Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Citizens and the accountability of the new govt of Zimbabwe
Alex Magaisa, The Standard
February 21, 2009

Read this article on The Standard website

This week my monologue is directed at fellow citizens. Accountability: that is the key word. There is not going to be a time when the bell shall ring to command citizens to hold their leaders accountable. The positive spirit and best wishes for the new administration must be commended but there is one risk that must be minimised at all costs. It is the risk of permitting the abundant goodwill to cloud our judgment and in the process drop our guard.

Zimbabweans cannot afford to repeat old mistakes, many of which led Zimbabwe to the hell-house it has become in recent years. Far from creating negative energy that could derail the new administration, those who cast a critical eye ought to be tolerated; embraced even as willing participants in the nascent democracy.

Zimbabweans don-t have to look far back into our history in order to appreciate the significance of generating accountability of government. Whilst everyone today talks about the Matabeleland atrocities of the 1980s, there was almost a conspiracy of silence at the time that fellow citizens suffered intolerably. The local media was either silent or supportive. Citizens in other parts of the country got on with their business. Those who raised alarm, such as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) were ignored or dismissed outright. The cries of the suffering multitudes were drowned in the euphoria of independence. Indeed, in some cases supporters of opposition parties such as Muzorewa-s UANC had their properties trashed and burnt by fellow citizens.

Some may say these are things of the past but the plight of Jestina Mukoko, Roy Bennett and the scores of political detainees is a clear and present signal of our times. There are worrying similarities with the way the likes of Dumiso Dabengwa and the late Lookout Masuku were treated in the 1980s. They stayed in jail for years after independence on charges that lacked foundation but few outside their circle raised questions. The trouble is that there is an inherent risk in the new administration, which if left unchecked could dilute the culture of accountability. It is that Parliament, as presently constituted, could well be no more than a rubber stamp of Executive decision-making. It is that Parliament now has no official opposition which would normally make the institution more effective as a counter-balancing force that keeps watch over the ruling party, shadowing the ministers and closely following their every move and each word.

Already, Parliament has passed two key bills without any critical debate (i.e. Constitutional Amendment No. 19 and the Zimbabwe National Security Act). Admittedly, the circumstances were understandably exceptional, there being the urgent need to set up the new administration. But one hopes it did not set the tone for the future workings of parliament. Coalition governments do exist elsewhere in the world but they do not necessarily descend into de-facto one party states. Our new scenario contains a deficiency that potentially creates incentives for excesses. Whilst the united front is a political necessity during these sensitive times it is critical to note that it also creates too much power in the hands of the few politicians now in government. If the respective parties in government were to routinely whip their legislators into line, stifling critical debate, then clearly Parliament will be severely hamstrung as an institution of promoting accountability.

So, plainly, given Parliament-s handicap, questions will have to be asked from somewhere. A critical eye must exist to watch over the new administration and the way it does things. For example, there is something terminally wrong with a system that privileges the purchase and allocation of luxury vehicles to government and parliament when a father in Budiriro has to ferry his cholera-stricken daughter to the deprived polyclinic in a wheelbarrow. The payment of salaries to civil servants in foreign currency, however small, is a step toward the right side of the social compass that must be commended. Yet the principle of transparency that Zimbabweans have been yearning for also demands that leaders show not only the source but also the size of funds. It is about creating the right system - a system that is not hampered by vagueness; one that does not create the image of the benevolent leader who hands out goodies to the needy. We have been there before and it does not work.

How therefore, can citizens ask questions when Parliament is held back by this Achilles Heel? How can they play a role in engendering accountability? One key principle to note is that citizens must be willing and able to participate in the process of government. As Mary Robinson, the former President of the Republic of Ireland and also former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said years ago, "Democracy isn-t a spectator sport. It-s government of the people and by the people - in other words, a political process that works only to the extent that we participate". In other words, citizens cannot be mere spectators - they have to be active participants. This can be achieved in at least three ways:

The first is through the civil society movement which has been active in the last decade. Civil society now has an even crucial role of maintaining an eagle eye over the new administration and pointing to its excesses. Civil society should engage with Parliament to push through legal reforms and especially fight for a key role in the formulation of the proposed new Constitution. Citizens cannot allow the so-called Kariba constitutional draft to be simply endorsed by Parliament. Therefore, contrary to the thinking that its role would cease once things 'normalised-, civil society has an even more important role especially if the new environment removes the many unnecessary constraints.

The second is through the media, what Edmund Burke is reported to have called the 'Fourth Estate- - 'the most important of them all-. At present the Zimbabwean media is hamstrung by restrictive media laws such as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the broadcasting laws. Here, space needs to be freed up to allow more and diverse players. This space can be used by citizens to reach out to their leaders; to question and engage with them on critical questions of the day. When politicians are subjected to such open debates with citizens it also provides incentives for them to perform and behave better.

The third is through opposition parties, even though they are outside Parliament. There is no point pretending that everyone subscribes to the parties presently in government. Yet these parties are many, small and severely divided. These organisations can organise more effectively if they are to more effectively have a role in checking the new administration.

Finally, whilst the desire for unity is understandable, it cannot seriously be said that for it to succeed the new administration necessarily needs an atmosphere of monastic silence among citizens. Citizens cannot afford to subscribe to a Mafia-type Ormeta - an oath of silence. No one seriously challenges the assertion that the new administration must be given a chance. Yet, giving it a chance does not necessarily mean becoming a flock of sheep that always follows the command of its shepherd. We have suffered enough to know that political power, by its very nature, corrupts otherwise decent individuals. Those politicians who abuse power are not necessarily born evil. Often, they have started with very good intentions. Yet during the process of acquiring, consolidating and using power, the holder has often got away with excesses simply because citizens have failed or neglected to maintain a critical eye on him.

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