COPAC is a ‘trough feeding exercise’

The COPAC exercise is a trough feeding exercise that enriches a self-selected elite while engaging in a fraudulent consultation of ‘the’ people, a process that will either deliver pre-conceived ideologies from the parties in charge or a bastardised amalgamation of unworkable and contradictory clauses.

Consultation is a buzz-word that on closer examination does not have much meaning, except to justify a particular position. If we ask 50 people for their opinions and then promote one of these, is it justified because we have consulted? What about the little old woman in the corner who is too nervous to speak in public but has her own opinions? What about the loud-mouthed know-it-all who makes the most noise?

Is his opinion more valid because he is so forceful? What about the 950 people who didn’t hear about the consultation or could not get time off work to attend? Are their opinions to be disregarded because they could not fit in with our schedule?

Apart from the abuse of ‘consultation’ to justify one set of opinions, there is a fundamental flaw in the idea and practice of ‘majoritarianism’ – the majority is not necessarily right. The majority of Germans supported Hitler…look where that took them and the world! In the matter of constitutions we need wise and considered counsel not the appeasement of the majority.

Zimbabwe is not unique in the world. There are over 200 other countries, all of which have had their trials and tribulations, their killer kings and civil wars, their colonists and liberators, their betrayers and heroes. There are hundreds of constitutions out there that serve their people to a better or worse degree. There has been no education of Zimbabweans about these documents and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Without knowing what the options are, how can we make an educated choice? Without understanding the importance of a constitution and the need for the inclusive protection of all our people, not just the ones we approve of, people put forward their opinions as proposals but opinions are dicey terrain upon which to build a state.

Zimbabweans have been so brutalized by these oppressors, force-fed lies and propaganda, denied information and ideas and opinions from which to make considered judgements, that left up to ‘the’ people, no doubt we would have executions of homosexuals in public. This is a fatally flawed process foisted onto us by an elite of politicians who will never surrender their power, who will say they have consulted and then push forward their own agendas regardless.

We all know of ZANU PF’s contempt for the law, for due process, for constitutions, for people but the MDC is quite capable of emulating them: the contempt for their own constitution demonstrated in 2005 (when Tsvangirai rode roughshod over the document to push his own views ahead of the majority and precipitate the split) and again in 2009 (when they quietly removed the term limits to allow Tsvangirai to remain in place) demonstrates that they too were nurtured at the poisonous bosom of Zimbabwe’s political culture, with its intolerance, violence, parochialism. The MDC will treat any constitution as a tool to achieve their goals, subject to the exigencies of politics and self-interest.

Constitutions should not be crafted by politicians or ‘the’ people but by constitutional specialists with a wide knowledge of different constitutions around the world and a healthy scepticism of politicians and their machinations. Their work should be based on clearly expressed principles identified by popular debate.

For instance, if ‘the’ people are consulted and their views filtered by commissioners, who knows what they said or didn’t. And anyway if 99% of ‘the’ people want public executions, does that legitimise the inclusion of such a clause? Does a majority make it ‘right’? No, it makes it popular. The constitution should protect us from mob sentiment as much as from rapacious politicians.

This process will deliver a constitution that will inevitably be a compromise hammered out by the powerful behind closed doors and delivered to the hapless electorate, sanctified by ‘consultation’.

It is clear that ZANU PF has their preferred constitution – the so-called Kariba draft – and that nothing ‘the people’ say will have much influence upon it. ZANU PF wants a neo-feudal state under the perpetual leadership of a robber king who can do no wrong because he is chosen by god. They have no interest in ‘rights’ since these are Western inventions designed to subvert the sovereignty of the nation.

The only right they will defend is the ‘right’ for the “only liberators of Zimbabwe” to plunder and pillage forever. Personally I do not want to have a constitution that has a single clause that ZANU supports. If they are in favour of anything that appears positive, that something should be examined with a microscope because there will be something sinister therein that will deliver some benefit to the fascists, thieves, rapists murderers and intelligence-free lickspittle running dogs that constitute ZANU PF.

They have lost their right to engage in any democratic process and should be incarcerated for their crimes against Zimbabweans. Like those Hutu genocidaires who still languish in jails in Rwanda without trial 16 years after their monstrous crimes, let these enemies of the people taste their own medicine and maybe learn some lessons and contrition before they die. Either of two alternative processes would have been preferable to the current farce.

Firstly the election of a constitutional assembly through an universal (i.e. all Zimbabweans, at home and in exile, and permanent residents), non-constituency and compulsory voting process. Some may see that ‘compulsory’ as unacceptable but I believe the minimum entry level for a citizen, for one to even call oneself a citizen is to vote.

And I stress a minimum qualification. Non-constituency because the intimidation and violence, the displacements that occur during constituency-based elections is clear to see. And of course most voters know only too well that the only time the constituency MP appears is at election time to make unachievable promises, con ‘the’ people and disappear to Harare to work……mostly on extending the girth of their bellies. MPs should be national in orientation and commitment while councillors are really the ones who live and work at the local level, in daily contact with people and more responsive to their concerns.

Such a constitutional assembly should hammer out the principles of our constitution first. Do we want freedom and rights in a genuine republic or subservience to a monarch? Do we want the separation of powers? Do we want a rights-based constitution that explicitly makes the state responsible for our well-being and for service provision or do we want a neo-liberal profit-based state that is there to service the needs of the capitalists and control the reactions of ‘the’ people? Etc etc.

If we want a rights-based constitution, then it must be accepted that human rights are indivisible, that we cannot cherry-pick according to our personal preferences, that as much as some find homosexuality offensive, that if we do not uphold gay rights, then we cannot defend the rights of women, of children, of any subset of society. That the right to life precludes state murder.

Unfortunately the practicalities of electing a constitutional assembly in a country so traumatized by ZANU PF’s brutality, with most of our adult population displaced either internally or externally, with our minds polluted by ZANU PF propaganda mitigate against this proposal.

The second – and far more workable process – is to recognize that ZANU PF will never promote a constitution that undermines their power.

Let them advocate for their Kariba document. Let the MDC put forward their preferred constitution. Let the NCA put forward theirs. Let anyone with the signatures of, say, a 100 000 people put forward a constitution. Let us debate and argue for six months about this multitude of documents. And then let us choose between them. The idea that there should be one document and our choice limited to a simple “Yes” or “No” is frankly preposterous. Look where it took us last time!

The current process is not going to deliver a constitution that we can hold up in pride, that we can respect and honour, that will defend our real sovereignty, our communal and individual rights to pursue our goals without causing harm to others or being harmed by them.