Copac a betrayal of the people and their right to author a new constitution
Now that Copac has produced what it has termed the first draft of the new constitution, Zimbabweans should begin to assess and gauge for themselves the true meaning and sense of what is meant by the term ‘people-driven’ and what it really means to have a people driven and people-centred process of coming up with a new constitution for the country. At the first level, the draft allows for the citizens to assess for themselves whether the process of going to the people, to solicit for their views and aspirations in a new constitution was as necessary and done to the book as we have been made to believe by Copac. Secondly, it gives all stakeholders involved from their various stand-points in the constitutional reform exercise, an opportunity to assess their roles and discern an ideal out of the challenges and opportunities that have come out of the process thus far. |
| Part of the rowdy elements that disrupted Copac's First All-Stakeholders conference |
To a very large extent, the journey that Copac has travelled so far in its quest to facilitate the authoring of a new democratic constitution for the country has been bumpy and at most chaotic. From untold disorganization, political interference and violence to lack of donor confidence and ultimately under-funding, the process has thus far worked against itself to prove its critics correct; that politicians, with their obvious vested interests are not the suitable candidates to lead and facilitate the authoring of a new constitution.
What is clear at present is that despite their assertions to the contrary, the constitutional reform process provided for in Article VI of the GPA and as spearheaded by Copac is nothing more than a negotiation process that will result with a negotiated constitution, in more or less the same fashion as the Lancaster House negotiation, only now with a different cast, men of the same race, with only one common factor being the presence of Zanu PF in the equation. It is better that our dear politicians in Copac be truthful to the Zimbabwean nation that the constitution we are now debating is not a product of wide consultation of the people in their diversity, but is purely a product of inter-party negotiations. ‘People-driven’ for now is definitely out of the question.
 |
| Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo at Lancaster House, 1979 |
In light of this, there still remains that question for many that what should we do now that a document has been presented to the people, never mind its source? For many people that I have interacted with, there is that deep predication of skepticism with the draft, though many are still hung over by the tired and incorrect lie that the draft is better than what ‘we currently have’ in the form of the Lancaster House constitution and its nineteen amendments.
For starters, without putting too much emphasis into an analysis of the draft as per its content, it is equally worthy to assess and define the role of the constitution in a country as well as the role that people can and should play, firstly in the authoring of any such charter as well as in ensuring adherence by those entrusted to lead in keeping to the letter and spirit of the charter. As the founding document upon which any worthy nation derives its sovereignty, a constitution lays out the societal foundations for the functionality of society while also providing for the administrative and technical setup for the running of a country. Precisely, a constitution gives order to the system that is the country, ensuring that those entrusted to govern do so in a nationally prescribed manner, with functional checks and balances provided through the people, with who ultimate national power should reside.
 |
| Copac, like Lancaster, will be agreed to behind closed doors. |
The Copac scenario is a perfect departure from what should be the norm in constitutional reform and fundamentally proves why it is of utmost importance that the real beneficiaries as it were, of the constitution and constitutional reform, the people, should always be given an opportunity and space to author the ‘rules’ within which their government will preside over them, in enforcing the letter and spirit of the constitution, the foundation of a nation’s aspirations and vision for the future. What is clear from current events in the constitutional reform saga, with Zanu PF still keen to further negotiate amendments to the draft is that the role of the people is non-existent. It is simply politics at play and like the Lancaster House document, the final product will be decided behind closed doors, only this time the politicians hope to present the draft for a referendum. Lancaster House and the Copac process for me illustrate a fundamental similarity where vested political interests override what is fundamentally morale and just as defined within the interests of the people. In any give-and-take scenario as has been the constitutional negotiation process, personal political interests override national interests with the quest to position oneself for political office and power taking precedence even over common sense. That is why you will find that even such an important national process will leave in its wake, the injured and the dead, as politicians battle to outdo each other.
Now, for the politicians in Copac to try and start persuading the general populace into supporting a negotiated constitution under the guise that it is people-driven and is a product of the people’s views as expressed through the outreach exercise is foolhardy and a complete insult of the intelligence of the people. So does this imply that the people, in their assessment of Copac should conveniently forget that ‘Operation Chimumumu’ ever existed and that many were kept away from outreach meetings because someone was afraid they would say the ‘wrong’ things? The people witnessed some of these things and are fully aware that the outreach meetings were a badly done gimmick of soliciting for the people’s views in writing a constitution.
 |
| Both factions of the MDC have endorsed the draft and want no further amendments to it. |
It would certainly be more diplomatic and respectable for the two MDC formations to admit their mistake in agreeing to Article VI and be truthful that they agreed to it and are in the process of negotiating a constitution with Zanu PF which they will eventually bring to the people for a referendum.
For them to blatantly lie through their teeth that the draft constitution is a product of the people’s views further exposes their dying affinity for democratic principles which characterized the once united movement that emerged from the Working People’s Convention of 1999. It equally exposes some of their recent recruits who not so long ago were at the fore-front of defining ‘people-driven’ within the context of constitutional reform and vehemently and tirelessly worked to oppose the Constitutional Review Commission’s work in 2000 on that basis. One is really left to wonder if the term and concept of people-driven can really be sacrificed simply because of one’s new political standing, never mind the noise they have been making in the past about the people’s inherent right to author a constitution on their own. For some, it really defies logic and severely erodes their morale standing in terms of articulating important national issues when they parrot what they do not necessarily believe in.
 |
| The GPA though commendable has certain fundamental flaws such as Article VI. |
And again as in the past, there is a tag-of war between the political parties on further negotiations towards amendments of the draft constitution. President Mugabe has said that the new draft constitution will only be presented for a referendum when the three ruling parties agree on all contentious issues. The MDCs on the other hand are adamant that no more horse-trading should be entertained. It then boggles the mind as to what these politicians were thinking when they agreed to the provisions of Article VI in the first place. What then would be the reason for going to a second all-stakeholders conference when no further input from the people will be permitted? Why debate the draft in parliament when no further changes will be entertained? It is apparently clear that whatever else other interested parties may want to put forward as recommendations or their views with regards to certain constitutional provisions will fall on deaf ears.
 |
| Amendment 19 provides for parliament to fully debate the draft constitution and its accompanying report in one month. |
It is also abundantly clear that for the three parties to be able to present a draft for the referendum, firstly after debate and unanimity in parliament and after the president approves it for a referendum, then only further horse-trading will suffice. And this is the very reason why the undertaking of such key national events cannot be led by those with narrow political blinkering. Politicians can never be better placed to lead such a fragile process. After all, we have enough credible and non-political people in the country that can constitute an independent commission. This does not mean that politicians should not participate in authoring a new constitution. They have to be there and knock sense into their members why it is important for them to take centre stage in such issues. The moment a political structure is entrusted with leading a process, and with the caliber of some of our dear leaders, it is clear that only political interests will be best served. In a nutshell, all interested parties and critical stakeholders should be able to meet at a platform, as equals, where they debate and agree on a nationally accepted framework for coming up with a new constitution.
While ‘people-driven’ is a term that we can debate days on end, the Copac story is a phase that allows for greater introspection for the people, into how eventually as a nation, we can be able to learn from the constitutional reform exercises that we have experienced so far. It is only from closer analysis of these processes, their challenges and successes, that we can be able to discern what would be ideal, in our own unique situation, in coming up with consensus on the role of the people in the writing of a constitution and ensuring that this consensus is carried through in coming up with a genuinely democratic and people-driven constitution for Zimbabwe.
Let no hope be lost.. we, the people shall write our own constitution...
