Maravi

(NEWZIMBABWE) Constitutional reform process flawed

COMMENT - I say no devolution of power to anything, until the war against Zimbabwe ends, and the ownership of Zimbabwe's diamonds is secure in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe, forever.

Constitutional reform process flawed
05/03/2012 00:00:00
by Dr Patrick Musami

THE current constitutional reform in Zimbabwe is reminiscent of the ill-fated 1999 constitutional writing process which was “doctored” by Zanu PF and concomitantly rejected in the February 2000 referendum.

One of the reasons for the rejection was that it ostensibly entrenched a Russian type of executive President amongst other things. As an erstwhile constitutional Commissioner, who protested at the way Jonathan Moyo etal were tampering with people’s views, I have resigned to the fact that nothing fruitful will come out of this current exercise.

I have drawn many analogies and extrapolations from the current drafting conundrum to that of 1999 as I see a consistent Zanu PF agenda to foist its way while the impotent MDC formations have been consigned to the role of by standers.

Outreach programme

In the 1999 constitutional writing exercise we went on an extensive outreach programme all over the country gathering people’s views. I was domiciled in Mashonaland East Province for the outreach programme.

Many people attended the meetings and despite the conspicuous presence of CIO operatives at those meetings they expressed their views without fear. They were outraged by the fact that Zimbabwe didn’t have term limits for the presidency. “How can a person rule this country forever?”, many would ask.

In addition they wanted the minimum age of election to presidential office to be pegged at 40 years and the maximum age limit to be 70 years. These imperatives have been replicated now and Zanu PF wants to throw that away. What a shame and waste of people’s time?

The other issue that came out of the meetings then, like now, was the matter of Presidential Powers. Most people, I can say in nine out of ten of the country’s provinces, were against an executive President. They preferred a Westminister style of government run by a ceremonial President and Prime Minster with devolution of power between the two offices. In other words, they still had nostalgic feelings of Zimbabwe when it had a ceremonial President and a Prime Minister.

Presidential Powers

The excessive presidential powers under the current constitution was a very contentious issue during the outreach programme and has always been; in fact it is the casus belli of the people’s aversion to the executive Presidency.

Currently, Section 27 of the amended Lancaster House Constitution vests executive and legislative authority in the President. Decisions made by the executive (President and cabinet) in the realm of foreign policy are not only beyond the purview of Parliament but as also constitutionally excluded.

The President appoints cabinet ministers, ambassadors, judges and the Attorney General after consulting with either the Public Service Commission or Judicial Service Commission but he is the one who sets up the Public Service and Judicial Service Commission. Where are the checks and balances? Where is parliamentary oversight? Where is the Separation of Powers if it’s just a one man show like that?

Compare and contrast this with the US Constitution: You have an executive President who appoints cabinet secretaries, including Supreme Court justices, the Attorney General, FBI and CIA directors, but these appointments need to be ratified by Congress, thereby invoking a bipartisan approach.

Republican and Democrat legislators are involved in these appointment processes regardless of the administration in power.

The economy

Other areas that need to be addressed in the Constitution, and which I know won’t be, are the appointments of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Reserve Bank Board.

In the UK and the US, central bank executive appointments are transparent, on merit and have Parliamentary oversight. But in Zimbabwe, these appointments have always been the remit of the President without any Parliamentary in put. We need to derogate this kind politics of patronage and do things properly.

Way forward

The Constitution should capture all the views of people and they should be allowed to be the jury and not Zanu PF.

If this Constitution does not address all these important issues, which is almost certain, it should be rejected at the forthcoming plebescite or referendum and the international community should continue to treat Mugabe and his surrogates with the contempt that they deserve until there is authentic democratic change in Zimbabwe.

Dr Patrick Musami is a Zimbabwean Political Activist based in Elgin, Scotland. He can be contacted at patrick.musami@gmail.com

Labels: JONATHAN MOYO, ZANU-PF

posted by MrK @ 4:50 PM