THE PROMULGATION of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) Act was regarded by many as a momentous occasion in the constitutional history of Zimbabwe.
Kucaca Phulu [email protected]
For the first time there was in place a Constitution crafted by Zimbabweans, encapsulating their views on how they would want to be governed.
I am not ignoring the fact that there are those who have put forward the view that the constitution-making process was flawed and did not attain the label of being “people driven” depending on one’s definition.
Even if one were to accept this proposition — which is meritorious in many, but not all respects — it does not take away the unique set of circumstances under which the constitution was conceived which make it a product of deliberating Zimbabweans and a result of public reasoning.
The debate of whether a constitutional making process has to be people driven illustrates the centrality of a decision-making process to the quality of the final product.
Public debate leading to decisions ensures that rational, impartial decisions are made after interrogation by all interested parties for the benefit of society.
Amatya Sen in his The Idea of Justice highlighted the importance of public reasoning to democratic politics in general and to the pursuit of social justice in particular.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Any pundit advancing the cause of democracy and a proponent of social justice must of necessity take as hallowed the place of public reasoning not only in the constitution-making process, but in all institutions established by the Constitution.
One of the notable flaws of the Constitution is the elevation of the political party over the key institutions in the governance framework and elected representatives of the people.
It is interesting that Zanu PF the ruling party and MDC-T the opposition, agree on this matter and are both complicit in holding public institutions captive. The MDC led by Welshman Ncube is also in agreement with this approach.
All these political parties support the issue of the whip-system which holds individual representatives of constituencies accountable to the party at the cost of their seat.
In other words, impartiality, rationality and scutiny in decision-making are playing second fiddle to the over-bearing presence of the political party, which may not always make rational and impartial decisions for the common good.
I consider it a triumph that multi-party democracy has finally been entrenched in the Constitution.
However, political whipping has been associated more with one-party states rather that multi-party democracy throughout history. We have taken provisions from one party state constitutions and ensconced them in a supposedly progressive Constitution.
The “political party” as an institution is now a threat to the freedom of all Zimbabweans and constitutional institutions to freely participate in public debates and public reasoning.
The Constitution recognises the need for impartiality of members of the security forces, police, civil service, traditional leaders, the judiciary, commissions and stipulates that they should be politically neutral, and divest themselves from all vestiges of political party behaviour in the execution of their duties.
Indeed this approach is in keeping with the need for broad discussion so as to avoid local parochialism of values as observed by Amatya Sen. This might ignore pertinent arguments on the basis of political party interests and dominance.
When it comes to Parliament and local government, the Constitution has totally abandoned the absolutely crucial aspect of public reasoning by stripping elected representatives of the right to debate issues and arrive independently at conclusions of what is best.
According to Section 129 of the Constitution, a seat for a Member of Parliament becomes vacant if, among other things, he ceases to belong to a political party of which he was a member when he was elected. All that the political party has to do is address a notice to the Speaker of Parliament or the minister in the case of Local Government (Section 278) stating that the elected representative is no longer a member of the party.
This position allows a political party an avenue to dismiss a political representative who does not subject himself or herself unthinkingly to the will of a political party be it, in debating, voting or anything else in the course of his or parliamentary business.
This section facilitates the whip system to be put in place. Indeed, in my debates during the constitution-making process, I urged colleagues from across the party lines to see the disingenuousness of the whip system and how, as I argued, it detracts from the principle of public reasoning and debate.
I lost the cause as I remained a solitary voice on this matter.
The matter is now playing itself out as the debate on whether it is right for the MDC-T to recall councillors in various municipalities for voting in terms of the mandate that they are given to deliberate and decide on issues.
The MDC led by Welshman Ncube also expelled members of Parliament who allegedly voted for an MDC-T member for the position of Speaker of Parliament by resorting to a similar provision in the previous Constitution.
The debate is now a live one and we must engage this issue.
A point of departure for this debate are the following questions; If political parties are allowed to micromanage elected officials, what is the point of these offices and the elaborate procedures that guarantee debate?
Is the office of Member of Parliament/councillor, once elected, to serve narrow and parochial political party interests or the public in general and his/her constituency in particular?
In as much as there are a number of arguments that one may advance and sustain to support the notion that political parties should have a mechanism to guarantee the loyalty of their members even where the party for instance, proposes an insane policy that is detrimental to the public interest.
