Latest News Editor's Choice


Opinion / Columnist

America angry that their blue-eyed boy has been recalled by his own party

25 Mar 2021 at 08:56hrs | Views
The United States has made very hidden but vivid threats to Zimbabwe for allowing Biti to be recalled from Parliament by his own party. In a statement the United States a surprising statement by America indicating that they are following events in Zimbabwe closely, including the moves on March 17 to strip Movement for Democratic Change Alliance (MDC Alliance) who was a member PDP party and Vice President Tendai Biti and other MDC Alliance members of their elected seats in parliament.

Since March 2020, parliamentary has democratically allowed the opposition members to freely exercise their rights and power in their political parties. In a shameless statement the USA said "maneuvers supported by the Zimbabwean government have led to the ouster of 39 MDC Alliance MPs and 81 local elected officials. These actions subvert the will of voters, further undermine democracy, and deny millions of Zimbabwean citizens their chosen representation." Said the Americans.

"We continue to monitor efforts by the government to dismantle the MDC Alliance through the arrest and detention of its leaders and diversion of its assets.  We also note the government's selective enforcement of COVID-19 regulations to indefinitely postpone by-elections and prohibit MDC Alliance gatherings, while permitting internal elections and gatherings for the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF) party and its allies to go forward." The statement by the Americans continued to vilify the government

"The ZANU–PF is misusing the levers of government to silence critics, neutralize opposition, and entrench its political power over the Zimbabwean people.

We call on the Government of Zimbabwe to comply with its obligation to respect the freedoms of expression and association enshrined in Zimbabwe's constitution and its international commitments."

The United States in the shameful statement once again is trying to interfere in Zimbabwe's domestic political affairs. It is clear that America does not understand the Zimbabwean political dynamics. The actions of opposition parties is never controlled by the government. To attribute the failure of the opposition parties to hold their parties together only shows that United State has never loved our country and indeed focused on an evil Agenda of regime change.

The Americans in their obsession with Regime change in Zimbabwe have failed to understand how a Member of Parliament (MP) loses his or her parliamentary seat. The Americans need to be told that the recalling of an MP from parliament  is governed by the Constitution of Zimbabwe. section 129 of the Constitution clearly provides how the MP should lose  his seat and this has nothing to do with the ruling party.

One of these grounds is when a political party declares that its MP has ceased to belong to the party and must be expelled from Parliament. This is commonly referred to as the power of recall, describing as it does, when a political party recalls its representative from Parliament. This recall provision is found in section 129(1)(k) of the Constitution.

Politically it is both a weapon and a shield - a weapon because a party can use it against rebels; a shield because a party can use it to defend itself against infiltration.

There is then no way ZANU PF can control the opposition parties.
The recall provision has been used by  political parties represented in Parliament during the past 7 years since the new Constitution was enacted. Its application was challenged in most cases up to the Constitutional court. The Americans seem to forget that Zimbabwe has its own laws and respects the rule of law. If the law seems to be against the opposition the Americans implores Zimbabwean government to disregard the law in order to protect the opposition. The opposition has exhibited a very disunited and great in efficiency in running a political party.

In case the Americans did not know, the Recalling clause has also generated litigation which has reached the Constitutional Court. In light of current ructions concerning the opposition, the issue of recall is, once again, exercising several minds both within and outside the concerned parties. This is another area where there is a violent collision between law and politics.  The Americans have shown a very embarrassing bias towards the opposition. For the whole country like a america to spring into action only to save an opposition leader smells very bad.  The most puzzling thing is that the Americans only raised dust when their puppet Tendai Biti was chopped from the parliament by his own party.
 
The aAmericans and those who supported the forgot o examine the law on the recall provision. They are supposed to understand the rationale behind the provision.

Former chief Advisor to Tsvangirai Professor Magaisa examined three decisions of the Constitutional Court concerning the use of the recall provision, explaining the judicial interpretation of the provision and highlighting the dark spots that still need illumination, particularly concerning the role of the Speaker of the National Assembly and the President of the Senate.
 
These three cases are Madzimure and others v Speaker of Parliament and others (2015); Mutasa and another v Speaker of Parliament and others (2015) and Khupe and another v Speaker of Parliament and others (2019)

Before we look in the cases above as analysed by Magaisa without buying into his bias let us all understand the true constitutional wording of the provision in question.
The exact wording of the recall provision is as follows:
 
"129 Tenure of seat of Member of Parliament
 
(1) The seat of a Member of Parliament becomes vacant ...
(k) if the Member has ceased to belong to the political party of which he or she was a member when elected to Parliament and the political party concerned, by written notice to the Speaker or the President of the Senate, as the case may be, has declared that the Member has ceased to belong to it."
 
There are two critical elements in this provision:  Magaisa mentions.

 - "The MP must have ceased to belong to the political party of which he was a member when he was elected to Parliament.
 
 - The political party must send a written notice to the Speaker or the President of the Senate declaring that the MP has ceased to belong to it.  
So in all the recalls done the requirements of this provision were followed to the letter. What angers every thinking Zimbabwean except is that America urges Zimbabwe to break the law in order to protect Biti. This exposes the American plot to plant Biti at the state house some day. This confirms our fears all along that Tendai Biti is an American spy who has been planted to distant lies the country.

The USA was dribbled by the law  and they woke up with an egg shell in their dirty hands. This explains why the country broke all diplomatic rules and issue a statement which clearly interferes with Zimbabwe's internal issues. The bullish system by the Americans is deeply depressing and flabbergasting. Indeed America is disturbed by having their preference leader to be kicked in the ground by his own party.

The recall of Biti actual shows the will of the people.

America must know that problems and uncertainties surrounding the outcome of the United States presidential election provide a reminder that the US would benefit from reviewing the lessons on democracy it has been teaching to other countries: Good techniques are very important, but democracy also depends on the political will to make it work.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US has been engaged in a determined effort to promote democracy worldwide.
Coming back to the provisions of the Recall Provision Magaisa argues that "The Constitution does not contain finer details of how the provisions of section 129 are applied. The roles of the Speaker and the President of the Senate are not specified. This lack of detail is not a fault in the Constitution because as a general rule, constitutions do not deal with matters of detail. This is often left to primary and secondary legislation. Unfortunately, there is no legislation to provide clarity on these questions. This is odd, as one would expect MPs to pay more attention and take an interest in a provision whose effect poses an existential threat to their political careers.
 
In the absence of guiding legislation, the interpretation of the recall provision has been left to judges in the courts of law. The Constitutional Court has been called upon in the Madzimure and Mutasa cases, to interpret the recall provision. "
 
Experience so far has shown that the Speaker and the President of the Senate find themselves in a difficult spot where without legislative guidance they must balance the interests of the political party to safeguard its space and the interests of the MP against the abuse of the power of recall. A review of the cases suggests that the Speaker and the President of the Senate, as well as the courts, have taken a position that tilts in favour of political parties. Affected MPs are always on the losing end. "

The purpose of the recall provision is to prevent defections or floor-crossing in Parliament. In a multi-party democracy, political parties are the major organisational unit of representation. While there is room for independents, the political party is the most critical unit of organised politics. It brings like-minded individuals together, enabling them to draw synergies from working as a single unit. Also, the chances of forming a government are enhanced when people work together in political parties. Political parties are an important feature of modern-day politics but their history is more recent in the affairs of humankind.
 
It must be made clear that the  recall provision was designed to protect the interests of political parties in a multi-party democracy. As the Court stated in the Madzimure case, "a Member of Parliament elected on a political party ticket has two obligations. He or she has an obligation to the political party. He or she also has an obligation to the electors. The obligation to the political party is to support it for the normal duration of Parliament."

"The obligation [of MPs] to the electors stems from the fact that, in modern times, the elector, speaking broadly, casts his or her vote for a particular individual, not because of his or her merits, but because he or she is put forward by the party for which the elector desires to vote. The successful candidate is almost invariably returned to Parliament, not because of his or her judgment and capacity, but because of his or her political party label. His or her personality and his or her capacity are alike unknown to the great mass of his or her constituency. His or her electioneering is far less important than the impression which his or her political party creates in the minds of the electors. They vote for or against the party to which he or she belongs."

Technical solutions do not eliminate all problems. Governments and political parties determined to manipulate election outcomes will always find a way. But, while there is no easy technical fix for deep-seated political problems, good technical processes help convince voters that fairness is not impossible and that cheating will be detected.

Unfortunately, the US does not always practice at home what it preaches overseas is never done in America. The world has discovered that American elections can be rather sloppy.

Many of the technical and political problems common in the US would be denounced if they took place elsewhere.
American citizens often cast their ballots without showing voter-registration cards or other identification papers, but the US government spends millions of dollars to help other countries issue photo voter-registration cards.
After the vote, US election officials handle ballots so casually that two days after the elections, an absent-minded clerk can discover a forgotten bag of ballots in the clutter of his car trunk.

Most surprising of all, not all election officials have mastered the art of producing ballots that are understandable to voters. Yet, these are all simple tasks, part of the ABCs of elections taught to other countries.

We should never be intimidated by the a Americans . elections in America have shown that even a well-established democratic system needs good technical safeguards.

But election standards are only one part of the story. The other is that democracy is a matter of having the political will to play by the rules even when this entails a high political price.

It is only this determination to play by the rules that can see the US put in line.
Pity the democracy expert trying to convince an audience in a country which minds its own business that the rule of law must be Brocken to protect the opposition.

Or that the judges deciding whether the recall is lawful will base their conclusions on points of law and not on political considerations. Abstract explanations will not convince anybody.

Skeptics will look for evidence that we can deal with the problem by adhering closely to existing laws, no matter the short-term political cost.


through the present crisis and leave democracy stronger. How the crisis is handled will also determine the effectiveness of US efforts to promote democracy abroad for years to come.

The behaviour of America can easily  in this instance have significant repercussions in other countries.
A bitter struggle to control Zimbabwe at all costs will undermine the credibility of the US as a promoter of democracy.
A bipartisan effort to protect the integrity of the system will show the US does practices what it preaches. It can never teach other countries more effectively without also putting its own lessons into practice at home.

Surely America must be ashamed.
United States involvement in regime change describes United States government participation or interference, both overt and covert, in the replacement of foreign governments. In the latter half of the 19th century, the U.S. government initiated actions for regime change mainly in Latin America and the southwest Pacific, including the Spanish–American and Philippine–American wars. At the onset of the 20th century, the United States shaped or installed governments in many countries around the world, including neighbors

Vazet2000@yshoo.co.Uk

Source - Dr Masimba Mavaza
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.

Subscribe

Email: