Time to deconstruct Zimbabwe and welcome the new 'Republic of North South Africa'

The Zimbabwe experiment has clearly failed. Its entire experience is has been sad, tragic and painful; from the atrocities of the anti-colonial struggle, through the horrors of Gukurahundi, the cruelties of Murambatsvina, to the harrowing terror of the elections of 2000 â€" 2008 and the total economic collapse of 2008.

Zimbabwe was constructed in 1980 as a 'clanistan', has existed as one and has failed as one. Without a wide political base and incapable of one, Zimbabwe has lacked political tools, and, like Rhodesia before it, has maintained itself through force and/or threat of force. As such it has been hostile to, and fearful of, functioning and living institutions democracy.

Zimbabwe turned the word 'national' into a despised make-believe propaganda tool of control, wielded and brandished by the clan which presently occupies and controls the institution of the State. With Zimbabwe, hardly anything has meant what it says and hardly anything has said what it means. Zimbabwe has turned things topsy-turvy, inside out and outside in, a true caricature of all things normal and certain in their rightness.

This is not surprising. Zimbabwe is not a constitutional construct. It is only a political label for the physical territory bordered by South Africa in the South; Botswana in the West; Mozambique in the East; and Zambia in the North. As presently made up, Zimbabwe is anything that anyone who wields power says it is; indeed, a privatized State operated at the whim and pleasure of a few individuals.

It is therefore time for a complete re-think; not just change, as presently defined by the MDC formations.

In the context of Zimbabwe, the 'change agenda' was always deeply flawed and limited, devoid of content and therefore programmatically crippled. The failures and incapacities of the 'change agenda' have become even sharper, deeper and wider once its 'political ambush' of 2000 failed.

The 'change agenda' was always the wrong agenda.

What present-day Zimbabwe has always needed is complete deconstruction, and in its place a new root-to-branch constitutional construction of a State fit for purpose for the 21st century, and beyond.  What present-day Zimbabwe has always needed is a truly no-holds barred deconstruction and reconstruction agenda!

To achieve that we need to start at the beginning. And the beginning is the name 'Zimbabwe' itself.

What is presently called 'Zimbabwe' comes from a long line of names: 'South Zambezia', 'Southern Rhodesia', 'Rhodesia', 'Zimbabwe-Rhodesia', and, now, Zimbabwe. Quite apart from the fact that all these names were unreferenced impositions that were never popularly agreed, there is the more serious issue that the polity each of those names referred to was never a constitutional construct, but only a political label. It is little wonder that those who have inherited its power, via whatever method, across its various name changes, have regarded what is present-day Zimbabwe as a private enterprise about which they can do as they please. Only last week, the Zapu President, Dr Dumiso Dabengwa made exactly this point, that present-day Zimbabwe was long privatized.

No one really knows where the name 'Zimbabwe' came from, and even those who claim to know, find that their claims are contested.

The issue of the name 'Zimbabwe' is no small point. Clearly, the very name 'Zimbabwe' is a politically-pregnant term that has given a false sense of superior entitlement to Zimbabwe as a political entity to certain tribes and clans, and a corresponding disentitlement to Zimbabwe to certain tribes and clans. Indeed, we have already seen those who regard and see Zimbabwe as their private enterprise already intimidate and force Copac to make unconstitutional changes to its draft, matters that the people are supposed to decide on in the referendum (if it is ever held) in the first place.

At the same time, Zimbabwe has had what is called a GPA running it. The GPA itself is a private agreement of three political parties by which those three political parties agreed to run Zimbabwe without the consent or authority of the people of present-day Zimbabwe. As such, the GPA has no political legitimacy. What the GPA only has is constitutional expression via Constitutional Amendment No. 19. To be legitimate and as expression of the will of the people, the GPA would have had to been endorsed by a referendum.

Therefore the first step in the process of deconstructing Zimbabwe must be in its name. Everybody must say what they want the name of the new country to be.

It must therefore be immediately observed that the Copac draft, following on the unconstitutional parentage of its predecessors, retains 'Zimbabwe' as some form of a priori constitutional given which is sacrosanct and beyond constitutional determination. That is evidently untrue and unconstitutional. Zimbabwe as a name is not a given and has never been a given. Anything can replace and displace it. The name 'Zimbabwe', if it is the name chosen, must be a constitutional choice, otherwise another genocide may well be in the offing if present-day Zimbabwe remains a private possession.

After the name people must know what it is that is being reconstructed; the constitutional content of the new State.

People will recall that what is present-day Zimbabwe is the outcome of an illegitimate 1923 Whites-only referendum in which a few thousand Whites chose self-rule over becoming part of the then Union of South Africa. The whites, then, may have thought they were determining the constitutional status of what they constituted as Southern Rhodesia, and now, Zimbabwe, for all time but time has proved that to have been a false assumption. 

 

The Southern Rhodesia created in 1923 was not a constitutional construct, but a political label. Southern Rhodesia could not therefore confer on Rhodesia, and now, Zimbabwe, a constitutional status it (Southern Rhodesia) did not itself have. Logically therefore present-day Zimbabwe is also a political label, and nothing more.

Indeed, this constitutional limitation is not lost on the Lancaster House Constitution. The Lancaster House Constitution under which Zimbabwe has been ruled since 1980 did not and could not transfer or confer constitutional status on Zimbabwe. As the GPA (illegitimate as it is) acknowledges, and as Dr Dabengwa recently noted, the Lancaster Constitution was purely, and rightly, a transitional, interim constitution which transferred power, but nothing more. Post that limited function, Zimbabwe should have long written a new constitution which would have constitutionally constructed a new State. So, in essence, today in 2012/13, present-day Zimbabwe is back to 1923, and must constitutionally construct a new State out of the ashes of Southern Rhodesia, Rhodesia, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and now, Zimbabwe.

Thankfully, the Copac process is clearly not a mechanism for that. Copac is a private political tool of the political parties which brought about the illegal and illegitimate GPA. That is why Copac can agree to 'drop' certain draft provisions that are unsuited to some individuals; 'park' certain draft provisions; is answerable to a private management committee; and that is why Copac is ultimately answerable to three 'principals' who, God knows, who conferred on them that status.

In terms of constitutional construction, I propose a few things.

First, the name 'Zimbabwe' must be completely erased as the name of the new polity that will be constitutionally constructed. If it should re-emerge, it should do so as a name of a province only. Even as that, as suggested below, that should not happen.

In place of 'Zimbabwe', I propose a politically-neutral term. At all costs, I propose that 'hard' names such as 'Zambezi', 'Limpopo', 'Great Africa' etc, and kingdom names such as Matebeleland, Mambo, Tonga, Munumutapa, New Rhodesia etc, be completely avoided.

I propose the new name of 'North South Africa'. 'North South Africa' is easy to abbreviate ('NSA'), as it is also easy to freely identify oneself ('North South African'). But 'North South Africa' is only a proposed name. However, even as a proposed name, it will have to be debated and constitutionally agreed.

But what of the constitutional content of 'North South Africa'?

It is well to remember and acknowledge that present-day Zimbabwe is a polity of contested sovereigns, all of which have the right to, and must assert, their exclusiveness. There are two ways to deal with this issue.

The first is to reconstitute as constitutional monarchs all sovereigns that have had prior existence as kingdoms. The second is to continue with the present system and simply 'provincialize' all of them. The advantage with 'provincialization' is that it simplifies matters, but, at the same time, it doesn't necessary exclude the reconstitution of such former kingdoms constitutional monarchs. South Africa uses this second option with its various kings.

Whichever option is favoured for 'North South Africa' it is important that the constituent parts themselves be legitimately and constitutionally constructed and that the 'citizens' freely consent to being part of 'North South Africa'. 'Provincialization' makes it easy for such democratic choice to be exercised quickly and easily, compared to the first option of reconstituting old monarchs, something that can be done post construction of NSA, as was done in South Africa.

Clearly, I favour 'provincialization'. This brings me to my second tier of constitutional reconstruction below the 'national' State.

I propose, as the constituent parts of my constitutional construction of 'North South Africa', four provinces, as follows: Southern Province (the present two Matebeleland provinces and the Midlands); Eastern Province (all of present Masvingo and all of present Manicaland and eastern parts of Midlands); Western Province (all of present Mashonaland West and parts of northern parts of the Midlands); Northern Province (all of Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland East). The Midlands should fall away altogether. Obviously, detailed demarcations will be necessary.

I believe this re-arrangement and new 'provincialization' should help completely kill the building blocks of the present 'clanistan' that is present-day Zimbabwe.

As I say above, I conceive of the provinces as primarily the political constituents, the political building blocks, of the new 'North South Africa', and, secondarily, as the first tier of the administrative divisions of 'North South Africa', followed by 'counties', 'districts' and 'wards', in descending order.

Increasingly, it is becoming clear that the Copac process and its draft constitution will not see the light of day, or that even if it does, its 'rejection' is almost an assured outcome. This means that the Lancaster House Constitution, which remains a transitional constitution that didn't and doesn't confer constitutional status on present-day Zimbabwe, will become the 'default' constitution. This is an outcome the architects of the 'clanistan' presently called Zimbabwe clearly want, for obvious reasons. This is alarming. So it is important for the people to react quickly and avert that eventuality.

Deconstructing present-day Zimbabwe and reconstituting it constitutionally as something else is at the heart of doing so.

Practically, there are several preliminary things that must be done or must happen to deconstruct present-day Zimbabwe and construction it constitutionally as 'North South Africa'.

First, the illegitimate GPA must be brought to an end by political agreement underwritten by SADC, AU and the UN. Potentially, the GPA can go on beyond 2013, or theoretically forever. This is because the GPA has no 'sunset' clause.

Further, even if a referendum for a new constitution is held and the new constitution is adopted, the electoral process could still be violent and its outcome disputed again, leading to GPA2, as once suggested by Jonathan Moyo. On the other hand, we could be still headed for GPA 2 if the Copac draft constitution, whose rejection is almost assured, is in fact rejected in a referendum. Whichever way, the present GPA parties are in a near-permanent win-win situation and the people in a lose-lose situation.

To prevent that happening, and GPA 2 becoming a reality, a new approach is necessary.

I propose four things. First, that agreement be made (between GPA parties, on the one hand, and civic groups and non-GPA political parties, on the other) through, SADC, AU, and UN, agreeing to allow the present GPA to run as it is until end of 2013. Second, that the present Copac process be disbanded with immediate effect and its draft constitution be similarly discarded. Third, that the  proposed referendum be immediately scrapped. Fourth, that all GPA processes be retired, subject only to transitional arrangements necessary to transfer executive functions to the Interim Government proposed below.

There should be nothing alarming about these proposals. The GPA has already failed to timeously honour many, if not all, of the terms of the GPA, chief of which is that the new constitution should have been in place at the end of 2 years. So, really there is nothing to mourn about.

In place of the GPA, I propose the creation and appointment of an Interim Government (IG) made up of eminent and prominent personalities who will not be running for office post-the IG. The IG can be constituted as a political agreement hammered out under the auspices of SADC, AU and the UN. The IG should start 1 January 2014 and hold office for a few years, preferably less than the life of a full parliament (5 years) or for a maximum period of a parliament (5 years). None of the present members who have been part of the present GPA executive should be part of the IG.

Under the authority and overall direction the IG, a new, apolitical and 'people-driven' constitution-making process must be immediately constituted. That new constitution-making process must strictly adhere to set time-lines and must produce a draft constitution which will be subjected to a people's referendum within the set time-lines.

Out of the IG and its new constitution-making process must emerge the new State of 'North South Africa' as a new constitutional construct brought about by free consent of all the people, thus burying once and for all the political label that was once racist-ruled Rhodesia, and, since 1980, the tribally-ruled 'clanistan' that is present-day Zimbabwe, and in its place we have a true constitutional construct called 'North South Africa'.

On the realistic assumption that 'North South Africa' will be constituted constitutionally as a republic its formal name can be expected to be the 'Republic of North South Africa' â€" RNSA.

Our new generation cannot have any other task and obligation than deconstructing the political label of present-day Zimbabwe and constructing the new constitutional construct of 'RNSA'. And 'new generation' is described by mental make-up, not the age of numbers.

Our new generation must look to welcoming the new, truly legitimate 'Republic of North South Africa' and to burying the 'label of power' that has been the 'clanistan' of Zimbabwe and its racist-ruled predecessors of Southern Rhodesia, Rhodesia, and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.