News / National
Zim draft constitution faces rejection
26 Jul 2012 at 06:21hrs | Views
THE Constitution Parliamentary Select Committee (COPAC) draft constitution faces possible rejection at the referendum by the generality of the population which views the document, in its present form, as falling far short of meeting their expectations after its drafting was hijacked by politicians.
The draft, which has taken more than three years to produce, now risks a NO Vote at the referendum slated for October, nearly 12 years after Zimbabweans rejected the first attempt by President Robert Mugabe's administration to replace the negotiated Lancaster House constitution, which has been amended 19 times.
Observers say only a miracle could see the draft sail through in its present state as the wider civil society is mobilising against it amid allegations that the COPAC document is fundamentally flawed, plagiarised and largely disregarded the views of the people.
Zimbabweans could therefore find themselves stuck with the 1979 Lanc-aster House Constitution, which was heavily influenced by the country's colonial past.
Civic groups this week said the draft constitution conforms more to the sectional interests of politicians in the lopsided inclusive government rather than those of the people as expressed in the various outreach programmes.
Significantly, the draft retains executive powers despite the fact that during the outreach programmes most people wanted executive powers of the President of the Republic to be whittled down to avoid excesses.
The draft is also silent on the reformation of the security sector, accused of being partisan and skirts the emotive devolution of power, an issue that has seized perceived marginalised regions such as Matabeleland.
While the COPAC draft legalises the land reforms, it is vague on the issue of compensation of the more than 4000 white commercial farmers who lost their properties under President Mugabe's haphazard land redistribution.
Civic groups described the draft as discriminatory since it recommends the death sentence for men only.
There is also an outcry over an enlarged Parliament to 270 against the current 210 members, and a Senate that seems to have no other function but to frustrate the work of the lower House. Yet most outreach meetings called for a much smaller legislature.
Even within Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's party, there are growing choruses of disgruntlement with some members within the party's rank and file accusing the premier and his negotiators of selling out to Zanu-PF by giving in on certain crucial constitutional issues.
Movement for Democratic Chan-ge (MDC-T) members aggrieved with the draft fear the electorate could punish the party at the next polls because of its failure to deliver on devolution and a host of other issues raised during the outreach.
Yet others fear the draft could set the stage for a damaging political fallout between the MDC-T and its allies, particularly the former white commercial farmers, over the issue of compensation.
Fringe political parties not signatory to the Global Political Agreement (GPA) say the constitution-making process was not at all inclusive as there were excluded from the exercise.
Political scientist and constitutional law expert, Lovemore Madhuku, this week tore apart the COPAC draft saying his National Constitutional Asse-mbly (NCA) and other like-minded organisations would campaign for its rejection.
He said the draft was literally plagiarised from the South African const-itution as the GPA parties sought to find common ground. The draft also heavily borrowed from the Kariba draft.
Madhuku said a NO Vote come referendum time in October would succeed as people would realise, with time, that their wishes have not been taken into account and that the MDCs have taken them for a ride.
"Tsvangirai wants more power, otherwise why would the MDC support such a draft? By peddling this as a new draft, COPAC has been so dishonest because this is essentially a Kariba document. A number of things were also copied from the South African constitution. In fact, they plagiarised the South African constitution, it is so embarrassing." he added.
The Kariba draft was negotiated between the MDC parties and Zanu-PF in Kariba in September 2007.
Zanu-PF has been pushing for the adoption of the Kariba document as an alternative after disagreeing with its GPA partners over a number of clauses that had been included in COPAC's first draft.
"It's not a COPAC draft. It is a Kariba product. They only resorted to the Kariba draft in seeking to find common ground where they did not agree. The executive presidency has been left intact yet it has been a big issue all along. (President) Mugabe will be too happy with that document . . . For us, it is a NO Vote," said Madhuku in an interview with The Financial Gazette.
The Kariba draft was a compromise document drafted by the three GPA parties and initialled on September 30, 2007 to minimise the poss-ibility of a contested election result in 2008, in line with a Southern Af-rican Development Community resolution that had given birth to dialogue.
It was more of an interim constitution that was meant to be used only for the 2008 election, but on December 4, 2007, Zanu-PF refused to implement the Kariba draft.
Madhuku explained that the South Africans took from the Canadians and the Germans as well as from various other constitutions but expressed whatever they borrowed from these documents in their own words.
He also cited the issues of an enlarged Parliament, the absence of devolution of power and silence on security sector reforms as examples that the COPAC draft had ignored the people's wishes.
Civil society organisations in Bulawayo have ganged up against the document, calling for the inclusion of devolution of power in the new constitution, a system of government President Mugabe has blatantly ruled out on the grounds that it was divisive.
"Our understanding is that the draft is not final and like any other group we will continue influencing the process. The draft is pathetic when it comes to devolution and dual citizenship which are our key demands," says Dumisani Nkomo, spokesperson of the Matabeleland Civil Society Forum.
Nkomo said his group was acting in unison with a message from civil society organisations (CSO) representing the people of Zimbabwe as clearly expressed in various CSO gatherings such as the 2007 civil society conference held at the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair grounds.
There is concern also that the draft largely ignored results from the people's charter, NCA's proposed draft (itself a result of wide consultations with the people), the civil society key demands conference (Harare 2009) and the southern region convention in 2011 among other decisive civil society meetings.
As a result, the civic groups say they will influence the people not to vote for parties that reject the views of the people in the next elections, in an apparent reference to the constitutional referendum.
But Madhuku said civil society would be divided into two groups on the matter consisting of those who will generally stick to the larger grouping of the MDC's posit-ion and those who advocate for a people driven constitution.
Commercial Farmers Union president, Charles Taffs, was livid this week that the draft did not address the issue of compensation.
"It (draft) is negating the value of agricultural land in a country where the balance sheet is negative and it is also contrary to what we put forward during the outreach programme," said Taffs.
The CFU boss charged that the present draft served the political agenda of a handful of people.
"It has been altered; we are going to put forward our objections. However, what needs to be done is to re-establish the land values going forward," said Taffs.
John Worsely-Worswick, the chief executive of Justice for Agriculture also lashed out at the draft for legitimising land invasions or land grabs.
He pointed out that the issue of property rights was not addressed in the draft constitution.
"It (draft) does not in any way deal or rectify the issue of compensation," said Worsely-Worswick.
He added: "The issue of compensation is addressed in South Africa (constitution) where farmers are paid before eviction unlike in Zimbabwe where the State evicted farmers illegally, disregarding their own laws, hence, internationally this is regarded as crimes against humanity. Going forward, Zimbabwe will not be able to attract investors unless the issue of property rights is addressed."
In its current form, former white commercial farmers are unlikely to vote yes at the referendum, sources said.
Former information and publicity minister and Zanu-PF Politburo member Jonathan Moyo has also lambasted the draft calling it "an exercise in mischief".
In fact, Zanu-PF early this year produced a 30-page document with over 200 issues they wanted revised in the draft. This gave credence to claims that the draft constitution had become essentially a negotiated affair than a document reflecting the will of the people as expressed in outreach meetings.
The draft was cobbled by COPAC along with a coterie of politicians cherry-picked from Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations as part of the GPA.
The draft, which has taken more than three years to produce, now risks a NO Vote at the referendum slated for October, nearly 12 years after Zimbabweans rejected the first attempt by President Robert Mugabe's administration to replace the negotiated Lancaster House constitution, which has been amended 19 times.
Observers say only a miracle could see the draft sail through in its present state as the wider civil society is mobilising against it amid allegations that the COPAC document is fundamentally flawed, plagiarised and largely disregarded the views of the people.
Zimbabweans could therefore find themselves stuck with the 1979 Lanc-aster House Constitution, which was heavily influenced by the country's colonial past.
Civic groups this week said the draft constitution conforms more to the sectional interests of politicians in the lopsided inclusive government rather than those of the people as expressed in the various outreach programmes.
Significantly, the draft retains executive powers despite the fact that during the outreach programmes most people wanted executive powers of the President of the Republic to be whittled down to avoid excesses.
The draft is also silent on the reformation of the security sector, accused of being partisan and skirts the emotive devolution of power, an issue that has seized perceived marginalised regions such as Matabeleland.
While the COPAC draft legalises the land reforms, it is vague on the issue of compensation of the more than 4000 white commercial farmers who lost their properties under President Mugabe's haphazard land redistribution.
Civic groups described the draft as discriminatory since it recommends the death sentence for men only.
There is also an outcry over an enlarged Parliament to 270 against the current 210 members, and a Senate that seems to have no other function but to frustrate the work of the lower House. Yet most outreach meetings called for a much smaller legislature.
Even within Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's party, there are growing choruses of disgruntlement with some members within the party's rank and file accusing the premier and his negotiators of selling out to Zanu-PF by giving in on certain crucial constitutional issues.
Movement for Democratic Chan-ge (MDC-T) members aggrieved with the draft fear the electorate could punish the party at the next polls because of its failure to deliver on devolution and a host of other issues raised during the outreach.
Yet others fear the draft could set the stage for a damaging political fallout between the MDC-T and its allies, particularly the former white commercial farmers, over the issue of compensation.
Fringe political parties not signatory to the Global Political Agreement (GPA) say the constitution-making process was not at all inclusive as there were excluded from the exercise.
Political scientist and constitutional law expert, Lovemore Madhuku, this week tore apart the COPAC draft saying his National Constitutional Asse-mbly (NCA) and other like-minded organisations would campaign for its rejection.
He said the draft was literally plagiarised from the South African const-itution as the GPA parties sought to find common ground. The draft also heavily borrowed from the Kariba draft.
Madhuku said a NO Vote come referendum time in October would succeed as people would realise, with time, that their wishes have not been taken into account and that the MDCs have taken them for a ride.
"Tsvangirai wants more power, otherwise why would the MDC support such a draft? By peddling this as a new draft, COPAC has been so dishonest because this is essentially a Kariba document. A number of things were also copied from the South African constitution. In fact, they plagiarised the South African constitution, it is so embarrassing." he added.
The Kariba draft was negotiated between the MDC parties and Zanu-PF in Kariba in September 2007.
Zanu-PF has been pushing for the adoption of the Kariba document as an alternative after disagreeing with its GPA partners over a number of clauses that had been included in COPAC's first draft.
"It's not a COPAC draft. It is a Kariba product. They only resorted to the Kariba draft in seeking to find common ground where they did not agree. The executive presidency has been left intact yet it has been a big issue all along. (President) Mugabe will be too happy with that document . . . For us, it is a NO Vote," said Madhuku in an interview with The Financial Gazette.
The Kariba draft was a compromise document drafted by the three GPA parties and initialled on September 30, 2007 to minimise the poss-ibility of a contested election result in 2008, in line with a Southern Af-rican Development Community resolution that had given birth to dialogue.
It was more of an interim constitution that was meant to be used only for the 2008 election, but on December 4, 2007, Zanu-PF refused to implement the Kariba draft.
Madhuku explained that the South Africans took from the Canadians and the Germans as well as from various other constitutions but expressed whatever they borrowed from these documents in their own words.
He also cited the issues of an enlarged Parliament, the absence of devolution of power and silence on security sector reforms as examples that the COPAC draft had ignored the people's wishes.
Civil society organisations in Bulawayo have ganged up against the document, calling for the inclusion of devolution of power in the new constitution, a system of government President Mugabe has blatantly ruled out on the grounds that it was divisive.
"Our understanding is that the draft is not final and like any other group we will continue influencing the process. The draft is pathetic when it comes to devolution and dual citizenship which are our key demands," says Dumisani Nkomo, spokesperson of the Matabeleland Civil Society Forum.
Nkomo said his group was acting in unison with a message from civil society organisations (CSO) representing the people of Zimbabwe as clearly expressed in various CSO gatherings such as the 2007 civil society conference held at the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair grounds.
There is concern also that the draft largely ignored results from the people's charter, NCA's proposed draft (itself a result of wide consultations with the people), the civil society key demands conference (Harare 2009) and the southern region convention in 2011 among other decisive civil society meetings.
As a result, the civic groups say they will influence the people not to vote for parties that reject the views of the people in the next elections, in an apparent reference to the constitutional referendum.
But Madhuku said civil society would be divided into two groups on the matter consisting of those who will generally stick to the larger grouping of the MDC's posit-ion and those who advocate for a people driven constitution.
Commercial Farmers Union president, Charles Taffs, was livid this week that the draft did not address the issue of compensation.
"It (draft) is negating the value of agricultural land in a country where the balance sheet is negative and it is also contrary to what we put forward during the outreach programme," said Taffs.
The CFU boss charged that the present draft served the political agenda of a handful of people.
"It has been altered; we are going to put forward our objections. However, what needs to be done is to re-establish the land values going forward," said Taffs.
John Worsely-Worswick, the chief executive of Justice for Agriculture also lashed out at the draft for legitimising land invasions or land grabs.
He pointed out that the issue of property rights was not addressed in the draft constitution.
"It (draft) does not in any way deal or rectify the issue of compensation," said Worsely-Worswick.
He added: "The issue of compensation is addressed in South Africa (constitution) where farmers are paid before eviction unlike in Zimbabwe where the State evicted farmers illegally, disregarding their own laws, hence, internationally this is regarded as crimes against humanity. Going forward, Zimbabwe will not be able to attract investors unless the issue of property rights is addressed."
In its current form, former white commercial farmers are unlikely to vote yes at the referendum, sources said.
Former information and publicity minister and Zanu-PF Politburo member Jonathan Moyo has also lambasted the draft calling it "an exercise in mischief".
In fact, Zanu-PF early this year produced a 30-page document with over 200 issues they wanted revised in the draft. This gave credence to claims that the draft constitution had become essentially a negotiated affair than a document reflecting the will of the people as expressed in outreach meetings.
The draft was cobbled by COPAC along with a coterie of politicians cherry-picked from Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations as part of the GPA.
Source - fingaz
