Back to Index , Back to article index

Another One Party State Effort: Zimbabwe’s Anticipated NGO legislation
Brian Kagoro, Chairperson, Crisis in Zimbabwe
July 28, 2004

NGO Operating Environment
Our recent history demonstrates that the Goz is using a political script similar to that of its Rhodesian predecessors. For example we have seen the specification of journalists working for independent radio stations; the bombing of independent media institutions; arrest and harassment of human rights defenders and the closure of the Daily News.

The current threats to civil society have assumed even more guises than the Rhodesian regime could afford. Firstly, the Goz has enacted legislation that circumscribes and criminalizes the activities of key sections of civil society such as the media and NGOs. Secondly, there have been incidents of indirect threats and state sponsored attacks on individuals and organised elements of civil society. Several government ministers have issued NGOs with threats of de-registration for non-compliant behaviour .

Inevitably NGOs working in this environment cannot avoid issues of fundamental human and constitutional rights and responsibilities among all sectors of the population. Increased levels of political violence and polarisation combine with the socio-economic conditions alluded to above to cause rapid changes in the needs of communities that NGOs serve. This requires consistent reorientation of programmes in order to make them more responsive and relevant to the needs of their target groups. In essence, the prevailing environment precludes the implementation of project activities within parameters of their original mandates. More significantly both aid agencies and their partners have been forced to shift their activities to more discreet arrangements. There is broad consensus amongst NGOs that the operating environment described above is far from ideal.

Several donor countries and aid agencies have had to decide whether or not to stay on in Zimbabwe. These aid agencies have found themselves in a quandary of whether to engage or disengage as well as reconciling the tension between seeking to strengthen Zimbabwean civil society, whilst at the same time signalling disapproval for the prevailing politics of chaos. The remaining donor/aid agencies are faced with a government that intends to exercise greater control and supervision of their activities, especially that of their local partners.

Why a discussion of pending NGO legislation is important?
Most NGOs and CSOs are working to create an enabling environment conducive to the enjoyment of human rights, the promotion of economic growth and sustainable development. The key question is what legislative, strategic and resource interventions are required to achieve such an environment? What should NGOs define as their primary objective in this process? How can NGO operations be made more sustainable in the prevailing environment? How can NGOs be made more transparent and accountable to their constituents and funders and each other? How can NGOs be secured as a non-partisan arena free from foreign control and political-party interests? Should these be made into legislative objectives at all?

Zimbabwean CSOs need to engage with these issues and formulate comprehensive advocacy and lobbying strategies to safeguard their interests. This is particularly important if CSOs are to significantly influence the legislative and policy processes regarding their existence and operation environment. CSOs are already severely constrained in their operations by draconian laws such as POSA and AIPPA. The prospect of further legislation therefore raises questions about processes or mechanisms to strengthen, rationalize or redeem the relationship between government and CSOs. This paper attempts a futuristic discussion of the contentious question of anticipated NGO legislation, what it might contain and why?

The Problem/Challenges with current NGO Legislation
Under the current NGO legislation (namely the PVO Act) there are several vacuums that would justify the need for new legislation. These include – but are not limited to - the following:

• An incoherent framework of registration for various types of civic formations. International aid agencies either register with particular ministries depending on their area of operation or with the ministry of foreign affairs either as departments of their embassies or under some government-to-government co-operation agreement. Local NGOs can register with local authorities within their areas of operation. Alternatively they can register as private voluntary organisations in terms of the Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Act. In practice the majority of groups that constitute Zimbabwean civil society are registered as trusts under either the Deeds Registries Act or the High Court Act. Yet others operate without any form of registration at all. These are what are termed common law ‘universitas’. The bulk of this latter group is organisations engaged in governance and democracy advocacy work.
• The capacity of the state to supervise and retain surveillance over the work of these entities is near impossible under the current legal regime .It may be easy for those groups that are registered as PVOs and those functioning under bi-lateral agreements. However, the other civil society groups are left with greater leeway in the nature of work and activities they can engage in outside the scrutiny of the state. For instance, Trusts are under no obligation to submit annual reports and financial statements to any governmental department or authority. This presents a political dilemma for the government due to the fact that most trusts work in the sensitive areas of democracy, governance and development and are therefore very influential in communities.
• Following from the above, the government views almost all socio-economic, civic and political activities outside its control as oppositional. In the result, stamping out oppositional voices might entail either severely controlling, shutting down or simply undermining the viability, cohesion and security of such entities. Hence the argument herein that the government might think of a unitary system of registration and stringent licensing arrangements for specific types of groups. This may be married with curtailments of such groups’ entitlement to foreign funding.

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