Deciphering the blind support for Article VI and Copac

Deciphering the blind support for Article VI and Copac

By Terence Chimhavi

The much talked about constitutional reform process as outlined in Article VI of the GPA and as led by Copac has generated a lot of debate especially within Zimbabwean civil society, who by their very nature, ought to be the vanguards of ensuring movement and adherence to democratic principles that they so clamor for. It goes without saying that as civics, we ought to tow that rigid line, in line with our principles as enunciated through the numerous gatherings through which we have and continue to make our demands and vision for a democratic and socially just Zimbabwe known. Unlike politicians and political parties, we can never compromise such principles as they form the back-bone and very basis of our existence. It is through the work of these civic movements that the aspirations and desires of the general populace can clearly and concisely by captured and championed.

Gift Tandare - a victim of March 11 2007.

I vividly remember the time after the March 11 2007 Save Zimbabwe Campaign prayer meeting that was viciously suppressed by the police in Highfields. It was this event that ultimately led to inter-party talks brokered by then South African president Thabo Mbeki. Eventually, the parties made a raft of agreements that included electoral reforms used in the March 2008 elections and of course the Kariba Draft. Many right thinking civics with a memory sharp enough will remember the noise they generated as they clamored to be part of the talks in South Africa. However, their most immediate ally in the talks then, the opposition MDC saw no need to afford their allies space in deliberations for a way forward for the country.

I also remember well the talking points for civics who gathered in their thousands at the Rainbow Towers Gardens on 8 and 9 February 2008 for the Zimbabwe People’s Convention. Many civics then felt greatly betrayed by the MDC for having gone for talks with Zanu PF alone when the events that culminated in these talks were the result of a concerted effort, at the time led by the civics through Save Zimbabwe Campaign. And knowing well the behavior of politicians, civics knew that in their absence, the MDC would be easily swayed into making petty concessions with Zanu PF. Their main concern was on unlocking a people-driven process of coming up with a democratic constitution for the country as enunciated in all these gatherings mentioned. True to principle, they all agreed, then, that constitutional reform or review could never be a preserve of politicians and their political parties and therefore any process thereof had to be led by an independent commission agreed to by various stakeholders in the body politic of the country.

Many may now begin to remember the events that followed the March 29 2008 elections: the election results that were to take so long in coming out; the arrest of elections officials and subsequent recounts; the violence and murders especially of MDC members and supporters that marred the run up to the run-off and the eventual pulling out of the MDC presidential candidate from the June 27 run-off election.

Caught in the act...
Soldiers looting at the height of economic meltdown.

Again, like before, this violent period was to culminate in more negotiations, and Thabo Mbeki was again to be the mediator-in-chief. And true to the style of the 2007 negotiations, the MDC was to succumb into signing the September 15 2008 GPA. Many critics of this process and the eventual September 15 event point out that had the MDC not signed this agreement, Zanu PF would have self-destructed. They had lost legitimacy to govern because of the sham that was June 27 and despite having been sworn in as president a few hours after the announcement of election results, it was clear that Zanu PF could no longer sustain a functional government on its own. The economy was their biggest enemy then and they clearly were struggling to contain the soldiers who had hitherto acted as a strong bastion of support for the ailing regime. The only reason they acceded to talks was because they saw an opportunity to salvage themselves, to give them time to regroup and re-strategize, so they could live to fight another day.

The morale of the story

Now, the morale of the story thus far is the fact that in all these happenings, the people of Zimbabwe and even through their civic movements have played largely spectator roles despite the fact that all these shenanigans have been at the behest of the people of Zimbabwe – in putting the interests of Zimbabwe the country at the fore.

Supping with the devil - Copac leaders
 Mwonzora and Mangwana

When  the Copac  charade was launched to push through Article VI of the GPA in 2009, there was a lot of noise in civic circles as arguments ensued as to whether as civics, we should be part of such an openly flawed process, in defiance of resolutions some almost a decade old that had stood firm thus far. Just prior to this launch, the MDC had met with its most vocal and mass-based allies to deliberate and proffer a way forward with regards to constitutional reform for the country. At a meeting attended by the party, ZINASU, NCA and ZCTU, they all agreed that Article VI fell far short of the expectations of the country in coming up with a new constitution. This position was aptly supported through the various resolutions of the 1999 National Working People’s Convention, the People’s Constitutional Convention of the same year, the Zimbabwe People’s Convention of 2008 and the People’s Constitutional Convention of 2009.

Just weeks after this meeting rubbishing Article VI, the MDC was to perform a spectacular somersault, outrightly abandoning their allies and pushing through with Article VI and starting the now very infamous journey that Copac is still seized with. At the time, they were to tell everyone who dared to listen that as a political party they carried the mandate of the electorate in bedding their erstwhile enemy in coming up with a new constitution.

The NCA launched its Take Charge campaign
to oppose Copac.

For many observers, this somersault by the MDC has been linked with the eventual ‘sponsored’ split of the students’ movement ZINASU and the eventual split of the ZCTU a few years later. In civic circles, similar divisions were to take root, with battle lines being drawn against camps that came to be referred to as ‘Take Charge’ – opposed to Copac and ‘Take Part’ – moving with Copac. As time went on and the flaws in Article VI began to show, first through the First All-stakeholders Conference, another off-shoot camp was to emerge, dubbed ‘Take Money’. These were civics drawn largely from the ‘Take Part’ camp that were clearly not concerned about whether Article VI was going to produce anything worthwhile or not, with their effort aimed at benefitting as much as possible financially from the windfall that Copac and its chaotic processes offered.

Inconsistent - MDC-T leadership.

Having clearly made a somersault in supporting a process they had earlier dismissed as not adequate, the MDC set a very bad precedence in terms of their ability to stand up to their decisions and actions. However as a political movement of politicians, they were quickly forgiven by their members and supporters.  After all they had been party to the negotiations that brought about Article VI in the first place. However, instead of staying true to some of the fundamental tenets of democracy – to allow for divergent opinions – the party went into overdrive, discrediting, ridiculing and at times meting out violence against civic groups that stood steadfast in opposing Article VI and Copac and their apparent betrayal. And because of this fear of the known and unknown, many civics were cowed into submission with one clear threat over their heads – give into Copac and support it or face cutting of funds. It was as simple as that. A lot of civic organizations were arm-twisted into supporting this flawed process on the threat of a cut in funding. The NCA having stood out in defiance was punished through the withholding of funding.

And this is the matrix that is behind the blind support for Article VI and Copac. It is not so much that many of the civics that support Copac today believe in the process delivering a democratic constitution – rather, theirs is a quest for sustaining donor funding. I am confident that had civic organizations stood firm in rejecting the fraud that is Article VI, this process would have collapsed a long time ago and we could even have been talking of a different process by now. At least one which would not have resulted in the death of a civilian due to undue political interference.

The MDC has in the past benefited
immensely from a united civil society.

However, in all these goings-on, it is the MDC that stands to be the biggest loser. This is so because their stance and ultimate under-hand machinations have left civic society divided and unable to push through the legitimate demands of the people of Zimbabwe. The MDC managed in 2007, in the words of Morgan Tsvangirai, to ‘drag Zanu PF to the negotiating table kicking and screaming’ because they had the backing of united and focused civic allies. That they managed to divide these civic allies is not bearing any fruit for them. Rather, as the recent surveys by Afrobarometer, Freedom House and MPOI will point out, their support is waning when it ought to be going up. This is a direct consequence of their failure to adhere to principle and keep their allies united. Instead of this, they have gone on to sow seeds of division among civics in the hope of getting blind support, and in the process getting backing for some very silly and myopic decisions.

If the truth be told, the attempts to cow civic society into blindly following and endorsing decisions of the party will come back to haunt the MDC in the future. This is the same culture popularized by Zanu PF that now seems to be taking root in the MDC. What is clear at the present moment particularly with the constitutional reform process is that the MDC dragged itself into the mud and are now trying by all means necessary to arm-twist civic organizations into the same mud. It is also imperative to note that the blind loyalty to Article VI by a sizeable number of civic organizations is not really borne out of a desire to see a better Zimbabwe with a democratic constitution – it is simply a question of positioning themselves in line for political rewards through political appointments in the event that the MDC eventually assumes power and forms a unitary government.  And of course in the process fattening their pockets from the windfall generated through the donor support of the Copac process.