Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Bill: Clipping citizens’ power

By Harry Wilson | 10h ago

National Constitutional Assembly leader Lovemore Madhuku was recently hospitalised following alleged attacks at the organisation’s offices by yet-to-be-identified suspects.

RECENTLY, cabinet approved the contentious Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill, which parliament gazetted shortly afterwards, opening a key period during which people will submit their views on the proposed amendment.

We are barely two weeks into the 90-day period, during which the Bill is expected to go through public consultations, which will culminate in parliament deliberating on the proposed draft law and its eventual passage into law.

The Bill introduces a raft of changes, chief among them being extending the electoral cycle from the current five to seven years.

This implies that the current presidential, parliamentary and local government office holders will leave office in 2030 and not 2028 when their current terms expire.

If the Bill is enacted into law, the President will cease to be elected directly by the people as it will now be the responsibility of a joint sitting of senate and parliament to elect the head of state.

The Bill also transfers the responsibility for registering voters, compiling and maintaining the voters’ roll and registers from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to the Registrar-General’s Office.

It also seeks to transfer the Zimbabwe Gender Commission’s functions to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC), as the ZHRC is already mandated to protect all human rights, including those currently under the purview of the Zimbabwe Gender Commission.

However, there has been unprecedented noise on whether or not there will be a referendum, asking the people’s opinion on the proposed amendment.

Keep Reading

It appears the current arguments are more emotional than anything else. On one hand is the school of thought that has always opposed Agenda 2030, pushed into motion by loyalists of President Emmerson Mnangagwa who believe the President must continue beyond his constitutionally-mandated term which ends in 2028.

Then on the other, is a group that is against Agenda 2030. What seems to pre-occupy people’s minds is whether or not Mnangagwa should continue in office.

In fact, proponents of Agenda 2030 may have it their way but the big question is whether this will enjoy the support of the generality of the population.

The major challenge this time around has been the absence of stakeholder consultation, with the views of over seven million Zimbabweans over the voting age having their choices being put forward by representatives in the form of National Assembly members.

However, the representatives never consulted anyone but are pushing individual pursuits and thoughts. They are also expected to benefit from the proposed changes.

Since politics has grown into a profession in Zimbabwe, the MPs will obviously have their stomachs decide on what to say and do.

Already, we are being told that there is no need for a referendum in enacting the amendments.

The question remains: How then do you gauge people’s consent?

By making it presumptive or we listen to the current narratives being thrown around and agree with whatever is being peddled?

Obviously, the government expects support and buy-in for policies and programmes from the people, who are the major stakeholders in this contestation.

The most noble approach, with all due respect, should be to find an opportunity to ask all concerned citizens: Are you agreeable?

Whatever method the government would use to collect these opinions would be acceptable because at least authorities would have shown the respect they have for citizens, who are the most important stakeholders in any nation.

In the absence of this, the important process passes as something aimed to achieve selfish objectives, that is, to benefit the current President, members of the National Assembly, mayors and councillors who were voted in for five years.

The argument put forward in support of term extension has been that a five-year term is not enough for development-oriented leadership. Fair and fine, but can we honestly say the past two terms have registered phenomenal growth to warrant term extensions?

Local authorities are fighting with residents across the country daily over service delivery shortcomings.

In areas falling under these local authorities — all of which are under the Local Government portfolio — roads are potholed and no one seems to care.

Sewage flows freely on streets in residential areas and getting the system sorted is a tall order, especially in densely populated urban areas such as Harare and Chitungwiza.

Simple items such as road signage have disappeared, with most now rooftops of road-side shops that do not pay a single dime in taxes and other levies.

The government itself has superintended over the collapse of both the education and health services sectors. Major public hospitals have become shells whose stocks of medicines are pathetic. The public education system is also in a dire state.

Enrolments in public schools have ballooned to unprecedented levels as parents pay to get children accommodated. Teacher-pupil ratios have shot up astronomically and teachers milk parents through extra lessons and projects that have become a milking cow for teachers.

Corruption, which has ranked as one of our biggest ever challenges, has even worsened lately.

So, when term extensions are discussed, is it really about the suffering ordinary citizens or it is about the elite, who stand to gain directly from the supposed benevolence?

As citizens wait for the expiry of the 90-day consultation period on the amendments, worrying trends have already emerged as a crackdown against critics of the amendments has started.

There have been reports of alleged abductions, banning of meetings and dialogues aimed at debating the proposed amendments.

National Constitutional Assembly leader Lovemore Madhuku and several party members were hospitalised following alleged attacks at the organisation’s offices by yet-to-be-identified suspects. These attacks are obviously intimidatory and will water down citizens’ contributions during the public consultation period.

This is not the first time violence has been used to force consent as well as instill fear in people. Given the state of the opposition in the country and shrinking civic space, parliament’s call on citizens to submit their views on the proposed amendments will likely be compromised.

Once the citizens are not given an opportunity to voice their concerns, the whole process will not only fail to get people’s support, but will also raise questions about the credibility of the whole consultation process.

Ownership of the country’s constitution must remain with the people and not selected individuals who are themselves set to benefit from the process.