Proposed crackdown on vendors: Implications on children’s rights in Zimbabwe

By Johanne Mhlanga

The government of Zimbabwe through its Minister of Local Government, Public Works, Rural and Urban Development on Monday the 1^st of June 2015 gave a seven day ultimatum to all vendors to refrain from street vending in all the towns and growth points of Zimbabwe.

The Minister hinted that failure by vendors to abide by the ultimatum will result in the military intervening to restore order in towns. Minister Chombo’s remarks have been greeted with mixed reactions.

While there is agreement that the state of affairs in all the cities and towns leaves a lot to be desired and members of the public across the political divide are in agreement that something must be done to rectify the situation. The point of departure is on the methodology to be used to sanitise the situation.

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai made a statement describing the proposed crackdown as outrageous and criminal. Vendors’ representatives have described the proposal as a betrayal by the ruling party and they vowed to resist any machinations by the government to remove vendors from the streets.

The argument is that people are suffering and have no option except to vend on the streets to irk a living for their children. Members of the public argue that there are no jobs and industries are closing on a daily basis.

Therefore the only source of livelihoods for the many is vending and central business districts provide a ready market for the vendors’ wares. It is however, not the intention of this paper to delve into the source of the problem. But the paper is concerned with the implications of the crackdown on children’s rights.

Zimbabwe’s commitment to the rights and welfare of children and the citizenry

Zimbabwe is a signatory to the international and regional conventions on children’s and human rights. Chief amongst them is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the African Charter on the Welfare and Rights of Children.

In all these conventions, state parties are obliged to ensure that children enjoy their rights. In essence the state has responsibilities to its children. The guiding principles of human rights are that they are universal and inalienable, indivisibility and interdependent, equal and non-discriminatory.

What is important to note with these principles is that an attempt to temper around with one principle will result in breaching all the other principles since they are inseparable thereby negatively impinging on human rights.

Therefore, the intended crackdown has several ripple effects on children’s rights and their families. For starters, vendors are vending on the streets in order to irk a living and take care of their children. Thus vending has become a source of livelihoods to the families. Parents are paying schools fees, examination fees, health fees, water bills and they are buying food using the proceeds from vending.

From the above, it is clear that once removed from the streets vendors will lose their source of income. The ripple effects will ricochet on the same government that is proposing to chase the vendors out of the streets. The question to pose is, “Is the government in a position to address the challenges that will emanate from the loss of livelihoods?”

What contingency measures are in place to limit the extent of the damage on people’s livelihoods? Already, the government is failing its part of the bargain in fulfilling its mandate in paying school and examination fees for children under the Basic Education Assistance Model (BEAM). The burden is too much to a government which is struggling to pay its civil servants.

Now, the proposed crackdown is likely to result in the following:

• Children are likely to drop out of school due to the parents’ inability to pay school fees thereby violating the children’s right to education.
• A lot of families will find it very difficult to buy basic goods to feed their families and children will suffer from malnutrition that will lead to violation of the children’s right to health and food.
• Many families will fail to pay rentals and rates hence they will be chased away by landlords further exacerbating the welfare of children.
• The proposed crackdown will result in the rise in social evils like prostitution, theft and street children. The consequences will be dire.

What is disheartening is that while the government is proposing to descend on vendors, it does not have a plan to address the plight of many children let alone families who are struggling to meet their basic needs. The repercussions will be similar to the Operation Murambatsvina era.

Way forward

While the writer is in no way against the crackdown on vendors, he is worried by the implications on children’s rights. What will happen to children who will fail to pay school fees? What is going to happen to children whose parents will be unable to buy food to feed their families?

The government must therefore:

1. Ensure that children are not brutally affected by the operation.
2. Children who accompany their parents to the streets are not injured during the process of chasing vendors from the streets.
3. Ensure that contingency measures are in place to ensure that there is no disturbance to the source of livelihoods of the vendors.
4. Ensure that children’s rights are not trampled upon during the operation.
5. Ensure that the government will do everything in its capacity to address the ripple effects of the operation on affected families.

Thank you

Johanne Mhlanga is a child rights activist and he writes in his capacity.