Mugabe's power game: abdication or delegation?

PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe has celebrated his 83rd birthday and now Zimbabwe awaits its 27th, and many Zimbabweans find little to celebrate in 2007 than when the country was born.
The reasons for the current political and economic quagmire that Zimbabwe finds itself in are as varied as they are confusing depending on whom you talk to.
When Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, the ownership of the country was transferred to none but the people of Zimbabwe alone.
Therefore, the expectation was rightly that all the powers that had to be exercised over the last 27 years had to be exercised on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and yet the experience suggests otherwise.
Sovereignty
When the President took his oath by stating publicly that: "I,............do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President of Zimbabwe and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well being of the people of Zimbabwe" the rational expectation was that because the ownership of the country vests only with the people of Zimbabwe, all the powers exercised by the President must necessarily be exercised on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and on behalf of none else even the majority party in parliament.
Under this construction, if the ownership of Zimbabwe vests in none else than the people of Zimbabwe, how then can the harmonization project which is to be located in the parliament of Zimbabwe be accommodated in the republican constitution.
The constitutional discourse in post-independent Zimbabwe has to be understood in the general quest by Zimbabweans to create and sustain a type of government that is responsive to their needs and suitable to the country. With almost 20 years of an American-type of government with an Executive President, many Zimbabweans including President Mugabe have come to the inescapable conclusion that the current constitutional democracy is not suitable to them.
The powers and functions of the President should have the place as if they are the powers and functions of the sovereign people being exercised by the Chief Executive of the State. President Mugabe should have been a Chief Executive for the country with clearly defined powers that should have been exercisable in accordance with the Constitution.
President Mugabe was a creature of the constitution and should ideally have been working under the constitution. However, in practice, even President Mugabe would agree that he is supra-Constitution and he behaves as if he has an ownership interest in the Republic.
As Zimbabwe approaches its 27th birthday, I have no doubt that people will reflect and indeed even President Mugabe will be reflecting on whether Zimbabweans got a government they deserve. The concept of sovereignty has to be understood in being able to assess the effectiveness of the constitution in giving Zimbabweans control of their destiny. We must define as to who is the representative of the people so far as sovereignty Zimbabwe is concerned. Does sovereignty reside in state house, parliament or the people? Does President Mugabe represent the sovereignty of the people?
I think that no one would argue that President Mugabe, assuming there is consensus that he was duly elected by the people of Zimbabwe, must represent the sovereignty of the people. After all, how otherwise will the people express themselves? I submit that no government in democratic countries can ever claim to be fully representative of the people as a whole.
The government of Zimbabwe with a President and a majority Zanu PF parliament, although they may claim to represent the ambitions and aspirations of the people, and even though they may claim that they are the most popular people in the country, it cannot be said that they are the representatives of the total population of Zimbabwe; they cannot be considered to be the representatives of the whole people because they have a party bias and a party manifesto on which they were been elected. I submit that the government must as a rule represent the majority party in the country.
A government cannot therefore be the true spokesman of the whole people. There must be some unit, some authority, some person in whom sovereignty should be vested, in whom the prerogatives of the people should be vested. I, therefore, submit that even President Mugabe notwithstanding the fact that he was elected directly by the people has often acted not only as an Executive Head of the State (where only the views of Zanu PF are paramount) but also a symbol of the sovereignty of Zanu PF and not the people of Zimbabwe.
In this article, I wish to make a distinction between the people of Zimbabwe and the State. The State has always the bias of administration. In the problem of the governed and the governor, whether it be democracy or any other cracy, the State governs and the people are governed. It is therefore necessary that in a democratic State full chance of expression should be given to the minorities or opposition. Sovereignty lies in the people; but how will it express itself? It cannot be expressed by the government, because the government is not the total people.
Sometimes, it may be majority of only fifty one per cent and it may also be possible that a forty-nine per cent minority may go unrepresented altogether. If the parliament of Zimbabwe agrees to vest the paramountcy and all prerogative and sovereignty in the people, then there must be some authority wherefrom the sovereignty should flow and express itself. If this argument is accepted, then a President of Zimbabwe has no right to suggest an amendment of the constitution through the parliament when sovereignty is vested in the people.
Although I have argued before that there is nothing wrong in a legitimate parliament changing a constitution but the unusual circumstances in Zimbabwe compels even the President to address the issue of sovereignty and where it should reside. One can, therefore, not argue that sovereignty that resided in the Presidency under a Presidential system can be delegated without the consent of the people to parliament when Zimbabwe does not have a Parliamentary system of government.
While President Mugabe was elected to be the head of the executive, it was always understood that he was to be guided by a cabinet of ministers who are also members of parliament and not by Gono. The expectation was that although the President is the symbol; of sovereignty, he has to rely on the advice of his Ministers whose advice should be binding upon him in all actions that he is supposed to take under the power given to him by the Constitution. He is not supposed to be the absolute supreme head and uncontrolled by the advice of anybody except Gono. Yes, Gono like any other citizen can advise the President but the President is not bound to accept such advice. This is why the President should ideally be described as the Chief Head of the Executive.
Events of the last few years starting with the conduct of Professor Moyo and now Gono compel Zimbabweans to take stock of the democratic experiment in Zimbabwe to properly assess whether President Mugabe has abdicated and should not be considered as the symbol of sovereignty or whether the power conferred on an elected President can be delegated to other parties. Zimbabwe adopted the Presidential system with an Executive President and a cabinet of ministers who are not alienated from the legislature as under the American system. Zimbabwe has adopted this system and it makes it obligatory upon the President to act upon the advice of his Ministers. If it is the case that the President should not be bound by the advice of his cabinet, then, of course, sovereignty has to be restored to the people and ordinarily an effective parliament impeach a President who abdicates.
I would, therefore, suggest that the powers and functions of the President should have the place as if they were the powers and functions of the sovereign people being exercised by the Chief Executive of the State and in President Truman’s words the buck must stop in his office.
Based on the above, should Zimbabweans trust the legislature to protect their interests particularly in the proposed constitutional changes? The architecture of the parliament of Zimbabwe is well known and the outcomes are as predictable as summer coming on the back of winter. Political parties are mundane, dealing with mundane things, and as such they are bound to attach much more importance to considerations of the moment, to merely transitory ideas, to importance of personalities like President Mugabe, by which the people should not be affected when their rights are at stake.
It is of the utmost importance that the parliament must be trusted and legitimate and, therefore, out of or above any contamination by a strong personality determined to make himself a super citizen with the monopoly of wisdom. For the parliament of Zimbabwe to have credibility in participating in the harmonization project, it must necessarily be above contamination by political prejudices that are already evident when the President who is not in the legislature can motivate by his own admission the amendment of the constitution to locate sovereignty in a theatre that is partisan and not national i.e. the parliament of Zimbabwe.
The whole doctrine that "President Mugabe can do no wrong" loses its import if the doctrine of ministerial advice and ministerial responsibility is not there. Having observed that the use of quasi-fiscal activities by the RBZ, is not only constitutional but exposes the bankruptcy and irrelevance of the current form of government that Zimbabweans have to accept, I submit that it is important to shift the debate from the examination of whether President Mugabe will get the necessary votes to change the constitution to a critical evaluation of whether the President by allowing Gono to act outside the scope of the constitution, he has violated the Constitution and undermined the institutional arrangements put in place to give meaning to a Presidential style of government. Are the actions of President in line supreme law of the country and is he operating on the advice of his ministers? If not, is the extension of the Presidential term the remedy?
Can Zimbabweans harmonise the doctrine of ministerial responsibility with the position of President Mugabe as the head of the State and Chief Executive? Can Zimbabweans harmonize as is being proposed by President Mugabe the powers of the RBZ Governor with the doctrine of constitutional democracy?
Abdication or delegation?
To locate what needs to be fixed urgently in Zimbabwe, I had no better example than the events that unfolded last week in Zimbabwe.
Tuesday, 27 February 2007Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono gave oral evidence before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee and Home Affairs to consider a request by the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Registrar-General’s Office and Airforce of Zimbabwe to be provided with foreign currency for various pressing needs.
CommentUnder what construction would a Governor of the Reserve Bank appear before a legislature to give evidence on requests by government departments when such requests should be motivated by the responsible Ministers who through cabinet must agree on priorities for the country in line with the mandate given to them by the people? Surely, the parliamentary committee that has opposition representatives must know its obligations and responsibilities under a constitutional democracy. The only vehicle through which the resources of the people should be allocated should be through the budget.
However, by committee asking Gono to appear before it, one must accept that the oversight role of the parliament of Zimbabwe is confused. Now we turn to the requests considered by the committee.
Surely, how can a parliamentary committee of Zimbabwe consider requests for foreign currency when it is common cause that the currency of the country is Z$? Should it not be the case that the committee should consider the requests in local currency and also address the exchange rate issues inherent in such requests? What ought to happen is that each department should motivate its requests through the relevant ministries who then should prepare cabinet presentations for consideration by cabinet where President Mugabe ought to be the Chairman. The cabinet would only consider the requests in Z$ in as much as the parliamentary committee should also be looking at resource allocation in the local currency. After all the source of government revenues is mainly Z$ and not foreign currency.
Even parliament appears to have accepted that Gono has now assumed powers that should be reserved for Ministers. Surprisingly, no one in parliament bothered to question the locus standi of Gono at the committee. It is such behavior that confirms that the problem in Zimbabwe may not necessarily reside in the statehouse. Surely, the opposition should have known better.
Wednesday, 28 February 2004The Herald, a newspaper owned by the state, published an article reporting on the committee hearing. The article was entitled: “Gono blasts lazy farmers”. On what basis would Gono blast lazy farmers and what locus standi does he have to comment on farmers? The quotations attributed to Gono in the article help to expose the point I made above that the President may have already abdicated and, therefore, disqualified himself by design or default from an extension of his term to 2010.
This is what Gono is alleged to have said:
“For us to import food in a country that has had a land reform programme is a shame. Everyone who got land must produce. All these people that were given farms, call on them and see what they are doing. There are some people who have become professional land occupiers, vandalizing equipment and moving from one farm to another."
Surely Gono should have known from his principals that land reform was about restoration of stolen property rights and if the land reform was predicated on productivity, then commercial farmers would not have been stripped of their properties. Who is Gono to pronounce government policy? Where is the responsible Minister? Why would Gono remain part of the government that clearly allocated farms not on the basis of means but other criterion? Would anyone other than Gono be allowed to ridicule Zanu PF policies in this manner without being labeled a puppet of imperialists? What makes Gono so special that he can appear before a multi-party committee with Zanu PF as the majority and criticize the disastrous land policies and consequences without fear? Could it be that Gono has already filled the power vacuum and the President has surrendered power to him?
Do you remember the campaign slogans: “Land is the economy, the economy is the land” and “Ngombe mbiri nemadongi mashanu sevenza nhamo ichauya" (Two cows and five donkeys work but poverty will visit you)? Is it not ironic that what Gono is now saying was what Professor Jonathan Moyo predicted in the propaganda messages and yet no one noticed the contradiction presented by the land reform? Should Gono not go further and hold the architects of land reform culpable and liable for the mess? After all who is the symbol of Zimbabwe’s sovereignty? Where should the buck stop? Should the target of Gono be beneficiaries or the benefactors? Whose agenda is Gono pursuing?
Then Gono went further to say:
“If we were talking about local currency, I would say: “Mr. Chairman, don’t worry. In the next 30 minutes we will print money. The list goes on and on and I can wail where you are crying. About 14 million Zimbabweans, we can appoint everyone of us Governor every day but nothing will improve unless we become serious. The turnaround can only be achieved when there is discipline and law and order and tearing of each other apart.
"While the roles of the different organisations that required foreign currency were critical, other pressing needs had to be catered for by the same resources. I seek your understanding and indulgence for me to come back to you in about three months. I acknowledge the work being done by Members of Parliament and Senators. Please be advised that the RBZ has allocated US$1.2 million for the purchase of your vehicles."
The above words are not coming from President Mugabe who ultimately was elected to do what Gono is now claiming to be responsible for. Printing money is not a problem and yet Zimbabweans wonder what mind informs the hyperinflationary environment. The link between printing money and inflation is evident and yet Gono has no problem with stealing the future of Zimbabwe for short term political expediency. If it was Mugabe making the statements then one would understand.
Could it be the case that the link between inflation and money supply has not been revealed to Zanu PF leadership and even to Gono? The governor makes the mistake of suggesting that the Governor is appointed by the 14 million Zimbabweans. The truth is that the Governor is appointed by the President and not by the people. He is not accountable to the people but to the President who in turn should be accountable to the people. How can Gono interpose himself between the people and the President unless the President has abdicated? Who is Gono to determine the priorities of a government that ought to be accountable to the people? Why is it that the legislatures can be spectators to this unlawful and constitutional conduct? Could it be that they are also beneficiaries of the gravy train as Gono reminded them that he had allocated US$1.2 million to them? I guess even the opposition has no ammunition to challenge Gono when they are jumping the national queue of foreign currency seekers? Surely, the legislature in a democratic assembly should be influenced not selfish interests but by reasons of principle.
Thursday, 1 March 2007On 28 February, Gono like a typical politician was on the road. The Herald reported the story in the article entitled: “Do not abuse State Inputs, Gono warns beneficiaries” that appeared on 1 March 2007.
It was reported that Gono warned administrators and beneficiaries of Operation Maguta against abusing inputs and government facilities saying that stern action would be taken against them. He made the remarks during a briefing with Acting Chief of Operation Maguta Brigadier General Douglas Nyikayaramba and Mashonaland West Governor and Resident Minister Nelson Samkange in Chinhoyi. It was reported that he was in the province to assess the crop situation and progress of the operation.
