Wednesday, 27 June 2012 15:12
“We should not create a constitution for or around individuals, but create one which individuals can fit into…”
– Dr Alex Magaisa.
ZESN yesterday, June 26 2012, held a public meeting at the Crowne Plaza with the topic “An analysis of the draft constitution /COPAC process”. The meeting had Dr. Alex Magaisa, Emilia Muchawa, Dr. Charity Manyeruke and Professor Lovemore Madhuku as panellists. The meeting aimed to give civil society’s analysis on the constitution making process, its flaws and its successes, and comment on the prematurely published draft constitution. The meeting also gave a platform for the public and other civil society organisations to come together and consolidate their views.
Dr Manyeruke told the meeting that the constitution so far has been driven by passion rather than reason as it should be. She disputed the assumption that politicians make that they represent the community arguing that this is the root of all the problems within the constitution making process. She shared her disappointment in the acceptance of 60 extra parliamentary seats reserved for women as suggested in the draft which assumes that women cannot compete with men for the 210 seats that are currently there.
Further- on Dr Magaisa cited the Bill of rights and citizenship as two of the sections of the draft constitution that have greatly improved from the Lancaster House constitution. He said the 2008 run-off elections were a failed process and the constitution needs to address the electoral process. Dr Magaisa however pointed out that Zimbabweans should not put the whole blame on the old constitution or anticipate wonders from a new constitution without looking into the Human factor, “The human factor needs to work towards making the constitution work and if it doesn’t, no constitution will ever work for Zimbabwe.” He also saw a great need to deconstruct the contentious issue on Devolution which he regarded as an issue that has been misinterpreted to mean cession. Unlike Dr. Manyeruke he argued that devolution would be good for Zimbabwe.
In her presentation, Emilia Muchawa highlighted that highlighted that the Constitution of Zimbabwe which was adopted as part of the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement was a document which offers little opportunity for women. She applauded the working draft as she said after carrying out a Gender Audit of the Working Draft Constitution it can be safely said that 75% of women’s concerns had been included. However, she said that women felt that more could be done as there is no mention of gender parity in critical areas such as the security service and the judiciary. The women of Zimbabwe are demanding a constitution that guarantees more women in decision making positions through adoption of mechanisms such as a constitutional quota.
Muchawa’s presentation became the starting point for Professor Madhuku’s presentation as he pointed out that the public has to be careful not to concentrate their analysis towards key focus areas and advised how easy it would be to miss other totally unacceptable points in the constitution. He pressed his objection to having political parties leading the constitution making process and said in his view COPAC will produce an even worse document than the initial draft. Professor Madhuku said if this constitution is accepted there would be a new constitution every time there are new political players. Professor Madhuku maintained the NCA position that they would mobilize people for a NO vote to the new constitution as it believes that it is the outcome of the three political parties and is not driven by the people. He said that the political parties are in control of the process. He envisaged a scenario whereby the GPA principals might adopt the constitution without subjecting the draft to a Constitutional Referendum. He urged people to judge the COPAC draft on both the process and the content. When asked if the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) fears association with ZANU PF by strongly supporting a vote against the constitution, Madhuku said,
“We say No because we don’t support the process and we don’t care who else does, we will be with ZANU if it simply means against the constitution.”
The meeting ended with participants urging COPAC to intensify the dissemination of information on constitution making process as members of the public are not fully aware of the current status of the process.