Another twist to constitution-making process

There is a general consensus among opponents of the political parties-led constitution-making process that Parliament, which is one of the three arms of the State, has deliberately been sidelined in order for ZANU-PF and two formations of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to tamper with the exercise that is progressing at a snail’s pace due to lack of resources.
If fact, critics now allege that Parliamentary democracy in Zimbabwe is now under threat from the three signatories to the GPA whom they accuse of usurping the power of the legislature by moving to impose their views in a process that is expected to come up with a new supreme law of the land by July next year.
The fresh controversy comes when the constitution making process has been delayed already by myriad of problems, top among them sharp differences over the use of the Kariba Draft as the foundation for crafting the new constitution.
Under Article XI of the GPA signed by President Robert Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara, Parliament, through the appointment of the 25-member Parliamentary Select Committee, was given the sole responsibility of writing a new constitution for Zimbabwe.
But people were taken aback last week when it emerged that the three principals had agreed to be personally involved in the process by putting in place a new committee that would directly report to them forthwith as the country forged ahead to cobble a new constitution, to replace the 1979  Lancaster House document that ended white colonial rule.
Critics of the present constitutional making process are adamant that by incorporating their point-men, the principals have in fact usurped the powers of the legislator by reducing the august House to a seemingly secondary role, a charge officials in the inclusive government claim is unfounded.
Apart from the three co-chairpersons of the Parliamentary Select Committee from ZANU-PF and the MDC, Munyaradzi Paul Ma-ngwana, Douglas Mwonzora and Edward Mkhosi, the principals have added Patrick Chinamasa (ZANU-PF), Tendai Biti (MDC-T) and Welshman Ncube (MDC-M) to the management committee of the process. The three lawyers are part of the core team that drafted the controversial Kariba Draft constitution signed by ZANU-PF and the two MDC formations in September 2007. 
“It’s not appropriate that the principals lead the process because once there is a problem the whole process will be subjected to further negotiations instead of reflecting wishes of the people of Zimbabwe. It will be a negotiated constitution exclusive by three political parties who have their own political agendas,” said Takavafira Zhou, a history lecturer at Masvingo State University who doubles up as a political analyst.
“This sets a bad precedent and a great threat to a parliamentary democracy,” said Zhou. “Such things where constitutions are negotiated upon by hand-picked people and political parties happen in countries under marshal law not nations such as ours that claim to be a parliamentary democracy,” he said.
Zhou said: “This process needs all Zimbabweans especially those people that are not directly answerable to the three principals otherwise we will end up with a defective document imposed on the people.”
Takura Zhangazha, the national director of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Zimbabwe Chapter), said the reconfiguration has created further suspicion about the whole process, compounding scepticism within civil society about the involvement of politicians in  drafting the new constitution.
Zhangazha said tinkering with the process gave credence to assertions in the civil society that the process was political parties-driven and not people-driven as the three principals appeared to demote the role of parliament, especially, that of the Speaker, Lovemore Moyo. 
“The role of parliament has been undermined by the three principals not only by the latest developments but by the whole GPA,” said Zhangazha.
“Since the signing of the power-sharing pact in September last year, Parliament and the Senate have been sitting to railroad legislations in the house agreed upon by the three principals.
Parliamentarians now appear to be there to rubber stamp what the three principals want done, it will now have a minimal role in the affairs of the country, which should not be the case in a parliamentary democracy. In short, the lawmakers, who in this case are the representatives of the people, will have little say in the drafting of the new constitution,” he said.
Zhangazha suggested that Article XI of the GPA, which deals with the writing of the new constitution be revised so that the process can be truly people-driven.
“While we appreciate the setting up of an independent secretariat, we believe this body should not be directly controlled by the three principals, it should be truly independent to ensure impartiality. For this to be achieved, it should involve the civil society,” he said.
Useni Sibanda, the coordinator of Christian Alliance of Zimbabwe, however, applauded the reconfiguration, saying the direct involvement of the principals in the process confirmed that there was political will from ZANU-PF and the two MDC formations to write a new constitution for Zimbabwe.
“All along people have been saying the process lacked political will. To me the involvement of the principals and their agreement to add their respective chief negotiators confirms there is political will,” said Sibanda. 
“The issue of setting up an independent body is important. The principals have added a layer of political authority, which has been lacking since July. I see the whole process being negotiated along the way. This is explained by the appointment of the chief negotiators of the GPA in the process. It shows there are issues to be negotiated,” he added.
In a hard-hitting statement the National Constitutional Authority (NCA) said it rejected what it described as “window-dressing, hypocritical and inadequate” claims by Eric Matinenga, the Minister of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs that the GPA prescribed constitution-making process has been rationalised to address issues of efficiency, capacity and inclusivity of the Parliamentary Select Committee on constitution-making.
 “If anything the so-called rationalisation of the GPA prescribed constitution-making process is an attempt to hoodwink unsuspecting Zimbabweans into believing that the inclusive government has taken into consideration concerns raised over the exclusive, undemocratic and unworkable nature of the GPA prescribed constitution making process,” read part of the NCA statement.
It said notwithstanding the purported addressing of issues by the inclusive government’s principals, the constitution making process remained under the control of politicians.
“This is, in essence, a high sounding nothing designed to mislead the people of Zimbabwe into believing that the GPA prescribed constitution-making process has been altered for the better. Yet, the GPA prescribed process remains an affair of three political parties,” said the NCA. 
Matinenga, refuted allegations that the executive attempted to usurp the powers of Parliament.
“This is a view of people that are not informed,” Matinenga said. “The changes that have been done are meant to empower the whole process of drafting a new constitution. Parliamentarians sit on the Select Committee,” he said.
“The Speaker and other presiding officers of Parliament have had little role to do with the constitution making process. I don’t know why people now claim we have relegated them to spectators when if the truth be told is that they were never directly involved in the process when it started.”
Speaker Moyo said: “We are not against the changes because the principals as the signatories of the GPA have a right to tinker with the provisions of the pact, but what we are saying is that we should have been formally advised as parliament as stated in the agreement since we are responsible for the writing of the new constitution.”