Political power in any democratic and constitutional order is held by the holders of sovereignty. It is true that without following a principle of containing and balancing legislative, executive, and judiciary powers, there can be no freedom and no protection against the abuse of power.
The separation of power principle between the three branches of the state is so fundamental to the protection of any constitutional order. It is generally agreed that any atmosphere where any of the branches of the state can operate with excessive limitation from others and one branch can rule out the decisions of the other branches necessarily undermines the principle of sovereignty and the rule of law.
Africa is a challenged continent in so far as locating political power in the context of the wishes and aspirations of citizens.
In post colonial Africa, sovereignty has been alienated from citizens and the holders of political power have generally assumed a separate and distinct existence notwithstanding the fact that occasionally they submit themselves to elections where outcomes are generally predetermined and manipulated.
To a large extent the institutions of government in post colonial Africa were inherited from the colonial state. In the colonial state, citizens had no say in how they were governed and the destiny of the colonial state was shaped by the settlers with no input from the governed majority.
What is ironic is that even the worst dictators in Africa believe that their actions are in the national interest. Citizens of Africa were alienated from political power in the colonial era and have largely surrendered their sovereignty in the post colonial state to their elected representatives often with no checks and balances.
The foundation of any democratic and constitutional order must be the location of the address of power in the hands of citizens and the ability of citizens to ensure that their governments are accountable and operate transparently. Regrettably, the experiences of many post colonial African states confirm that political power has been hijacked by manipulative and power hungry elites to the extent that citizens are no longer able to assert their rights freely.
The case of Zimbabwe is an interesting one and provides a useful case study for many emerging nations. Even Raila Odinga has come to the conclusion that President Mugabe has set a bad example for Africa on how state power can perpetuate itself using seemingly democratic instruments like elections.
The context in which President Kibaki has been re-elected has many parallels in Africa and it is not unusual in Africa that after elections the only hope for citizens asserting their political rights is through external mediation efforts and it is extremely difficult and dangerous for citizens to attempt to bring to book, criminal politicians who derive their legitimacy from stolen elections.
Ordinarily, criminals have no locus standi to negotiate their future let alone to participate in processes while they are enjoying the fruits of their criminal conduct. However, in Africa it has become acceptable that power can be stolen from the people and the beneficiaries of such practices can impose their will on innocent citizens who have no internal capacity to reclaim their power.
President Mugabe has rightly or wrongly maintained the position that at all material time, the sovereignty of Zimbabwe has belonged to the citizens and that any regime change agenda that has not been informed by the wishes or aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe was bound to fail.
It is true that President Mugabe has presided over a fast decaying economy but has never missed an election suggesting that the people of Zimbabwe must be supportive of policies that have led to the increase of the frontiers of poverty.
If there is no serious domestic opposition to bad governance and citizens of Zimbabwe have for the last 28 years failed to come up with a mechanism of making their government accountable, can one safely conclude that it is a demonstration of the support President Mugabe enjoys from the people?
After 28 years of independence, can one conclude that the actions of the executive, legislature and judiciary of Zimbabwe are consistent with the expectations of the citizens?
Zimbabweans and non-Zimbabweans have complained about the centralisation of power in the hands of the President to the extent that the constitutional order that is expected in a democratic Zimbabwe has been undermined.
Any head of a starving household cannot claim to be a good provider. The state of the Zimbabwean economy has been well documented but it is clearly evident that President Mugabe’s supporters are not convinced that he bears any responsibility for the collapse of the economy. Is it the case that citizens have accepted that they have no power to change their own circumstances or they are afraid of the people who have stolen their birth right?
President Mugabe would not agree that he is a thief and any suggestion that his administration is now polluted by a gang of thieves would easily be dismissed.
Many have seen Charamba, the chief government propagandist, using the new government propaganda machine, Al Jazeera, making allegations that Zimbabwe continues to be a victim of imperialism. Mr. Supa Mandiwanzira, the correspondent for Al Jazeera in Zimbabwe, would like the world to believe that the problems of Zimbabwe are externally generated and the people of Zimbabwe are fools.
The perception that Zimbabweans have gotten a government they deserve is well founded for how can any rational person explain why it has been impossible for Zimbabweans to identify correctly their problem and deal with it. The manner in which infantile disorder underpinned by childish propaganda has taken root in Zimbabwe confirms that there is something fundamentally wrong in the psyche of Zimbabweans.
