Opinion / Columnist
EU conditions laudable, draft constitution a fraud
24 Jul 2012 at 14:08hrs | Views
The conditions set by the European Union (EU) for the suspension of targeted restrictive measures against some Zimbabweans and entities are laudable.
The EU sent an unambiguous message to all the interested parties to the Zimbabwe crisis about minimum standards that need to be met before the restrictive measures can be suspended.
It was a laudable move because the EU ensured its measures are 'performance-based' like a 'bonus' and avoided rewarding people accused of human rights abuse.
At a time when the regime had deluded itself into believing that the louder it made noises, the sooner it would get off the hook, it couldn't be more disappointed.
The positive thing about the EU restrictive measures is that they are not intended for the ordinary people of Zimbabwe as claimed by the regime's propaganda machinery.
The restoration of direct foreign investment should be seen as an incentive to reform than as an opportunity for looting.
The immediate effect of the EU's position is the ramping-up of pressure on the Harare regime to expedite reforms needed to hold a peaceful, free and fair referendum on a new constitution.
If the regime wants the so-called sanctions to be suspended, it has been given a clear roadmap and benchmarks to follow. The ball is in the coalition government's court.
As for the draft constitution that is due to be put to a plebiscite after going through Parliament, in its present form, it is a fraud to say the least.
Admittedly, it has some cosmetic changes like making the president seek parliamentary approval for declaring war (of course how would he/she go to war without funding?)
It is a fraud because it does not reflect the views that were voluntarily expressed by the people during the outreach programme, save for Operation Chimumumu, whereby the CIO allegedly spoke on behalf of Zanu-pf.
For instance, during outreach people rejected a power executive president, preferring a return to President Banana days.
By legalising state seizure of land without fair compensation, the draft constitution was reduced to a Zanu-pf election manifesto for political expediency â€" with serious implications for direct foreign investment.
Given the fact that Robert Mugabe and his family reportedly own 39 farms while less than 1% of the country's 1.8 million commercial agricultural workers and their families were resettled, the draft constitution arguably fails an important test â€" that of redressing Mugabe's and the colonialists' blunders.
The other shortcomings of the draft constitution that make it worse than the Lancaster House Constitution before Mugabe's 19 amendments include:
a. denying millions of Zimbabweans who were displaced by the Mugabe regime's political violence and mismanagement of the economy, the right to dual citizenship and the right to vote as other regional countries do;
b. leaves the door open for 88 year-old Robert Mugabe to rule for another 10 years because the two term limit of 10 years would only start with the adoption of the new charter
c. giving Mugabe not only immunity but a flimsy defence of good faith for alleged criminal offences such as murder, genocide, corruption and so on committed before the adoption of the new charter;
d. short-changing people on human rights violations committed by the Mugabe regime and some before independence, by duplicating commissions and giving them muddled-up terms of reference e.g. TRC also called NPRC plus ZHRC â€" overloaded with jobs for boys and girls of course;
e. providing for a bloated government (like the present one with 70 ministers and their deputies who are all driving expensive and imported Mercedes Benz cars or four-wheel drive Cherokees reliant on such a small tax base, no wonder why Treasury is broke);
f. a too powerful president who makes senior appointments including ambassadors, permanent secretaries, commanders and so on without checks and balance from parliament;
g. allowing the president to deploy the army internally without consulting parliament (given the experience of 2008, it is not wise move);
h. stipulating 16 languages which constitute official languages regardless of cost to the state and violating human rights of those left out when maintaining English as the official language with permission to use all indigenous languages as necessary would have been better;
i. prevaricating and inconsistency on the death penalty e.g. by ignoring gender equality and sparing males under 21 years at the time of committing the capital offence when they are generally some of those accused of violent and politically-motivated crimes.
The draft constitution ended up being negotiated by a small group of people, is severely flawed by entrenching Mugabe's rule and should be rejected in its entirety.
Contact author zimanalysis2009@gmail.com
The EU sent an unambiguous message to all the interested parties to the Zimbabwe crisis about minimum standards that need to be met before the restrictive measures can be suspended.
It was a laudable move because the EU ensured its measures are 'performance-based' like a 'bonus' and avoided rewarding people accused of human rights abuse.
At a time when the regime had deluded itself into believing that the louder it made noises, the sooner it would get off the hook, it couldn't be more disappointed.
The positive thing about the EU restrictive measures is that they are not intended for the ordinary people of Zimbabwe as claimed by the regime's propaganda machinery.
The restoration of direct foreign investment should be seen as an incentive to reform than as an opportunity for looting.
The immediate effect of the EU's position is the ramping-up of pressure on the Harare regime to expedite reforms needed to hold a peaceful, free and fair referendum on a new constitution.
If the regime wants the so-called sanctions to be suspended, it has been given a clear roadmap and benchmarks to follow. The ball is in the coalition government's court.
As for the draft constitution that is due to be put to a plebiscite after going through Parliament, in its present form, it is a fraud to say the least.
Admittedly, it has some cosmetic changes like making the president seek parliamentary approval for declaring war (of course how would he/she go to war without funding?)
It is a fraud because it does not reflect the views that were voluntarily expressed by the people during the outreach programme, save for Operation Chimumumu, whereby the CIO allegedly spoke on behalf of Zanu-pf.
For instance, during outreach people rejected a power executive president, preferring a return to President Banana days.
By legalising state seizure of land without fair compensation, the draft constitution was reduced to a Zanu-pf election manifesto for political expediency â€" with serious implications for direct foreign investment.
Given the fact that Robert Mugabe and his family reportedly own 39 farms while less than 1% of the country's 1.8 million commercial agricultural workers and their families were resettled, the draft constitution arguably fails an important test â€" that of redressing Mugabe's and the colonialists' blunders.
The other shortcomings of the draft constitution that make it worse than the Lancaster House Constitution before Mugabe's 19 amendments include:
a. denying millions of Zimbabweans who were displaced by the Mugabe regime's political violence and mismanagement of the economy, the right to dual citizenship and the right to vote as other regional countries do;
b. leaves the door open for 88 year-old Robert Mugabe to rule for another 10 years because the two term limit of 10 years would only start with the adoption of the new charter
c. giving Mugabe not only immunity but a flimsy defence of good faith for alleged criminal offences such as murder, genocide, corruption and so on committed before the adoption of the new charter;
d. short-changing people on human rights violations committed by the Mugabe regime and some before independence, by duplicating commissions and giving them muddled-up terms of reference e.g. TRC also called NPRC plus ZHRC â€" overloaded with jobs for boys and girls of course;
e. providing for a bloated government (like the present one with 70 ministers and their deputies who are all driving expensive and imported Mercedes Benz cars or four-wheel drive Cherokees reliant on such a small tax base, no wonder why Treasury is broke);
f. a too powerful president who makes senior appointments including ambassadors, permanent secretaries, commanders and so on without checks and balance from parliament;
g. allowing the president to deploy the army internally without consulting parliament (given the experience of 2008, it is not wise move);
h. stipulating 16 languages which constitute official languages regardless of cost to the state and violating human rights of those left out when maintaining English as the official language with permission to use all indigenous languages as necessary would have been better;
i. prevaricating and inconsistency on the death penalty e.g. by ignoring gender equality and sparing males under 21 years at the time of committing the capital offence when they are generally some of those accused of violent and politically-motivated crimes.
The draft constitution ended up being negotiated by a small group of people, is severely flawed by entrenching Mugabe's rule and should be rejected in its entirety.
Contact author zimanalysis2009@gmail.com
Source - Clifford Chitupa Mashiri
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
