Constitutionalism is ideal for democracy and economic recovery

There are so many fundamental issues that Zimbabwe has to settle first before we talk of any democratic institutional or governance style of leadership. This is not confined to the ruling party only but same applies to the opposition in order for them to maintain or meet national standards. Before democracy is crowned in any institution or governance, every party has to pass a litmus test called "constitutionalism". How then do we talk of funding or investments or attracting foreign direct investments when we fail to meet certain standards? We need to be objective when we talk of global standards, we must put away dictatorial tendencies which can bar human democracy. Zimbabwe experienced its worst night mare during Mugabe's reign when opponents were physically assaulted, political violence was on the rise, and most people who opposed Mugabe's rule met their fate. We have a new leader now, it is non-other than Emmerson Mnangagwa and he has to pass a litmus test of democracy before he is crowned "democratic". The main opposition MDC under the stewardship of the ailing leader Tsvangirai is also going through trials and tribulations, and democracy has to prevail or it's doomed. The bottom line in Zimbabwe is do we have democracy?

Respecting the Constitution

It is important and critical at a time when Zimbabwe is battling with an ailing economy to respect the constitution. Is a constitution just a toilet paper or it has to be respected in truth and spirit? Many times political parties come up with their constitutions but it has never been respected. We witnessed this in Mujuru's party when she violated her own constitution by making appointments that were not sanctioned by the party. How do we discipline erring members? Do we do it according to our own way or we have to follow constitutions? Most break away come after people fail to respect the constitution or to uphold the rule of Law. For example in Zanu PF the constitution was amended to suit the appetite for leadership during Mugabe's reign, and we saw them amending the party constitution to make sure they creat what they call "One centre of power". What were the results of one center of power? Rebellion, creation of factions and disgruntlements and bitterness within the party. The constitution was never respected, it was just a paper. The same applies to MDC led by Tsvangirai when he proceeded to make crucial appointments he didn't follow the constitution and this created rifts which led to Ncube-Gibson Sibanda break away and later the break away with Biti's group, and all this is because of constitutionalism. How many times was the constitution amended to suit the appetite of an individual inquest for power?

Rule of Law

Multi-international partners will only lend money to people who respect the rule of law. Is it ideal to use force or violence to an opponent because we fail to agree on principle or we can't read from the same page? How do we treat opponents or members of the opposition or ruling party? Do we have to use force or violence because we have failed to read from the same manuscript? What methods do we use for us to reach an agreement? Both Zanu PF and MDC have the DNA of violence and how then do we pass the litmus test of democracy when we use force or violence to our political opponents? If you remember very well during Elton Mangoma's time when he was the deputy Treasurer General of the movement for Democratic Change, he was assaulted outside the headquarters, and we have also witnessed more than 500 opposition members losing their lives in 2008 during the presidential run off. The ruling party had state machinery at its disposal, and fighting a harmless society with no weapons, is an attack and shameful to democracy. We witnessed war veterans being tear gassed for making an enquiry about their welfare during Mugabe' s reign. We have seen people disappearing, political opponents like Itai Dzamara and never to be seen again. The question that remains do we pass the litmus test for democracy and upholding the rule of Law.

Political Violence and Intimidation

Many times we witness political violence, and this has a lot of repercussions on the grassroots level. Political violence has social, political and economic impact which can creat so many problems. Most people especially young people are used in political violence in return for small token. We witnessed this in Zimbabwe, when most young people who were used to cause harm to other people were left exposed when sponsors retreat to their respective entities. How do violent, intergroup conflicts affect families' abilities to uphold family structure and perform the functions expected of them? Family members may be separated in refugee situations. The "unbridled attacks on civilians and rural communities have provoked mass exoduses and the displacement of entire populations who flee conflict in search of elusive sanctuaries within and outside their national borders. Among these uprooted millions, it is estimated that 80 percent are children and women" The goal of political violence is for one group to gain political power over another, which makes forcing economic hardship on one's opponents is common strategy of war. The idea behind this tactic is to require the opponent to use up all resources and suffer such economic hardship that it eventually will surrender. One common way to accomplish this goal is to use antipersonnel rockets and landmines. They wound many more than they kill, and this (theoretically) requires the opponent to use up resources in medical care and supplies. However, governments involved in political violence often delegate most of their available funds for military use during wars. Therefore, citizens are left on their own to obtain medical help (if it is even available). For individual families, the kinds of injuries inflicted by these weapons can drain them of all their available resources—especially because the weapons are most commonly used in poor countries, neighborhoods, and villages.

Leaders Should Be Elected Not Endorsed

The idea of endorsing people shows lack of respect to the rule of law and constitutionalism. The best way to democracy is to elect leaders through either ballot, special or elective congresses or rather conventions. The idea of elevating people through the back door has a lot of impact on the grass roots levels and shows signs of dictatorship. Leaders should be elected through a secret ballot. People who suffer from endorsements are those on grassroots. If you look at ANC when all offices including the office of the president was contested at congress level, and it was mainly won by Cyril Ramaphosa through a secret ballot. It is very healthy for respective party leaderships to go through elective governance system. Mugabe used endorsements as a well to deal with opponents within and outside the party. Why do you have to endorse leaders when there are lower structures who can express themselves through the ballot? In any democratic institution there is need to respect people's views and opinions by allowing a voting process to take place. This idea of endorsing will always come back and haunt leaders and some may leave power in an embarrassing way.

Investors Want the Constituion Respected

Both Zanu PF and MDC are facing litmus test as far as democracy is concerned. In the Movement for Democratic Change are they going to follow their party constitution when selecting Tsvangirai's successor or they are going to go for the endorsement way of leadership? Same applies with Zanu PF which has state machinery at its disposal, are they going to follow the constitution or they are simply going to do their own thing? We have elections probably slated for August 2018, there are more than 400 laws to be re-aligned so is the new leader going to endorse these reforms or it will be the old style of leadership? Mugabe was given the package, was it constitutionally designated or it was a creation of clauses and amendments? Mphoko, who was the Deputy President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, is he entitled to a package or not? What does the constitution say concerning the ex – VPs? This is where ED will then have to pass a litmus test before elections. In fact most investors will begin to come to Zimbabwe soon a after election that is if ED will conduct a non-political violence poll which will be credible to the international community. Donors will never associate themselves with political violence, intimidations and endorsements; they simply want things done in a proper way. So Zimbabwe faces a huge task ahead of August harmonized elections.

Tinashe Eric Muzamhindo writes in his personal capacity as the Head of Southern Institute of Policy Analysis and Research – SIPAR TRUST, which is responsible for policy analysis and research. He is also an academic and researcher. He holds a BA, MA from Solusi University, and he also holds a Masters of Development Studies from University of Lusaka, Zambia. He is currently enrolled at University of KwaZulu Natal University in South Africa (PHD in Development Studies). He is also an adviser to many financial and political institutions within and outside Zimbabwe. He can be contacted at southerninstitutepar@gmail.com