Back to Index

Parliament should do more to protect human rights
Munyaradzi Bwanya
August 15, 2009

The brave people of Zimbabwe decided to stand tall on the 29th March 2008 to vote in most constituencies for their chosen representatives to Parliament - it was not easy but they did. Having seen the violence and deceit of the previous elections, the populace hoped that the chosen few would carry their thoughts, hopes and aspirations to the august house which had ignored their plight for many years. The measure of success when the lifespan of this Seventh Parliament comes to an end will be how much it would have built in terms of a better Human Rights legal framework and culture.

Role of Parliament in furthering human rights

The Zimbabwean experience, as in other countries shows that the role of Parliament is not a static one, it is continuously evolving one. Weak Parliaments have a tendency to entrench the rule of a particular group of people by enacting laws which allow few people to do anything they wish and to ignore when the state acts unlawfully. Conversely, stronger Parliaments demand the rule of law, accountability by those entrusted with implementation of policy and enforcement of law. Good parliamentarians do not watch helplessly as its laws are ignored or disregarded. They require lawful, reasonable and fair actions from authorities, both the executive and judiciary. The best Parliaments however are those that demand and ensure the security of its citizenry from state abuse of power.

Parliamentarians, individually and collectively ought to realize that they form the core of the governance structure and system. They shoulder the blame for inhuman and regressive laws. Once one becomes a member, he must attempt at the very least, to take stock of the concerns of his/her constituency and advance its interests. A member who does not even attempt to lobby or advocate the repeal or amendment of bad laws is one with its drafters and condones the content and their motives of passing such a law. A current member cannot be heard to rely on the defence that he was not party to the house that passed it or that his voice then was a lone or minority one. A revote to the house in addition to other things means that the job which (s)he is not done yet. Current members are responsible for the current state of the law because they possess the same powers as the parliament which passed the bad laws before them.

Any Parliament worth its salt has four main duties which it cannot abrogate. It passes laws, represents the electorate, 'supervises- the government and provides an official forum for public debate. This is not by any means an exhaustive list of its duties but a list of the most fundamental of its roles which is not affected by its composition or membership.

. . . as a legislature

Our current parliament shares its legislative powers with the President. Parliament thus has the power to make law thus the term lawmaker is often used to refer to a member. In practice, most of Zimbabwean laws are proposed by the executive branch of government through the line ministries. Parliament-s role is relegated to debating, amending, repealing and passing laws. Through the Parliamentary Legal Committee, it scrutinizes the SI passed by ministries and other competent bodies for conformity with the Bill of Rights. Passing and retaining bad laws simply means that someone somewhere at Parliament is not doing their job. Examples of repugnant legislation include POSA, AIPPA and BSA. These must be repealed or amended to fully reflect that Zimbabwe is a free country of free people.

. . . as people-s representatives

To represent most conveniently means to stand in place of another. It does not mean to replace another or to substitute. When an MP conducts his business at Parliament, he is there as a member of a particular group of people called a constituency. He stands there for his electors. It is common cause that some MPs do not even have any ties with the areas they represent, legally, because they are registered as voters in a given constituency they are regarded as being part of that group of people. One represents the whole constituency, including those individuals who did not vote for him. It is taken as a given that the people of that constituency are represented in all areas of decision making by virtue of the MP-s participation. The burden the MP carries to the house is that carried by those he represents and not his own. A classic example would relate to how the police and army treat those in his/her area. Abductions, beatings, arrests and other abuses must be taken to the house.

. . . as overseer of the executive

Since the executive is bound by laws passed by Parliament, some supervision of governmental exercise of power is required to ensure compliance by those charged with the implementation of policies and enforcement of law. Currently this is done through the system of Parliamentary Portfolio Committees. Each ministry is overseen by a committee. For Human Rights purposes, the most crucial ones are those on Home Affairs, Defence, Justice and Legal affairs and State Security. This is not to demean the role of other committees but these are the most directly offending ministries. The Committees are empowered to call the authorities and enquire into undesirable developments, to report to the Houses on incidents, programs and plans, to investigate the same and to cite responsible people for Human rights abuses. In practice this facility does not work properly when the committee members are responsible of formulating the offensive policies at party level.

. . . As a forum for public debate

Most parliamentarians are endeared to their constituencies for something the have said in the course of their work (and vice versa). Social ills and preferences of the public must be taken into account by decision makers and that can only be done if such are known through debate. Parliament before passing laws ought to solicit debate from those who will be affected by those laws. To do otherwise amounts to dictatorship. There must be constant interaction between lawmakers, government and the people to avoid undesirable laws and out-of-touch policies.

Each MP must ask himself what (s)he has done since March last year to further a more tolerant, diverse, free culture within his constituency. Each must ask himself what he must do to ensure that by the expiry of his term, his constituency will willingly vote for him again and that his children and his neighbours can compete fairly with those who claim their rights. Each MP must go to a school closest to his home and ask a few primary school students what rights they possess and how they can claim them and stand guided by their answers.

*The author is a final year law student at UZ

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