Charamba and Gono have emerged as the two critical defenders of what has been generally described as a failed state. Although Charamba takes the position that people of Zimbabwe are inherently incapable of thinking and acting independently with obviously with the exception of President Mugabe and his loyal troops, Gono poses a more significant threat to the constitutional order through the opaque quasi fiscal activities.
Gono is the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) and in any democratic order such a bank would be an organ of state and not a threat to democracy. The RBZ should ordinarily operate as a citizens’ bank and a repository of their trust and confidence in the integrity of the financial system.
Citizens elected their representatives to look after their interests and yet one cannot say that the Parliament of Zimbabwe operates as a house of assembly. It is evident that the house of assembly has been transformed into the house of MDC and ZANU-PF and the sovereignty of the people has been sufficiently undermined to the extent that national interests no longer occupy the minds of parliamentarians.
If the legislative agenda was informed by national interests, Gono would by now be in prison. What President Mugabe has skilfully done is to make Gono the ultimate custodian of the nation through the systematic castration of parliament. The parliament of Zimbabwe is now an agent of the executive and there may be no merit in having parliamentary elections if Gono remains a Governor of the RBZ.
Since Gono’s appointment as Governor of the RBZ, Zimbabweans have seen the erosion of the role of the Parliament and Cabinet. What Gono thinks prevails and sadly the people of Zimbabwe are the ultimate losers. There is no better example of demonstrating how helpless Zimbabweans have been reduced to than the current cash crisis and the never ending foreign currency problems.
At the ZANU-PF congress, Gono threatened to expose the so-called cash barons instead of telling the nation that he was the mastermind of the destruction of the formal economy. He invited himself to the Budget and Finance committee that was chaired by Butau who like Makamba and others have been externalised by Gono.
It has now been reported that Gono will appear before the parliamentary committee next week on Monday and it is generally expected that he will provide a list of the so-called cash barons. However, Gono finds himself under siege after being exposed in a court of law as the real cash baron who has regrettably manipulated the whole nation into believing that the enemy is from without and not from within.
What will Gono say? Will he or will he not reveal the names? What is the role of the RBZ destroying a functioning economic system? Is President Mugabe part of the plot? These are some of the questions that must surely be in people’s minds.
However, if I was a member of the parliamentary committee what kind of questions would I pose for Gono? The following would surely be on the top of my list:
1. Mr. Gono: Are you aware that the only mechanism for allocating state resources is the budget under the oversight of parliament? If so, how do you explain the role of the RBZ in allocating resources through quasi fiscal activities in a democratic order?
2. Please can you provide a detailed list of all the transactions that have been funded by the RBZ on behalf of the government? How were such transactions approved? What was the role of the cabinet in approving such transactions? How are the transactions monitored? How are they reflected in the budget? What is the parliament’s role in approving and monitoring such transaction?
3. Do you agree that the role of the RBZ has the effect of undermining the role of parliament?
4. You have justified your role in placing legitimate government expenditures under the control of the RBZ on the basis that there is a sanctions regime. If this is the case, do you believe that democracy should be suspended until the sanctions are lifted? What should be the role of the parliament?
5. Allegations have been made that shelf companies like Flatwater, Smoothnest, AMG Global Nominees, and others have been used by the RBZ as fronts in various transactions that are patently illegal. Please provide details of who approved such transactions? What, if any, was the role of the government?
6. We now know that about 102 tractors were to be procured by Flatwater as an agent of the RBZ. To the extent that the tractors were to be owned by the government, do you agree that the role of the RBZ by taking over the role of the relevant government agency undermines the constitutional order? Who approved the purchase of the tractors without coming to parliament for resources to be allocated in the budget? What was the exchange rate implied in the transactions? Is it true that Z$7 trillion was deposited into the account of Flatwater without any due diligence about Flatwater’s financial status? If it is true that the tractors were to be imported, can we say that the RBZ knew that the Z$7 trillion was to be converted into foreign currency at the black market rate? If not why did the RBZ not deposit the equivalent at the official exchange rate into the account of Flatwater?
I am sure that there are many questions that will arise but what is important is that the parliamentarians realise that the hopes of Zimbabweans lie with them in exposing how the state is now operating and why change of direction has to be the litmus test in the March 2008 elections. Any outcome that will leave Gono in charge and his political masters ultimately in control will contribute to the destruction of what remains functioning in Zimbabwe. Yesterday it was Makamba, today it is Butau and tomorrow it could be anyone of us.
The stakes are high and naturally it is fair to expect that the Budget and Finance committee members will rise to the occasion. If Gono is exposed, it is evident that his political masters will take note that the people of Zimbabwe have finally taken ownership of their power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment