Reading a report by the Research and advocacy unit this morning I came across an interesting fact, the most commonly reported perpetrators of political violence are non state actors. It’s not the first time I’ve read or seen this. A mini-documentary about political violence during the 2008 harmonised elections last year featured eminent political scientists stating the same fact.

Considering the long and emotional debates I’ve had with the war vet I am vexed that it’s taken such a long time to hit home. If the most commonly reported perpetrators are non state actors, why do we equate political violence to state sponsored violence? Clearly these are not the same thing. Knowing this, it is not then possible to consider that the State itself has assumed this indictment and so refuses to prosecute rather than risk the appearance of tacit acknowledgement. The fact of who is perpetrating the violence has been conflated with the state’s complicity by not acting to prevent and deter it. In the public and international mind it is the state, or rather the Mugabe regime half of the state, that perpetrates violence, leaving the actual perpetrators, who exploit political tensions to mask their activities, blameless. How do we deal with violence if at the outset we place the entire burden of responsibility on the wrong party?

Below is an email we got from a Kubatana subscriber.

My dream this year is to see a democratic transition in Zimbabwe. I believe as an individual I can contribute towards the realisation of this goal without expecting personal rewards. I want to develop the habit of volunteering towards bettering my family, church and immediate community and society. – Ittai

As it is and as the year 2011 comes to a closure Zimbabwe and its citizens are running the risk of continuing with a political cycle that has become less about the people and more about the people in government. Their disputes and actions have largely been partisan not only on behalf of their political parties but also on behalf of their ‘comfort zones’( to which they have demonstrated an unfortunate sense of entitlement to via their purchase of luxury vehicles, unclear mineral and iron production deals, numerous trips abroad). And as the new year approaches, it is hoped that civil society, members of the public shall at some point begin to hold the inclusive government to account with regards to its performance legitimacy, and not just the politics of elections. – Takura Zhangazha more here