Decision year for Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa

AT LAST, 2006 is history and for Africa in general and Zimbabwe in particular 2007 promises to be decision year in many fundamental respects including the fate of its Executive Presidency as well as the end of Prime Minister Blair’s tenure and the transformation of President Bush into a lame duck head of state and government.
For Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe, 2007 brings with it political transitional challenges pregnant with far reaching implications for the continent.
The Zimbabwean situation will continue to receive not only Africa’s attention but global interest not only because of the underlying colonial legacy issues like land reform and sanctions regime that has a regime change flavor and character but because the country faces transitional political and economic challenges that will have to be addressed in the near term.
The debate about the required constitutional reforms that will need to be implemented during the year in Zimbabwe to harmonise the Presidential and Parliamentary elections as well as provide for the election of a transitional President for the period 2008 through 2010 and set the stage for a permanent model of government thereafter.
As we begin the year, I am of the view that it is important that the literacy about constitutional and legal issues in Africa and Zimbabwe be elevated to a stage where serious debate can begin to take place about the best way in which the country ought to be governed.
Yes, the Zimbabwe situation is extraordinarily complex but the actions of key political actors who citizens have surrendered their collective interest in change have not helped and to some extent have exacerbated the situation with debilitating consequences to the economy and quality of life for the country.
The world is at pains to understand the key underlying factors sustaining the Zimbabwean economy under an unfriendly external environment. Some have characterized Zanu PF as a “titanic” that is about to sink in an ocean of an impoverished populace and the opposition as life boats with no life in them to encourage the passengers in the titanic to have the courage to jump ship.
Indeed, unlike South Africa and Nigeria where the ruling parties are facing internal challenges, there has been no visible and authenticated internal Zanu PF factionalism other than the abortive Tsholotsho episode to give a sense that real change in Zimbabwe will be determined outside the titanic.
was flattered to read Nathaniel Manheru's column in the Herald last week where he concurred with my observation that it would be naïve for anyone to expect a ruling party to invest in its own demise or to put in place measures that will assist the opposition to unseat it. Those who have read Manheru’s columns will agree that they eloquently present arguments as seen from the ruling party.
The clarity of thought and style of presentation of Manheru provides important lessons to those who may disagree with Zanu PF to work harder in clarifying their intellectual and conceptual appreciation of the defining issues that confront Zimbabwe.
It is disappointing that Professor Jonathan Moyo, who through association with Manheru should have learnt more about the soul of Zanu PF, appears to have left the party with no understanding of the animal that fed him. While it is accepted that Professor Moyo is still of the view that Zanu PF will disintegrate into irreconcilable factions on the back of the impending constitutional reforms, he fails to explain why the ruling party has remained intact even after his departure. Some have argued that the Moyo thesis that the titanic is about to sink is supported by the fact that he is the only independent legislator in the parliament of Zimbabwe.
Equally some have argued that Professor Moyo would not have won the election if he had not poured state resources into his constituency. In advancing his third way thesis that is premised on the observation that the current opposition parties lack the vision and leadership to unseat the ruling party, Prof. Moyo makes the argument that it is only through unity of all the opposition forces that the hegemony of Zanu PF can be defeated and that such unity must include progressive elements from Zanu PF.
Against this background, the expectations of Zanu PF not endorsing the constitutional reforms discussed at the conference are then exaggerated to a point where real issues are then obscured by a self centered analytical approach whose sole mission appears to justify an outcome even in the face of glaring facts that suggest that such an outcome is impossible to achieve under the current constitutional and governance matrix.
In as much as Manheru may not agree with everything that comes from my analysis, I am gratified and encouraged that he finds it in himself to acknowledge a well argued point. It is important that the Zimbabwean debate also creates a space for disagreements on principles and not on speculative and self serving approaches that have condemned Zimbabwe to lesser standard of living. Indeed, even the rationale and effectiveness of targeted international sanctions against Zimbabwe needs to be reviewed in relation to their original objectives. Yes, there is a sanctions regime against Zimbabwe whose effectiveness is even doubted by its authors and yet they still persist in such futile endeavors. I have no doubt that there is consensus among all political actors that the current sanctions regime will not yield the kind of changes that they seek to provide.