This is what Gono said:
“Disciplinary action would be taken against those who abuse inputs and government facilities. So we want to assure our people that these people would be punished. I urge you to come forward and report such corrupt practices which are negatively impacting on Zimbabwe’s economy.
"I know that there are some officials from financial institutions who are demanding kick backs from farmers in order for the banks to grant loans. So we want to call upon our people to come forward and report such practices and we assure them that the culprits would be dealt with. We want Mashonaland West to become our greater source of the country’s food requirements.”
Who has doubted that all the operations including Operation Murambatsvina came from one author? You judge for yourself who believes in arresting challenges. Under what construction would Gono speak on behalf of the government unless he is aware that the President has abdicated? Surely, is it the role of government to give people land and then threaten them with eviction because they have not behaved as dictated by the governors? Under the land reform program, who does the land belong to?
It appears from Gono that the security of tenure is based on production and the property rights are subject to the interpretation of the state more appropriately him? Are the statements made by Gono consistent with his role as the Governor of an agency of the government? What does Gono know about the government that everyone else doesn’t know? Why would the Governor be the inspector of land reform while at the same time try to speak on behalf of the government? Where are the responsible Ministers? Why is the media not picking up the dangerous signs?
How safe is it for an entrepreneur to live in the fear of the state being the judge, jury and executioner. Should the Governor be the judge of the performance of land owners? Imagine you borrow money from a bank to buy a house in the knowledge that the bank may deprive you of the house without due process. Does this inspire confidence? If it does not, who is culpable for non-performance? Should the RBZ not trust other intermediaries to intervene rather than become the policeman, banker and politician?
Friday, 2 March 2007
The week ended with an editorial from the Herald entitled: ”Farmers must shape up or ship out”. Not surprisingly, the editor had this to say: “To this end, we back the Reserve Bank Governor (and not the President) Dr. Gideon Gono’s assertions that the fiscus cannot continue using scarce foreign currency to import food when we could not only be producing it, but actually exporting it to boost our foreign currency reserves. Some of these farmers are going into their seventh season this year, and if they have not yet put a significant portion of their land into production, they should lose it immediately.
The government should not accept any excuses because A2 farmers stated on their applications that they had resources to produce for the nation. What is now required is to weed out bad apples, and leave only those with the soil at the heart of the farms. Farming is a full time business that has no room for part timers (The President and his cabinet are all part time farmers). The nation cannot continue suffering the depredations and indulgence of a few misguided farmers, when so many people are willing to get on with the business of farming only if they could lay their hands on a farm.”
It is clear from the above that the editorial was authored by the RBZ. Many may remember that Gono has repeatedly said that he respects the rule of law, human and property rights yet it is evident that only performers must be entitled to property rights. For many land owners who benefited from the land reform, they should be concerned as any property owner ought to be concerned about the above implications of Gono’s statements.
The above leads me to ask: Whose land is it anyway? Would Gono go after the President if he is not utilizing the land productively? If the standard for land ownership is productivity, then surely should the government not invite the white farmers back? What is Gono trying to communicate and who is he trying to confuse? The obvious manipulation of the public through the media would be evident from any casual observer and yet many have been fooled by these antics.The above represents what happened in Gono’s week. I am sure you will agree with me that his actions and conduct confirms the worst fears that the President may have abdicated and Gono may have stolen the Presidency by design or by default. Citizens deserve better than being governed by proxy and must locate the succession debate in the context of a palace coup that even the President may not be fully aware of. I would argue that if the President is fully aware of the machinations of Gono then it is incomprehensible why he would want to remain in office when the system of government has been sufficiently undermined to render it useless.
Even the opposition parties appear to have accepted the transfer of power to Gono who has now decided to unilaterally warehouse all the quasi-fiscal transactions in an opaque company called Fiscorp. With Herbert Murerwa gone, I am sure that there is a sigh of relief among the many beneficiaries including parliamentarians of Gono’s generosity using the people’s funds with impunity. What if there are bad apples in the portfolio taken over by Fiscorp, we will never know. Strange things happen when strange people steal your future and have the courage of insulting you through your elected representatives.
In the circumstances, the need for Zimbabweans to appreciate the dangers that have visited the republic is more urgent today than never. Who would have expected that only after 27 years of independence, the government would be outsourced to a Godfather while the elected head of state and one of the founding fathers being a cheer leader? An abdication can never be rewarded by an extension of term but by citizens taking ownership of the Republic.
If the President has delegated his authority to Gono, then he should give way to him rather than continue with the hypocrisy. Maybe Gono will then learn to be consistent in deed and action, lest many casualties like Murerwa and many other Gono corpses become common litter on Samora Machel Avenue.