Real debate needed

Over the last couple of weeks, as a Zimbabwean and a democracy activist myself, I have been fatigued by attempts of so-called political analysts and experts who have been commenting at length on the constitution-making process and the new draft constitution, but without really saying anything of substance.
Hiding behind academic titles and assumed expertise, the public has been subjected to a process of appropriation of the national debate on the draft constitution by those who believe they are either technically or politically more superior than the rest of us.
What has emerged, instead of a meaningful constructive national debate on the draft, is an elite conversation that is well-propelled by the media as guardians of the formal transcript of what is happening in our country.
This middle and upper class take-over of national discourse, by people in political society and in civic society, ignores the reality that democracy and issues of national importance such as the constitution-making process should not be the preserve of political society or indeed political society in conversation with some elements of organised civic society. 
Take Simba Makoni for instance, a respected political leader in our country, leading an opposition political party, who speaks like a typical politician about the constitution draft.
He says: "The people of Zimbabwe deserve a 21st century best practice constitution not a cut and paste one, and what we have here does not qualify as a 21st century best practice constitution. There is a fear that if we don't have this current one, we will go back to the Lancaster House Constitution, I would say better the devil you know than the one you don't know."
The above makes for a good sound bite, and while we are all entitled to our opinions and putting them across as we wish, surely Zimbabweans also deserve more than that. 
While Zimbabweans deserve a "21st century best practice constitution", they also deserve constructive engagements based on facts and citations on the draft itself in terms of what makes it not a " 21st century best practice constitution". 
For an academician and a political leader to just use blanket, overarching generalisations and end there, is to perform an act of academic dishonesty, because it doesn't tell us anything as an expectant audience. 
It is to hide behind the veil of academia while saying nothing and hoping that because you are an academic doctor, people will value your input and accept it as fact nonetheless.
Makoni is not the only one who I believe has been guilty of sharing platitudes without giving us any meaningful debate on the draft constitution. Those in support of the draft, have often times been heard to say that the "draft is better than Lancaster House" document. 
Few have bothered to articulate in what way is it better than the Lancaster House document?
To what extent does it meet the democratic test both in terms of what it carries, how it was developed and how it is crafted from a language perspective?
A clear example of "experts" and "analysts" doing a dis-service to the public can be seen from two people who have both advocated that the draft be thrown into the bin, de-facto ZANU-PF spokesperson Professor Jonathan Moyo and political analyst and National Constitution Assembly spokesperson, Blessing Vava. 
On his blog, Vava argues that the draft must be voted against because it retains huge powers in the President.
He writes:"In the draft nothing has substantially changed with regards to the powers of the President as we are being made to believe. If anything the powers have been expanded, only the term limits which have been reduced."
Then comes Professor Moyo, who agrees with Vava that the draft should be fought, and one of his reasons, wait for it: "It strips the Executive of all powers and leaves it as a clerical branch of government."
So who is telling the truth? 
Political parties have not been left behind. Former ZANU-PF politburo member, Dumiso Dab-engwa, Mavambo, Job Sikhala and his MDC99, Rugare Gumbo and Jonathan Moyo, have all jumped onto the bandwagon of dismissing the draft because "it does not carry what the people said during the outreach programme". 
Again, organised political actors are allowed to have opinions, but they should also learn the value of a meaningful debate beyond sharing these slogans. In what way where the people's voices ignored? Was the outreach process itself, given what we know about it, a platform where people shared freely, openly and objectively, such that their voices from that process warrant being respected?
From what perspective is a constitution drafted - from inputs by the people, from inputs by constitutional drafting experts, based on international standards or what? 
What is also disturbing about these champions of the "peoples voices" is that the vast majority of them, perhaps with the exception of ZANU-PF, were rejected by the people as their leaders and representatives during the last elections, and have a combined seat total in Parliament of zero.
And they purport to know what we said and can say that what we said is not there in the draft even before we say it ourselves. This is part of the challenge of our politics, there is always someone wanting to speak for you even when you can do so yourself. This is not to say they cannot be part of the discussion as equals, they should be, but they certainly should not be allowed to dominate that discussion. 
I might be accused of kowtowing to the MDC-T, but I have to say this because it is true.
 The MDC-T, in my opinion, seems to have tried to at least articulate the reasons why they support the draft, complete with a list of what they called the good, the bad and the ugly about the draft.  The MDC led by Professor Welshman Ncube, also stated their reasons for supporting the draft and also their areas of reservations, which they had to cede on because it was a negotiated process.
As deng Xiapong says," Cat - I don't care whether it's a black cat, or white cat . . . as long as it catches mice." 
My point is not that people should not make judgments on the draft constitution but judgments must be informed by sound, substantiated arguments and citations from the draft itself. 
To do anything else is to take people for granted. To subject people to platitudes and slogans is to take people for granted. 
We deserve a meaningful national debate on the draft constitution before we climb on top of mountains screaming "yes" or "no".