Rather, like misguided missiles, the world has been intimidated to accept that a package of measures, albeit ineffective, should symbolically remain in place until God strikes while the people of Zimbabwe continue to be exposed to a confused environment where wrong policies and corrupt state actors can hide behind the cover of sanctions fighters to impose more severe penalties on the people of Zimbabwe through wrong and misguided policies than the sanctions themselves.
It is ironic that many have taken advantage of the anti-imperialistic language used by the President against sanctions to primitively accumulate wealth using opaque and unorthodox methods. I have no doubt that the President has now been convinced that the end justifies the means and in the face of what is widely accepted as an ineffective sanctions regime, some within the party and government have seen the power vacuum created by the departure of Prof. Moyo to position themselves to loot. If the looting is politically motivated and the titanic has been visited by looters, I have no doubt that the thesis advanced by Prof. Moyo that Zanu PF will be fragmented will be supported by such looters who face the prospect of starvation if they jumped ship and joined the opposition life boats without the resources to attract such characters.
Indeed, these economic rent seekers would prefer President Mugabe to continue in office because the likelihood of being exposed is remote. I am sure that most would agree that President Mugabe does not have the capacity anymore than Vice President Msika to supervise the looters in the titanic not only because of the magnitude of the task at hand but advanced age has its own limitations. In fact, for the characters at the RBZ who now appear to be the inheritors of the nationalistic rhetoric and patriotic slogans would like President Mugabe to continue in office in the real fear that if another President were to take control the risk of being exposed cannot be managed.
In fact, I am convinced that there exists a black book at the RBZ where all the list of beneficiaries of quasi-fiscal activities are kept and such information would provide a better deterrent for anyone who may think that it is not in the national interest for the President to continue in office.
The arguments for the harmonisation of the Presidential and Parliamentary elections are well grounded and deserve consideration. It is important that we provide some background to the constitutional challenges that confront Zimbabwe so that discourse can be more informed and meaningful to the participants. Some may argue that I have no competency to comment on constitutional and legal matters particularly given that a body of opinion exists that says that only politicians are qualified to make such comments. Equally, a businessman like me risks being misunderstood when he attempts to encroach into territories that are often considered taboo to non-political actors.
Although it is universally accepted that no politician writes a competency examination prior to an election, in Africa and indeed in many places, some politicians have carved out a niche for themselves that places them on a higher pedestal than ordinary citizens and often want to remain in politics for life on the mistaken belief that they alone know what is good for the country. In this world where career politicians exist one has to be very careful in the choice of subjects to discuss. However, it is apparent that Zimbabweans have done themselves a disservice by choosing a change agenda without a destination. Some have said that if you do not know where you are going any road takes you there. It is important to recognize that there is a parallel between politics and business in terms of governance. Being a shareholder in many companies, I have come to accept that the concept of corporate governance is generally misunderstood in as much as political governance.
In the corporate civilisation, shareholders are like the voters who elect directors who are then responsible for running the company. In the political world, the executive branch of government is either elected by popular vote or through parliament. The President is like an Executive Chairman of a company. Ordinarily, such executives can be fired by the shareholders but in practice it is not easy. Many of the executives would like to remain in power until death and in fact some of them end up regarding the companies they work for as if they actually own them. The attachment between the company and the CEO has to be understood and any failure by the company would be seen as a personal indictment on the individual in as much as President often would not want to leave office if the perception is that they are responsible for the country’s failure.
Most of the shareholders like voters have found themselves powerless against their own companies and the battle for control of companies has occupied the minds of many. In as much as directors are created by shareholders once they are so appointed they cease to represent the interests of the creators of their power but owe their fiduciary responsibility to the company. Often this is not understood and many people assume that the directors of companies are mere puppets of shareholders when in truth and fact they are sovereign in their own right.
Equally, a President created by the voters invariably ends up owing allegiance to the government and not the voters. It would be impractical for the President to check with the voters before taking any decision in as much as shareholders cannot shadow their directors and executive management.
We have to accept that our institutions are not set up to allow voters to take control of their political executives other than through interest groups. Mature democracies have well developed interest groups who constantly are occupied with ensuring that their interests are protected and promoted by government action. It does not take much to realize that even at Goromonzi, Zanu PF was not organised around interest groups rather it was organised around provincial groups. Issues like harmonisation and extension of Presidential terms would necessarily invoke interests among the governed in as much as term limits would give those who have no access to their leaders an opportunity to create a new power base with a change of government. Term limits in the absence of interest groups have no relevance. It is important to appreciate that any leader whether in the private or public sectors who stays long in power risks alienating the majority of the people and end up being surrounded by praise singers. Those opposed to such a leader will not enjoy the fruits of citizenship and hence the quest in many countries to limit the term of office of a President.
Constitution and Parliamentary System
Zimbabwe’s post colonial constitution was a negotiated one in as much as the South African constitution was similarly negotiated among the political actors. It provided for a non-executive President as Head of State with a Prime Minister as Head of Government. The first President was the late Rev. Canaan Banana with Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister. In 1987, the Constitution was amended to provide for an Executive President and the office of Prime Minister was abolished. The constitutional changes came into effect on 1 January 1988 with Robert Mugabe as President.
The Parliament was bicameral, with the House of Assembly being directly elected and the Senate consisting of indirectly elected and nominated members, including tribal chiefs. Under the Constitution, there were two separate voters rolls, one for the black African majority, who had 80 % of the seats in Parliament and the other for whites and other ethnic minorities, such as Coloureds (people of mixed race) and Asians, who held 20 %. In 1986, the Constitution was amended by Parliament to scrap this system, replacing the white seats in with seats filled by nominated members. Some will recall that many white MPs joined Zanu, which then reappointed them. In 1990, the Senate was abolished, and the House of Assembly's membership was increased to include members nominated by the President. Since independence, Zimbabwe has had six elections for the House of Assembly i.e. as follows: 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. The first senate election was held in 2005.
In response to pressure largely from outside Parliament by non-state actors, on May 21, 1999 President Mugabe announced the convening of a Constitutional Convention to draft new constitution fit for a soverreign country. The chairman of the 396 member commission including all 150 members of the House of Assembly; some previous opponents of the government were included among the 246 other members, such as Prof. Jonathan Moyo.was a Chief Justice, Godfrey Chidyausiku. Over August and September the Convention held more than 5,000 meetings with local people and groups in Zimbabwe, with many seeing concerns voiced over granting of more powers to the executive Presidency.
At the Convention's final meeting on November 29, Justice Chidyausiku announced that the proposed constitution had been adopted "by acclamation" and did not call for a vote. There was some dissent within the room particularly regarding issues such as Presidential powers. The Zimbabwe Constitution Referendum of February 12-13, 2000 saw the defeat of a proposed new Constitution of Zimbabwe which had been drafted by a Constitutional Convention the previous year. It is important to note that the issues that sorrounded the draft constitution are no different to the underlying concerns about the proposed constitutional reforms.
In as much as the opposition sought to argue from 1997 that the Parliament of Zimbabwe was not the credible authority to make the amendements to the constitution, it is now beingt argued that a Zanu PF dominated house should not be trusted to make any constitutional changes. While the argument may make sense, the implications on democracy are quite severe. In the composition of the Commission, the members of parliament were an integral part of the process presumably out of a desire to ensure that a precedent was not set where the consitution would be rendered useless in so far as the role of parliament in changing the supreme law of the land.
If one accepts that an institution called the Parliament of Zimbabwe exists at law and is an organ of the Republic then it is critical that those who seek to undermine the parliament’s role in amending the constitution provide an alternative that meets the constitutional tests. To seek to argue that the parliament in which the opposition is represented and duly constituted does not have the authority to amend the constitution does not take the debate any further. Yes, people may argue about the fairness of the elections and whether the result represent the wishes of the majority of Zimbabweans but the starting point of the debate must necessarily be the same for everyone.
The question is does Zimbabwe have a constitution and does it have a duly elected House of Assembly. To the extent that there are parliamentarians receiving salaries from the people, one can safely conclude that the institution does exist. If it does, and knowing the configuration of the incumbents, it is common cause that anything that Zanu PF wants will be done. In as much as the opposition may not agree with any legislative proposals, there is nothing they can do to stop such changes. The country does not need Mr. Manheru (night) to shed light on this. Yes, people may not like the architecture but it is incumbent upon them to locate their displeasure in some legal and rationale context.
The current House of Assembly, formed following elections held on 31 March 2005, has a total of 150 members. 120 members are directly elected in single member constituencies using the simple majority (or First-past-the-post) system. The President appoints 12 additional members and 8 provincial governors who hold reserved seats in the House. The remaining 10 seats are held by traditional chiefs who are chosen by their peers. All members serve five-year terms. The results of the March 2005 elections are set out below:
Summary of the 31 March 2005 House of Assembly of Zimbabwe election results
Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front1,569,867 (59.6%) [78 Seats]
Movement for Democratic Change1,041,292 votes (39.5%) [41 Seats]
Independents16,223 votes (0.6%) [1 Seat]
Others7,263 votes (0.3%) -
Presidential appointees 20
Ex-officio members (Chiefs) 10
Total (turnout 47.7%) 2,634,645 votes (100.0%) [150 Seats]
Registered voters 5,658,624
Total votes cast 2,696,670
Invalid votes 62,025
Source: African Elections Database
From the above, it is clear that the people of Zimbabwe did not give Zanu PF a two thirds majority at the election. However, with the inclusion of the non-constituency members of parliament, the two thirds majority is evident. It may be argued that the term of office of the parliamentarians appointed by the President should end in 2008 but unfortunately the law does not work that way. Once appointed, the parliamentarians have the same right as any other parliamentarian and as such are entitled to vote on any proposal before the house. An apatheid type structure where appointed parliamentarians would have different rights would not be consistent with the constitution.
Executive Presidency
At the core of the debate on constitutional reforms is the fate of President Mugabe. In as much as many expected the 2000 Constitution to remove him from office, there is an expecation that 2008 should be the last year in office of President Mugabe. Accordingly, it is then argued that any credible constitional reform must remove President Mugabe from office irrespective of the legal facts on the ground. Within Zanu PF, I suspect there is also concern about the powers vested in the president and how such powers can be reduced in the context of the proposed reforms.
Equally, President Mugabe must be concerned about his own legacy and what kind of heritage he lives for his party and country. It is clear that the President will have to be under Parliament from 2008. Some within Zanu PF may legitimately argue that any proposed constitutional amendment must seek to strengthen democracy by abolishing the executive presidency and replacing it with a cabinet and parliamentary form of government. Some within Zanu PF may agree with the opposition that the introduction of an Executive President in 1987 as a presidential dictatorship covered with the cloth of democracy.
It may not be surprising that even President Mugabe may be against an Executive Presidency and may not have any objection to any proposal that can strengthen Zanu PF at a time when the market perception is that he is a liability. Given the dynamics in Zimbabwe at the present moment, I am not confident that anyone in Zanu PF would have the courage to challenge President Mugabe. The fate of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the implications on international law and the sincerity of President Mugabe’s international adversaries will no doubt be issues that cannot be ignored in any discussion about the future of Zimbabwe.
