(TALKZIMBABWE) No to conditional donor funding

No to conditional donor funding
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:07:00 +0000

THE Constitutional making process nearly faced a premature death after donors threatened to withdraw funding following major disagreements over the extent of the donors involvement in the constitutional making process.

The Constitutional Making Management Committee snubbed the donor agent’s scheme of developing talking points that were to be adopted as guidelines in gathering public views during the outreach phase.

The major donors viz the European Union, USAID, Germany, United Kingdom, the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), Sweden and France through UNDP had come up with a document which the committee felt undermined Zimbabwe’s sovereignty as it gave donors direct influence over the final document.

Although the stalemate was resolved and the process put back on track, the question still remains as to what extend should donors interfere in the constitution making process.

The donors who, by virtue of their financial muscle, had already anointed themselves as custodians of national psyche, mood and feeling needed to be reminded that Constitutional Management Committee retained the autonomy in spearheading the writing of a new constitution.

It should be borne in mind that Zimbabwe has been using the Lancaster House Constitution of 1979, which was basically a negotiated political settlement and did not reflect the views, and aspirations of the masses.

Consequently because of the inadequacies, the constitution has been amended a record nineteen times and it would be madness to allow Zimbabwe to adopt another shuttle service approach to the constitution making process after 29 years of independence.

Like most African countries, Zimbabwe does not have the financial muscle to fund some of its programmes and most donors would want to exploit this avenue, swathed with stringent conditions.

The donor community should know that Zimbabwe does not want a Constitution of Zimbabwe by donors for Zimbabwe; Zimbabwe wants a homegrown constitution making process that will reflect the national identity and ethos of Zimbabweans.

The constitution making process is supposed to bring to light the post colonial responses to the colonial debasement of our cultural heritage including all that was once demeaned as a way of a primitive people by our colonial masters.

Instead their emphasis and focus will be on freedom to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press amongst others.

These “freedoms” are important democratic rights that have been prominent in the Zimbabwe crisis, yet these rights are not anyway near the heart of the villager in Chendambuya whose key concern is access to clean water access to inputs in time for the next season.

These freedoms are bound to make lots of sense to the urbanites that seek the production of a constitution that disappears right into the splendid model of Western constitutions.

Without taking away anything from the above freedoms, they fall short of the expectations of the majority whose key concern is access to clean water, right to land, access to inputs, basic education and shelter.

Still engulfed in their ambitious campaign to democratize the “uncivilized countries” the donors thinking is because the West has four-year presidential terms therefore Zimbabwe should follow suit; because Britain does not outlaw homosexuality therefore Zimbabwe should legitimize it.

What the donor refuses to appreciate is Zimbabwe can, without interference, produce a constitution that will wipe out neo-colonialism capitalist mentality and the negative aspects of the traditional mentality.

Zimbabwe has the capacity to produce a constitution that fights and defeats oppression, superstitions, individualism, poverty, corruption and hunger amongst other needs without assistance.

The reason why these donors will never be allowed to chart the constitution for Zimbabwe is because these people openly and clearly seek the production of a constitution that fits in the model of Western constitutions.

They have bestowed upon themselves guardianship or position of mentor in the constitution making process and this can be allowed to take place.

All said and done, it is everyone’s hope to craft a constitution that defines us as people.

We cannot have a constitution that will make us disappear into the colonial western model. We take no pride in such psychosis.

Allowing the donor to provide consultancy and secretariat work is tantamount to prejudicing the outcome of the whole programme by reflecting the wishes of the donors