Back to Index

No need for new Constitution
Godwills Masimirembwa, The Herald
June 01, 2007

http://allafrica.com/stories/200706010833.html

ON April 27 2007, The Zimbabwe Independent, on page 22, carried a story or an advertisement under the banner "No New Election without a New Democratic Constitution" from an organisation that calls itself the National Constitutional Assembly.

In the article, the NCA said: ". . . it is only with a new constitution that Zimbabweans can enjoy full freedom and can be able to participate in free and fair elections. As the current Government is already talking of the 2008 parliamentary and presidential elections, the NCA wishes to remind Zimbabweans that there can be no free and fair elections without a new constitution."

The NCA then advances seven reasons to support its stance.

This writer will analyse each of the seven reasons in a series of articles in defence of his contention that Zimbabwe does not need a new constitution before or after the 2008 harmonised elections.

This writer submits that there is no merit in the NCA's argument that Zimbabwe does not have a democratic constitution. The Zimbabwean Constitution is a democratic one. Zimbabweans are enjoying full freedom under their Constitution. Zimbabweans, have, since independence, participated in free and fair elections that have been held whenever they were due.

Constitutional reforms are, of course, an ongoing exercise to cater for and consolidate changing social, political and economic perceptions.

Zimbabwe kick-started its constitutional democracy journey in 1980 with the Lancaster House compromise Constitution, over the past 27 years that Constitution has been amended 17 times.

The 18th Amendment is looming.

Some people have argued that we need a new constitution because the Lancaster House Constitution is not a home-grown constitution. Some argue that the Lancaster House Constitution has been papered over too many times, so we need a new document.

The Government reply to these concerns culminated in the 2000 Draft Constitution. The same so-called civic organisations and opposition political parties that campaigned for the rejection of the 2000 Draft Constitution are now clamouring for a new constitution.

When one reads the 2000 Draft Constitution it is clear that the fundamental concerns of the so-called civic organisations, like limiting the term of office of the president to two terms, trimming presidential powers and devolving executive authority, a Bill of Rights and other issues, were addressed even to the satisfaction of Amnesty International.

This writer submits that the so-called civic groups and opposition parties are not sincere when they call for a new constitution. It would indeed be interesting to see and read their proposed new constitution for Zimbabwe.

While the Lancaster House Constitution was a compromise document it must be realised and accepted that it represented an acceptance by the British that victory through armed struggle was certain for the people of Zimbabwe, and that the only way to save face and protect the whites was to seek a compromise with the Patriotic Front.

The Patriotic Front was satisfied that with political power in the bag, the Constitution would ultimately be amended to suit the values the children of Zimbabwe fought for. The document we now have is a pale shadow of the Lancaster House Constitution, as it has been amended over the past 27 years such that it now reflects the values of the people of Zimbabwe, particularly on the land issue.

Amending a national constitution is not peculiar to Zimbabwe. It happens in every country. There were, for example, 10 amendments to the American constitution in 1791.

The NCA is taking issue with the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 7) Act, 1987, Act 23 of 1987 which came into effect on December 31 1987 introducing the Executive Presidency. The Amendment had as its primary objective the establishment of a system of government with enough centralised power to ensure the survival and the enhancement of the stability of Zimbabwe.

In an article titled "Executive presidency protects national interests" (The Herald, April 6 2007) this writer defended the Executive Presidency as provided for in our Constitution, and that stance has not changed.

To the contrary, unfolding events on the international scene vindicate the contention that the stewardship of a nation requires a strong and effective leadership, clothed with sufficient power to enable the Office of the President to effectively defend national sovereignty in the face of increasing global tensions brought about by the hegemonic tendencies of the West.

Western nations are living on the edge as the chickens have come home to roost. They see terrorists everywhere, particularly from those they trained, armed and deployed to do dirty work on others. Osama bin Laden was their spoilt child until they decided to abandon him. Weak nations and innocent people suffer for Bin Laden's sins against his mentors.

Weak nations and innocent people suffer for Saddam Hussein's sins against his mentors.

Guantanamo Bay is not a joke.

The kick of a dying horse cannot be exhibited with greater ferocity than Tony Blair's farewell kick to the British and to those who dare step on British soil -- the police are to be empowered to stop, search, arrest and detain. Human rights activists in Zimbabwe must seriously consider relocating to London and Washington. There is a lot of human rights abuse taking place there.

But Blair, and now Gordon Brown coming on the scene, will not stop that occurring on British soil, along with the US, they want to export their values to other countries. In the process they fund, train and arm dissidents in other nations, fomenting civil unrest in their quest to effect illegal regime changes so that they are in total control of the world. This is not fantasy.

Invariably it is the weak nations that suffer. One area of weakness is when the chief executive officer of a country has no real power, with executive authority scattered all over. Zimbabwe could perish while a powerless president seeks the consent of a prime minister, vice-president, a group of ministers or some such apparition to act on an emergency or national crisis.

Real presidents or prime ministers have real power to act and to defend their countries and their values.

This writer challenges the NCA to answer this question. Which is the greatest challenge to the human race's continued existence on planet earth? We know the answer. It is nuclear weapons. Which countries possess these weapons of mass destruction? Britain, France, America, Israel, China, Pakistan, North Korea and India (new entrant).

Who controls the keys or the codes to the button that can trigger a nuclear holocaust? The above countries' respective presidents and prime ministers. Indeed, the most important task bestowed to the new French President Nicolas Sarkozy is to be the custodian of the codes to France's nuclear arsenal. Let us not live in dreamland.

Someone has to be in control of state authority. For Zimbabwe, like in many other countries, the executive presidency is the answer, for the holocaust that threatens our survival is from our former colonisers. We need a leader with real power to defend the nation against marauding neo-imperialists and also to spearhead our young democracy's economic development programmes.

What ultimately protects us are the values our leaders and we cherish. As we elect presidents, we must choose those with the wishes of the nation at heart. They must, if they are to execute the mandate to serve the nation, be clothed with executive authority, which will enable them to deliver.

If they fail to deliver, if they fail the people, they will be voted out of office. If they continue to win elections they are obviously with the people.

The NCA said "the current Constitution gives too much power to the President. The President can use his sweeping powers to subvert the people's electoral wishes. A new, democratic constitution will take away such dangerous powers from an individual."

This writer submits that the NCA's stance is premised on the fear of abuse of power rather than on the necessity of the power for the effective execution of duty in the Office of the President. The real question is whether the power granted to the Office of the President is necessary for the proper and efficient execution of the duties of that office?

If the answer is yes, then we deal with the possibility of that power being abused "to subvert the people's electoral wishes".

If the answer is no, then we address the issue of the reduction or curtailment of that power.

This writer persists with his contention that the powers of the President as provided for in our Constitution are necessary for the proper and efficient execution of the duties of the Office of the Presidency.

In fact, the provisions of our Constitution on presidential powers compare favourably with similar provisions in the constitutions of other democratic countries such as China, Egypt, France, Russia and the US.

Is there a possibility that the power may be abused "to subvert the people's electoral wishes?"

Yes the possibility is there, but the Constitution will stop such a president right in his/her tracks. Parliament has, in terms of Section 29(3) of the Constitution, the power to remove a president if two-thirds of all the Members of Parliament approve the recommendation of a committee appointed by the Speaker, after the request of not less than one third of the Members of Parliament to look into the matter of his removal.

A president who acts in wilful violation of the Constitution . . . or is guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from office. Section 31H (2) of the Constitution enjoins the President to uphold the Constitution and ensure that its provisions are faithfully executed.

Thus the President does not have absolute power.

Our Constitution also provides for the holding of periodic elections. A president who "subverts the people's electoral wishes" will face the wrath of the electorate come election time.

It appears that while Zanu-PF is preparing for the 2008 harmonised elections, anticipating victory, the so-called civic organisations and opposition parties are preparing scapegoats to explain their imminent defeat.

This may explain why the NCA, the so-called civic organisations and opposition parties seem to avoid objectivity but seek to be argumentative, quarrelsome and confrontational all the time. The simple truth is that Zimbabwe does not need a new constitution now or in the near future.

Amendments, as and when they become necessary, will suffice.

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