In as much as Manheru makes eloquent arguments about the status quo it is important that those who are persuaded otherwise sharpen their intellectual capacity and provide reasons why a widely acknowledged and unacceptable global architecture driven by undemocratic and often illegal values can have supremacy over Zanu PF values. The regime change practitioners owe it to Zimbabwe to use 2007 to clarify their agenda and locate it within the larger African and global context. So far no African government has been presented with a convincing case of why change in Zimbabwe should have promoters who are condemned for undermining international law by the UN.
At independence, Zimbabwe had a titular president. Executive power resided with the Prime Minister. The 1987 constitution moved from a Westminster-based political system into unique Zimbabwe Zimbabwean model with a President directly by the people with a longer term and independence from Parliament was created. Although modelled along the lines of the French system, in practice, Zimbabwean presidency is much more powerful than the President of France. French presidents traditionally deal only with defense and foreign policy, leaving domestic affairs to the Prime Minister.
A Zimbabwean president has no Prime Minister and is concerned with every aspect of government. Even his Vice Presidents have no universal mandate and they serve at the pleasure of the President unlike the Nigerian version where the Vice President is elected together with the President and has his own legitimacy. A Zimbabwean President has very little constraints on his/her power; he cannot be impeached easily and cannot be taken to court. He can place the country in a state of emergency, under which he can override any law passed by Parliament and promulgate any regulation without needing legislative approval. The considerable power of the President has often been blamed for the decline of democracy in Zimbabwe and hence the preoccupation on the fate of President Mugabe after 2008.
The abuse of the state of emergency not necessarily by the President but by crafty individuals like Prof. Moyo and Gono has been highlighted as one of the unacceptable outcomes of the centralisation of power. Some will recall with nostalgia the weekly Prime Minister’s question time in Zimbabwe where President Mugabe gave the opportunity to citizens through their parliamentarians to ask direct questions. However, with the advent of the Executive Presidency, the opportunity is no longer there and it would be curious to establish what kind of relationship will exist between the President and his new bosses in Parliament.
Perhaps Zimbabweans will get from Zanu PF constitutional changes that the opposition has been fighting for in vain. As stated above, Nigeria despite its age is going through its own democratic growing pains. It appears that President Obasanjo who tried to intervene in the Zimbabwean issue under the Commonwealth umbrella may end up behaving the same way that President Mugabe is being criticised for. Unlike President Mugabe, President Obesanjo has invested in dividing his own party and even externalising his own Deputy who according to him has spent the last three years in office but doing nothing. Imagine a Vice President being paid by the people for doing nothing just because the President does not like him. Having ensured that he would not get a nomination from his party, the Vice President with the support of the courts managed to get another party to adopt him only to be fired from his post for accepting the position. He has challenged the dismissal and the saga continues.
South Africa has another challenge. The President of South Africa is not elected by the people but by Parliament. The succession debate is taking place against a backdrop of a divided party with two centers of power. There exists two Deputy Presidents to President Mbeki and if he were to die to day (God fobid), there would be a constitutional crisis as the party may have to choose between the two. The South African system has a party list from which the party allocates constituencies. In as much as the opposition in Zimbabwe expects President Mbeki who has a full domestic plate to intervene in Zimbabwe, they should try someone else.
Africa will continue to be challenged by a combination of internally and externally generated problems and its ability to rise to its responsibilities to its citizens will largely depend on the creation of interest groups that are not blinded by race, tribe, religion and political affiliation. Equally, as we have observed in Zimbabwe the opposition may have seen the promised land but they should be rest assured that the storm is not over till its over. Many promised lands have ended up being illusions in the mind. The titanic may be sinking but the passengers may be enjoying the ride in the comfort that in the long term we are all dead anyway. It would be naïve to assume that a ship that is sinking signifies that it has no captain. The captain determines the speed and not the passengers and it would be foolhardy that a captain that has been warned that even the life boat could condemn him to the Saddam fate will abdicate and vanish.