Zanu PF’s dirty tactics in Zimbabwe’s constitution making process

Section of leaked Zanu PF document

Recent media reports have argued that the Zanu PF party has “no intention whatsoever of sharing power in the future”. The reports refer to an internal Zanu PF strategic working document drafted by the ‘Zanu PF Constitution Making Process Working Group’ in November last year, which was apparently ‘leaked’ to the media in January this year. You can download a copy of the leaked document here (PDF – 41 pages in length, 3.13 MB).

The document outlines different positions on a future constitution between the Zanu PF and MDC parties. Some of the perceived differences of opinion are subjective, and there is not necessarily any evidence that the MDC party does think the way Zanu PF assumes it does. The purpose of the document is clear: it is “to enable Zanu PF political mobilisation teams to concentrate on the issues that are likely to be contested in the constitution-making process” – and as becomes obvious in the reading of the text, to give those teams the arguments for the Zanu PF position.

On individual human rights:

The authors of the strategic document outline several fundamental rights which they state the MDC will seek to include in a future constitution that the Zanu PF has not listed as individual human rights. These are:

1. Right to health care, food, water, and social security
2. Right to education
3. Worker rights
4. The right to a clean environment
5. Freedom of speech and expression
6. Minority rights

The justification for the exclusion of rights 1-4 above is that these fall under ‘national objectives’, and therefore are not in themselves individual human rights. However the authors acknowledge that the party may need to re-think this view.

On the ‘right to freedom of speech and expression’, the Zanu PF authors argue that these rights include the media, and they accordingly argue that they do not fall within the remit of ‘individual human rights’ under a future constitution.

The authors do not acknowledge that excluding ‘the right to freedom of expression’ as an individual human right allows for the infringement on many aspects of individual expression. Both the Kariba Draft and NCA Draft (2001) detail what freedom of expression includes:

1. freedom to hold opinions;
2. freedom to seek, receive and communicate ideas and information regardless of frontiers;
3. freedom of the press and other media of communication;
4. freedom of artistic creativity;
5. freedom from interference with correspondence or other forms of communication, including electronic and telephonic communication; and
6. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

Zanu PF’s historical issues with a free press and their efforts to control and curtail the media have always been unacceptable. Their position is made doubly unacceptable when their political desire to control the media is allowed to infringe on the protection of individual freedoms and rights as well.

The working document reveals several lines of strategic controversial attacks that the Zanu PF party plans to employ against the MDC party in the constitution-making process.

The document suggests to its political mobilisation teams that the MDC party wants to include abortion rights in a future constitution. It is important to note that this claim is assumed by the authors and not necessarily a statement on the MDC parties position. This is  clearly seen in the language used by the authors – their inference italicised for emphasis:

Equality of women to men and equal enjoyment with men of fundamental human rights and freedoms [...] and that in addition a women must have preference over her own body (i.e. the Constitution must legalise a women’s right to abortion for any reason the women might deem fit) (Page 8-9).

In fact, without a clear position statement from the MDC parties, we can make no such assumption at all. It is reasonable and fair that a woman must have preference over her own body – she has, for a example, a right not to be raped or abused! The authors of the document extrapolate their assumption of what “preference over her own body” might mean to undermine their view of the MDC’s position on ‘the right to life’. They say that the MDC seeks ”the right to life to be absolute” – i.e. an abolishment of capital punishment. They then comment that the MDC’s favouring of a ‘right to abortion’ contradicts the MDC’s position on the abolishment of capital punishment.

Sceptics amongst us will remember the many times the Zanu PF party has hauled opposition members – including Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti – into court on ‘treason charges’. Treason carries a penalty of death, so its a useful threat and the ultimate tool for political harassment and intimidation. One can’t help wonder if the convoluted argument on the ‘right to life’, built on nothing more than a baseless assumption, doesn’t have more to do with Zanu PF trying to find any kind of justification to keep capital punishment in the constitution to ensure its favourite weapon of choice is ready to be used against future political opponents.

There is another assumption contained in this document on yet another explosive social issue in Zimbabwe. The authors write (their assumption italicised again) that the MDC wants

Freedom from discrimination to be broad to include the protection of personal preferences (i.e. gays and lesbians should be protected by the Constitution)

Again, this is not a stated MDC position so we do not know if this is the case. All we know is that Nelson Chamisa was quoted last month, saying:

Zanu PF is peddling a lot of lies about the party of excellence, the MDC. They are going around telling people that our party supports homosexuality and abortion. These are all lies meant to disturb the masses attention on the new constitution process (Zimbabwe Mail).

