Zimbabwe constitution: this referendum apathy suits Mugabe
By Petina Gappah
Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, casts his vote in Harare in the
constitution referendum. Photograph: Xinhua /Landov / Barcroft Media
‘If I vote yes in the referendum,” an old woman from Gutu in rural Zimbabwe
said to her son, “will that mean that I am saying yes to Robert Mugabe? And
if I vote no, am I voting no to Morgan Tsvangirai?” In Zimbabwe, the process
of voting on a new constitution cannot be separated from the personalities
that dominate Zimbabwe’s politics.
A key component of the agreement that brought together Zimbabwe’s feuding
political parties in a unity government in 2008 was a new constitution to be
put to the public vote. On Saturday Zimbabweans had that vote. The
state-owned Sunday Mail, which greets all government initiatives with
unbridled enthusiasm, reported that “most polling stations recorded high
voter turnouts”. As of writing, the count was still going on, but it was
clear that just over 2 million people – less than a third of the 6.6 million
registered voters – had taken part. The key feature of this referendum was
In terms of the outcome, this will not matter: only a simple majority is
required. But Lovemore Madhuku of the National Constitutional Assembly,
which has campaigned against the constitution, argues that a turnout of less
than 50% would amount to a rejection of the constitution. His principled and
determined campaign received little publicity, but it had strong arguments.
There are certainly some troubling compromises in the constitution. During
its first 10 years, if a president died or resigned from office, the party
of that president would choose the new president, meaning that Zimbabwe
could well end up with a president that no one had voted for. A strengthened
constitutional court is weakened by a provision that in the first 10 years
it is to be composed of the current judges of the discredited supreme court.
On the charged issue of land ownership, the constitution falls far short of
international norms of non-discrimination. Compensation for expropriated
land will depend on whether land belonged to someone “indigenous” – a not
particularly subtle code for black.
The no campaign also objected to the constitution-making process.
Politicians promised it would be “people-driven”, but the constitution has
been negotiated only by the parties in parliament. The “people” have been
asked to rubber-stamp the process once only now the politicians are done
with it, and even that rubber-stamping is problematic: a reported 90,000
copies of the final draft were printed for the 6.6 million voters – who had
less than four weeks to read it.
There are, however, strong arguments in the constitution’s favour. The most
significant change to the presidency would be the introduction of term
limits. Considering that most Zimbabweans – the under-30s – have only ever
known one leader, this would be a radical change.
The constitution also addresses the citizenship woes of the millions of
disenfranchised Zimbabweans born in the country to parents from Malawi,
Zambia, Mozambique and elsewhere who are currently labelled “aliens”.
The constitution is particularly strong where it puts the aspirations of
ordinary Zimbabweans at the centre of government. A strengthened bill of
rights obliges the state to put the empowerment of women and girls ahead of
regressive cultural practices; makes significant inroads into the death
penalty; forbids all forms of torture; guarantees freedom of expression and
belief; and imposes obligations on the state to take steps to ensure access
to shelter, health education, food and legal aid.
A constitution, however, depends on a culture of constitutionalism – of
respect for the constitution and adherence to its terms. The yes vote will
almost certainly pass, and Zimbabwe will get its new constitution, but a low
turnout will suggest that Zimbabweans may be a long way from
Moreover, new elections are supposed to follow the referendum. A low turnout
in those elections would be bad news for the Movement for Democratic Change
and the smaller parties who rely on their supporters to go voluntarily to
the polls in large numbers. However, it would be good news for Zanu-PF,
which has always prevailed even when losing a vote.
A Zanu-PF win in the elections will be bad for constitutionalism, as the
party has not hesitated to trample on the constitution when it feels its
power slipping away. The recent arrests of civil society activists and
lawyers attest to this disregard of the rule of law. If Zanu-PF wins yet
again, the constitution that was supposed to be Zimbabwe’s new supreme law
may end up being nothing more than another law to be discarded by Zanu-PF.
And the losers will be ordinary Zimbabweans like my friend’s mother in
Gutu – let down once again by the politicians.
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: Zimbabwe constitution: this referendum apathy suits Mugabe.