Back to Index

Top Zimbabwe pro-democracy activist denies mimicking Mugabe
ZimOnline
May 31, 2006

http://www.zimonline.co.za/headdetail.asp?ID=12197

Harare - In a flagrant style that must have left President Robert Mugabe green with envy, lawyer Lovemore Madhuku and other leaders of Zimbabwe's National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) last weekend chopped and changed the constitution of the country's largest pro-democracy group so they could retain its control. While Madhuku - who is NCA chairman - has argued that the amendment of the constitution was legal, his civic society allies as well as critics in the government are both agreed that the manipulation of the NCA's constitution during a violent annual general meeting last Saturday could only have left the organisation weaker and without moral authority to demand a new and democratic constitution for Zimbabwe. On Tuesday Zim Online spoke to Madhuku about this and other issues. Excerpts:

QUESTION: Many people including your allies in civic society say you are power-hungry, that you pushed - President Mugabe-style - for the NCA constitution to be changed so you could remain in office, what is your comment?

ANSWER: Those are very unfortunate comments. They arise from a misunderstanding of what we stand for and what is involved in the struggle for a new constitution. It would be very wrong to equate the processes that we are currently engaged in with the processes of what the government is doing.

Q: But the point is that by pushing for the old NCA constitution to be changed so you could remain in office, you have forfeited whatever moral authority you had to lead the search for a new and democratic constitution for Zimbabwe?

A: The amendments came from the NCA membership. The constitution does not allow the chairman to change the constitution. My moral authority must be judged from the perspective of the people on the ground, the ordinary members, and the struggling majority of the people of Zimbabwe. These are the people who know as a matter of fact that they need a new constitution. They decide on any change in the organisation, whether the organisation needs any changes in leadership and so on. So as far as we are concerned you can't talk of a lack of moral authority because the NCA membership wanted me to stay on. But if you are looking at it from an outsider's point of view or from that of someone who wanted to take over, then certainly you would think that there is now a lack of morals.

Q: Even if it was the NCA delegates who proposed and adopted the constitutional amendments, why did you have to accept being re-elected when you had served the maximum two two-year terms under the old order?

A: I believe that my leadership at the moment will go a long way in our fight. So when the request came to re-elect me, I was more than happy to accept it. So it doesn't follow that the people who asked me to stand again for re-election were talking to an unwilling person. I have been around working with them and I know why they need me to remain in this position. They believe I still have a role to play as chairman of NCA. I share that belief and I am not trying to second guess them. It is fact.

Q: Can you tell us why you did not simply recuse yourself from contesting for the chairman's post, not only so that new blood could take over but also for the sake of setting an example to others both inside and outside the NCA that leaders should be prepared to give up power even if not legally bound to do so?

A: We are not here to set examples on how long people should stay in power. We are here to fight for a cause. We are agenda driven and the best person to lead that agenda to fruition should be given a chance as long as the membership agrees.

Q: Do you really feel you still have the respect of the people to lead the fight for a new constitution or let alone to pressure Mugabe to accept limiting of terms in office?

A: Well, I think you need to understand the role of the NCA. The role of the NCA is not to get Mugabe out of power. It is to push for a constitution that is democratic and a result of wide consultation. We will continue pushing for that. We will not ask Mugabe to leave, we will ask him, force him if we can to embrace constitutional reforms, whether they affect his continued stay as President or not.

Q: The fact of the matter is President Mugabe has no term limits and has refused to yield to pressure for him to leave and you are following exactly in the same footsteps or can you tell us why you think you are different?

A: I think there is a big difference between national constitutions and constitutions of organisations fighting for a cause. First it must not be assumed that we always have enough volunteers to take up the risks involved. The people in the NCA are not in power. They are trying to push for a certain cause. In that case we should be willing to open up space for whoever is willing to push that cause, instead of shutting them out. In that case you would make a mistake if you would rigidly impose term limits on people who have the capacity and the interest to lead that cause. But in a national constitution, it would be a whole issue of governmental power. We will be talking about people who control the army, the police and a lot of state agencies. They need limits, lest they corrupt governmental systems. But we have no such power in the NCA. Our only interest is in seeing democracy flourish.

Q: Given the controversy surrounding your re-election and the obvious damage it is doing to the credibility of the NCA, are you still convinced that what you did was the best thing or do you think you could have handled things differently?

A: I don't think there is anything I could have handled differently. I would do it the same way because I don't see anything that was done wrongly. The amendments, the elections, were all done in a democratic and transparent manner.

Q: What specific steps are you going to take to repair damaged relations with other pro-democracy activists and organisations that at this point are dismayed by what has happened in the NCA?

A: I am actually not aware of who was for the amendments and who opposed them. We just left the process to be determined by the Annual General Meeting (AGM). There will be no bridge building or whatever because our understanding is that democracy won. What will happen from now onwards is to make the NCA even more formidable.

Q: And what is your programme of action to achieve the NCA goal of a new and democratic constitution for Zimbabwe?

A: We are going to deepen our penetration of the grassroots, to educate them about the new constitution to raise awareness so that they can join our resistance programmes. We are going to increase the activities, especially the resistance. This means more and more demonstrations until the government gives in to our demands. The support you saw at the AGM was a result of the good things we have been doing.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP