Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Baseline report - June 2010
Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP) Independent Constitution Monitoring Project (ZZZICOMP)
June 16, 2010

Download this document
- Acrobat PDF version (159KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

Executive Summary

It is a well grounded fact that Constitution-making is generally a highly contested political process. However, this is not surprising given the fact that a Constitution ideally should capture the fundamental political principles of a country. Seldom is there agreement on these principles, especially in countries marked by deep social, political and economic divisions like Zimbabwe. It is a truism that Constitutions generally limit the undue exercise of power by the State, and provide for the ratification of exercise of political power. Given this theoretical and often times practical assertion, the Constitutional reform process in Zimbabwe could have been no different.

Since the signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) in September 2008 and the attendant tripartite accord, with one of its key provisions, Article 6 giving impetus to "the process of making a constitution . . . ..owned and driven by the people . . . . . . in an inclusive and democratic manner, the objectives set therein have proved to be no mean task. The process has been dogged by incessant challenges that have the potential of undermining this important process. The timeframes as set in the GPA have been completely missed notwithstanding that the Parliamentary Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) was set up according to the schedule. However, the work of COPAC has been shrouded in secrecy to the extent that very little progress has been made more especially in the commencement of the public outreach programme.

In January 2010, COPAC suspended the outreach programme citing political party differences over secondment and impartiality of the outreach rapporteurs. The net effect of such cancellation was that COPAC continues to miss the set deadlines to the extent that the Referendum slated for July 2010 will not be met. Other challenges are related to resource constrains as well as the general modus operandi on how to relate to other key stakeholders like civil society. Talking points to guide the public outreach process have been developed albeit with very little consultation much to the chagrin of civil society under the National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (NANGO) umbrella. Key to the reservations is the contention that the Talking Points were very prescriptive and suggestive with a high probability that the outreach programme will not adequately represent the views of the people. However, they have since been revised incorporating the input from civil society and other stakeholders.

The composition of the subcommittees of the Parliamentary Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) raised a lot of ire from civil society organizations who argued that the process was parliamentary-driven which was a departure from the letter and spirit of Article 6 of the GPA which advocated for a people-driven route. Resultantly civic society took three distinct positions. Some decided to completely stay out of the process and adopt a Take Charge stance, effectively condemning and proposing to campaign for a 'no vote' at the referendum, others decided to actively participate through strategic and meaningful engagement whilst others decided to monitor the process against established benchmarks and standards of constitutionalism and constitution-making; openness, inclusivity, transparency, legitimacy, accessibility and receptiveness.

The two main political parties have continued to send divergent signals over the reference document (s) to guide the process of constitutional reform. ZANU PF has insisted on the use of the Kariba Draft as the basis whilst the MDC-T's contention has been that it is receptive to as many ideas and drafts as the people of Zimbabwe may have and/or propose as provided for in Article 6 of the GPA. The contradictory approach by the two parties has, to a large extent, led to the resurfacing of political tensions reminiscent to the period prior to the June 2008 run-off elections. Pockets of violence, repression, human rights abuses, coaching of ordinary citizens has been reported in most parts of the country more particularly in Manicaland,

Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East and Masvingo. In January 2010 alone, about eight (8) cases of torture, assault and various forms of intimidation allegedly committed by ZANU PF youths, the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) and the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) personnel were reported in Mudzi, Kuwadzana, Domboshava, Chimhondoro, Chiramwiwa and Harare.1 Attempts by civic society to conduct constitution awareness workshops and campaigns have been met with undue resistance from ZANU PF supporters, war veterans and others generally opposed to the constitutional reform process. Hence the operating environment has not been conducive for people to freely participate in the consultative and outreach processes. The restrictive media framework has remained in place with repressive legislation very much intact notwithstanding the appointment of the Zimbabwe Media Commission. The public media and broadcaster have been consistent in their support for ZANU-PF condemning everything that appear to be pro-MDC. Reportage on the constitution has unfortunately reflected this editorial slant. The casualty therefore has been the reform process in that the input from the people might reflect opinion from the political divide as opposed to their views and aspirations as Zimbabweans.

Download full document

Visit the Zimbabwe Election Support Network fact sheet

Visit the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights fact sheet

Visit the Zimbabwe Peace Project fact sheet

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