Maravi

A wasted effort

A wasted effort
By The Post
Thu 09 Dec. 2010, 03:59 CAT

A good constitution is one inscribed in the hearts and minds of people.

Serious attention is paid to this document because it is a guide by which people are governed. In the quest for better governance, many countries world over have delved into reviewing their constitutions and our country is not an exception. Zambia has been grappling with the issue of reviewing the constitution, with four constitution review commissions having been set up in the past to collect submissions from people. But our country has over the years failed and the soon-to-be enacted constitution is another wasted effort.

It is very clear that those who were tasked to write a constitution for us did not rise above personal and narrow interests. The delegates at the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) appeared to have no obligation to our people.

They lamentably failed to proceed on all issues from the interests of the people such that one could not help but wonder who they were writing the constitution for. It’s no wonder that George Kunda is today saying the government will go ahead and enact the new constitution excluding the clauses that were referred to the referendum.

We are not surprised with this outcome because various key stakeholders opposed the mode that the government used to deliberate the Mung’omba draft constitution, a brilliant document with many progressive clauses. Our people wanted a constituent assembly, but the MMD government insisted on the NCC as a mode to examine, debate and adopt the Mung’omba draft constitution. We have not forgotten how various stakeholders, including the Oasis Forum opposed the setting up of the NCC.

They insisted that the constitution be adopted through the constituent assembly, but the MMD was adamant over the matter and a draft bill was prepared after some consultation. We still remember how some sections of the church and civil society organisations accepted the idea reluctantly but called for further consultation over the matter.

The people feared that the bill, formulated on the Zambia Centre for Interparty Dialogue (ZCID) roadmap, advocated piecemeal amendments of the constitution and reserved the right of Parliament to debate and amend the recommendations of the constitutional conference. The stakeholders felt that the bill was retrogressive as it merely limited the NCC to making recommendations to the minister of justice.

Again these wishes were ignored and the MMD government took the bill to Parliament. When civil society threatened to demonstrate over the constitution review making process, George, then justice minister, accused the Oasis Forum of derailing the process and said the government intended to achieve a comprehensive review of the constitution in a less costly manner.

We still remember how the bill sailed through Parliament and the late Levy Mwanawasa assented to it, making it law. Stakeholders such as the Zambia Episcopal Conference, Council of Churches in Zambia, Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, Patriotic Front and the Non-Governmental Organisations Coordinating Council boycotted the NCC, but the process started with about 496 members.

This NCC sat at taxpayers’ expense and altered the draft constitution to great lengths. Much as it left some good clauses intact, it referred to the referendum some key issues, which our people wanted to see in their constitution. The NCC referred to the referendum the clause on the 50 per cent plus one threshold, the clause on the involvement of Parliament in debt contraction and the clause that requires a parliamentarian to retain his seat as an independent member in the event that his political party is dissolved. The NCC also referred to the referendum the clause that requires the National Assembly to approve the increase and decrease in the number of ministers and deputy ministers as provided by the Constitution under the request of the president and the clause on the bill of rights.

However, enacting the new constitution without the 50 per cent plus one threshold means that the country will continue to be governed by minority presidents who will use much of their time in power to justify that they are popular and duly elected. Some people have argued that the 50 per cent plus one threshold is costly and has led to conflict in some countries where it is used. But these arguments do not hold water. Democracy is not cheap and we should, as a country, be ready to spend if we are to make meaningful progress in the political system we espouse. Zambians have for some time been asking for the 50 per cent plus one threshold but those in power have selfishly continued to manipulate the process and remove it from the constitution.

There has also been concern about the manner in which the government has been contracting debts, especially after the country qualified for the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) completion point. The HIPC and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative contributed significantly to the reduction of the country’s debt, which stood at about US$7.1 billion at the time. Many stakeholders have warned that the country risks falling into a debt trap, a debt that future generations will have to struggle to liquidate. According to the 2011 budget, “the government intends to receive about US$400 million in concessional and non-concessional loan disbursements during 2011.”

Last year during the 2010 budget address, Situmbeko Musokotwane told us “the government’s stock of foreign debt is expected to grow by US$59.7 million to US$1,159.6 million by the end of 2009.” Clearly these figures will continue to rise. For a long time now people have been calling for Parliament’s involvement in the contraction of debt so that people can know what the country wants to borrow for. It is quite clear that the country needs a serious national debt management strategy that will protect it from unnecessary debt and misapplication of funds that ultimately erode the gains of debt cancellation. In a country like ours where leaders have an insatiable appetite for borrowing even for things like mobile hospitals, we seriously needed this clause in the constitution.

We need to know why we are borrowing, what we are going to use the money for and whether or not we have the capacity to manage effectively and in an orderly manner what we have borrowed and how we are going to repay. This is the more reason our people wanted to have a say on debt contraction through Parliament. But George and his friends do not want that.

The issue of Parliament having a say in the decrease or increase in the number of deputy and Cabinet ministers is also valid and there has been concern from many of our people who feel that there is need to do things differently. This is an important issue, which cannot be ignored especially that it involves taxpayers money. The bill of rights is another key part which involves our people’s economic, social and cultural rights and it needed special attention. There was absolutely no need to refer the bill of rights to the referendum because this bill is about the basic needs of our people. But we are not surprised because this is the same clause that attracted laughter during the NCC sittings as some people felt that these rights could not be guaranteed to our people. Any caring government would want to ensure that these essential rights such as food, health, shelter, education and sanitation among others are met to enable its people participate meaningfully in the political process. But these are the rights that George and his friends have decided to refer to the referendum and he is not sure when the referendum will be held because there is no money. But was there even any need to refer these clauses to the referendum?

The outcome of this constitution review process was well calculated and the NCC referred these clauses to the referendum on purpose. But this tendency of mishandling the review process will not help the country and our people in any way. This process is very costly and one will notice that some clauses in the various constitution review commissions are the same; our people have been very consistent. However, those in government have over the years been selfish and they have not worked towards giving people a good constitution that will stand the test of time. This is clearly an MMD constitution and those who sat to craft it were not looking beyond their short-term political interests. It is sad that after 46 years of independence we are still talking about the constitution and yet South Africa, which is 16 years in terms of democratic rule, settled the matter amicably. In fact, South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution remains one of the best models because it guarantees the very social, economic and cultural rights that the NCC delegates laughed at.

We agree with NGOCC executive director Engwase Mwale’s statement that Zambians feel cheated over the government’s manipulation of the constitution. Zambia will definitely have another constitution review process because our people still need a good, people-driven constitution, one which they will call their own. And that constitution will one day be enacted because the soon-to-be-enacted document is a wasted effort.

Labels: 50 PERCENT PLUS 1, CONSTITUTION, HUMAN RIGHTS, NCC, ZCID

posted by MrK @ 3:08 PM