Regardless of the MDC’s position – stated or otherwise – there is no question that there is massive prejudice against homosexuality in Zimbabwe. Abortion too is a contentious issue in any nation in the world. The fact that the authors have sought to find  tenuous reasons to muddy the waters with these volatile issues by putting unproven ideas into the minds of their political mobilisation teams suggests that the party’s intention is more to stir up public controversy and prejudice than it is to have a meaningful debate on a new constitution.

There is another right that Zanu PF note that they have not included in the list of individual human rights: these are ‘Minority rights’. To justify this exclusion, the authors write:

This reminds one of the minority rights included in the Lancaster House Constitution that guaranteed them a number of seats in parliament that was larger than their proportion of the population and that protected them against expropriation of land by the State to redress colonial injustices and imbalances.

As the real owners of the MDC are the whites the Minority Rights which the MDC refer to must be those that were entrenched in the Lancaster House Constitution and which could not be amended for ten years after independence in order to protect white colonial interests.

This is not acceptable to the people of Zimbabwe. They did not engage in an armed liberation struggle in order to protect the British and white colonial interests that subjected them to tyranny, racial domination, oppression and exploitation.

The Zanu PF authors fail to acknowledge that ‘whites’ are not the only minority group in Zimbabwe. So the party’s personal hatred and racism towards all white people – unacceptable enough as it is -  is allowed to have an impact on all other minority groups as well.

This kind of self-serving agenda suggests that the Zanu PF party does not understand that the only qualifier for having a human right is to be human! If they understand this but ignore it anyway, then we can assume that the Zanu PF does not take these profound social values seriously at all.

Ultimately, the document’s stance on individual human rights, and its manipulation of facts and argument, suggests that party’s intention is to serve itself in the constitution-making process, and not the people of Zimbabwe.

You can browse through individual human rights using the menu on our constitution resource page. This is being updated with new content from different draft constitutions all the time.

On citizenship:

Comments left on Sokwanele’s constitution resource reveals that ‘Citizenship‘ is a major concern for many Zimbabweans. The Zanu PF document highlights some key difference of perceived opinion between the MDC and Zanu PF parties.

On ‘citizenship by birth’, the MDC, the document argues, wants everyone born in Zimbabwe to be a citizen of Zimbabwe; Zanu PF, however, will only afford citizenship to the individual if the person is born in Zimbabwe to parents who are citizens  at the time of his/her birth.

Zanu PF believes that the MDC would like the rights to dual citizenship to be enshrined in a future constitution; Zanu PF will allow for an Act of Parliament prohibiting dual citizenship.

According to this document, the MDC party will seek to guarantee the right to citizenship acquired through secondary means (marriage, descent etc); Zanu PF however do not support those guarantees, and will allow for an Act of Parliament that provides for the circumstances in which people can lose their citizenship.

On executive powers:

Zanu PF is keen for full executive authority to be retained by the President and the authors of this strategic text go so far as to describe the Prime Minister as “only a senior minister appointed and accountable to the President”.

It is much easier for executive power to be streamlined into one office, that of the President. It is unworkable for executive authority to be divided between Prime Minister and President.  The experience of the people of Zimbabwe with the inclusive government since February 2009 has shown that a sharing of executive power by a President and Prime Minister will result in there being always a fight for power rather than progress.

If there has to be a Prime Minister, he does not have executive authority. He is only a senior minister appointed and accountable to the President. In the SADC region, the prevalent arrangement is Head of State and leader of government (Page 16).

Presidential immunity is another point of conflict for Zanu PF: “No contestations except on [...] immunity of the President from prosecution during Presidential tenure which the MDC want removed” (Page 17 – see relevant clauses in Sokwanele’s constitution resource here).

Zanu PF also wants to restrict any constitutional clause that allows for the impeachment of the President. The document notes that the MDC wants parliament to “have oversight on executive powers and have the right to impeach the President” while Zanu PF  argues

Parliament may pass a vote of no confidence in Government though a resolution passed by at least two thirds of members of parliament at a joint sitting of both Houses (Page 19).

(Clauses on ‘removing the President from office’ here, and on  ‘vote of no confidence’ here in our constitution resource.)

On Presidential powers:

The document states that there are ‘no contestations’ between the MDC and Zanu PF on ‘The Legislature’ “except on the appointment of Members of Parliament by the President which the MDC does not want” (Page 20).

Zanu PF also want to retain the President’s right to appoint the Commissioner General of Police. The document states that the MDC position is “The appointments of service Chiefs should be approved by parliament after recommendation by the executive”. ZANU PF argue instead that: “The Commissioner General of Police should be appointed by the President”. They hold the same view for the appointments of the Commissioner of Prisons and the Auditor General. (Relevant clauses in our constitution resource: Commissioner of Police here, Commissioner of Prisons here, and Auditor General here).

Zanu PF wants to retain the President’s right to appoint the Chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission (albeit on consultation with two other commissions), while the MDC, according to the authors of this strategic document, wants Members of Parliament to select the Chairperson after a series of interviews. Zanu PF aims to retain the President’s right to appoint all other members on the commissions, from a list presented to him. (For an insight into the various Commissions proposed and/or included in the constitution, select ‘Independent Commissions’ from the menu bar on our constitution resource page).

The Zanu PF document notes too that the “MDC may be opposed to the appointment of Provincial Governors by the President”. The Zanu Pf position is that this is not a matter for the constitution, but “should be detailed in an Act of parliament” instead (Page 38-39).

On Independent Commissions:

On the subject of independent commissions, Zanu PF’s working document reveals their perception that the MDC wants a ‘Land Commission’ included in a future constitution, as well as a ‘Labour Commission’ and a ‘Children’s Right’s Commission’;  however, Zanu PF does not want these (Page 34-35).

According to the authors of the document, the MDC seeks a ‘Land Commission’ on the grounds that the land reform programme has not achieved a perfect outcome and there is a need for a land audit; for individual rights and property rights to be upheld; for just and fair compensation paid by the State; and for unfettered rights of farmers to approach the courts. The document infers that Zanu PF does not see a need for a land commission because

All land acquired by the acquiring authority and listed in the Gazette remains State land. No compensation shall be paid over that land and the improvements effected on it. No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain and challenge to the land acquisition (Page 10).

On the law:

The 41 page working document ends with the authors infusing more ideology and hate-speech into their discussion of allegedly differing positions between the parties of the law to be administered in Zimbabwe, especially with regards African customary law. They highlight the section in Zimbabwe’s constitution which says that African customary law is not inconsistent with the constitution or any law in Zimbabwe (see here), and then state that there have been

No publically stated contestations [on this point between Zanu PF and the MDC] although the conduct and behaviour of the MDC suggests that their favoured position is that customary International Law should take precedence over the provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and laws made thereunder. This demonstrates that they have not recovered from colonial brainwashing and indoctrination leading to their acceptance of the notion of superiority of the white race to the black race in furtherance of neo-colonial and imperialist ideology and interests of the former colonial power in Zimbabwe and its Rhodesian kith and kin.

The fact that there have been “no publically stated contestations on this point”, but the authors nevertheless made their own presumptions and launched into an astonishing rant – employing classic Zanu PF anti-imperialist propaganda and race hate speech – is a warning sign of how Zanu PF may seek to colour and influence the constitution making debate. This type of irrational rhetoric has typically been used by Zanu Pf in the past on emotive issues among Zimbabwean audiences  – most notably the land issue. In the process, the hate-speech and anti-imperialist rant has tacitly justified Zanu PF’s stranglehold on democracy and freedom in Zimbabwe (for example, through top-heavy Presidential powers) as rightful in a nation ‘fighting imperialism’.

Zimbabweans should be mindful of what we have gone through in the last ten years in the struggle for meaningful freedom and democracy, and we should not be distracted by hate-speech. Our task is to ensure we have a future constitution which enshrines fundamental values and rights, protects democracy, and ensure peace.

Zimbabweans should also critically engage with any kind of propaganda rhetoric. For example, this particular rant by Zanu PF authors belies inherent contradictions within Zanu PF’s own position. One should note that the Zanu PF document allows for the inclusion of a ‘Gender Commission’, something that is not included in the current constitution. (One hopes they have done so because the party acknowledges there is gender inequity in Zimbabwe and not because they want to white wash this deep rooted issue).  African customary law – ostensibly a beacon of fairness in the eyes of the authors of this document – sometimes erodes gender rights. WOZA point to this in their guidebook on helping Zimbabweans to understand and write their own constitution. They write: “Some forms of discrimination are allowed in family and personal matters or on the application of customary law”. Writing specifically on the issue of a “Right to equality”, WOZA say

The constitution now allows discrimination against women in some situations in which customary law is applied. We may want to remove this. We may want to strengthen the right of women to access land, especially in communal areas (page 7).

The point being that criticising or seeking to amend customary law is not evidence of anything other than a natural step for a forward thinking nation to take in seeking to address fundamental issues in a modern era. It is extremely self-serving for Zanu PF to argue that this is evidence of “white supremacy”, “brainwashing” and “indoctrination”. It also begs the question that if this is the way Zanu PF really think, how committed will they be to fundamental issues of equality that may be undermined by customary law?

Similarly, seeking to amend the constitution is a necessity for our country to be genuinely free. The constitution is not a tool to strengthen one or another political party, and Zimbabweans must collectively work hard against allowing that to happen.

This entry was posted by Sokwanele on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 3:59 pm. You can follow any comments on this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.