Zimbabwe law reform process, a long forgotten battle

By Rawlings Magede

In his book, Political order and political decay, Francis Fukuyama notes that patrimonialism which ancient dictators used to run down countries has now evolved into what is called “neopatrimonialism” in which political leaders adopt the outward forms of modern states-with bureaucracies, legal systems,elections,and the like and yet in reality rule for private gain. What strikes me about Fukuyama’s assertion is that his observation is at play in most African countries where some leaders have managed to “transform” their countries by effecting artificial institutions that remain subservient to the appointing authority.Fukuyama’s describes this as political decay which makes reform prohibitively difficult. What is rather disheartening about this is that citizens within such countries have taken a back seat and left the ruling elites to run the show and craft repugnant pieces of legislation that will have a bearing on future generations.

Recently, MDC-T Bulawayo legislator, Priscilla Misihairambwi Mushonga was quoted in the media expressing frustration over government’s commitment to bring about law reforms in the country. Kindness Paradza, the ZANU PF Makonde legislator also echoed Mushonga’s sentiments and highlighted that government was in the business of replicating past law under the guise of law reforms. An example being the Maintenance of Peace and Order Bill which seems worse off than its predecessor, the Public Order and Security Act (POSA).This revelation by the two legislators all but confirms the lack of political will on the part of government to ensure that existing laws that contradict provisions in the constitution are repealed totally. The new dispensation that many have castigated for being worse than the Mugabe era, has been on a public relations offensive trying to rebrand itself through its messaging that seeks to appease funding for its neo-liberalism policies. The Zimbabwe is open for business mantra has failed to find meaning and residence to the ordinary citizen who finds himself on the receiving end of the disastrous neo-liberal policies. The constitution for its part, while it has some progressive provisions on fundamental human rights and liberties has all but remained a document that makes good reading. Its implementation remains a distant dream. An example is the newly constituted Zimbabwe Anti-corruption commission (ZACC) that is well provided in section 254 of the constitution is chaired by the wife of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sibusiso Moyo. During a recent interview with BBC, Moyo dismissed the allegations that might affect his wife’s discharge of duties but argued that she is independent since she has been a judge before. And at the end, he jokingly said that he was not going to divorce her, a statement that in my view already diminishes public confidence in ZACC. When quizzed about the state of human rights, Moyo was quick to point out that the new dispensation has implemented “a lot of reforms” and provided freedoms that have never been experienced in the country’s history. This interview however exposes the neopatrimonialism that Fukuyama talks about. It would seem that Moyo’s unintended message is that the new dispensation did the nation a favour by implementing the “many reforms”. The reconstitution of ZACC must however be understood within its rightful context. Questions that citizen must ask is why the Goodson Nguni led ZACC was disbanded and what corrective measures has been done to ensure that ZACC will not be used as a tool for political witch-hunting this time around. All these much ado about nothing questions however is the missing puzzle within the current discourse on ZACC.

Citizen urgency vs Citizen Interest

One of the most disheartening issues relates to the state of our society today. While ruling elites have been on a public relations offensive trying to rebrand, the ordinary citizen has been busy on virtual space trading lame jokes or satire on the poor state of the economy. Closely related to this is the cancer of individualism that has found expression among citizens. Every government pronouncement towards neoliberalism has been met with a fair share of humour. From the electricity crisis to the banning of the multi-currency system, humour and satire has been pelted out in equal measure. While there is nothing wrong with citizens expressing disdain or frustration via social media, there has been a lack of conversations on the need for legal reform in relation to existing laws and the constitution. The current mess was brought about by weak institutions which over the years due to political decay failed to project and plan for the future. Strong institutions are only established when we have clear laws and policies in place that protect institutions. While people are quick to criticize individuals, the fact that we have ambiguous laws and policies in existence that violate the constitution should surely be a cause for concern. What the ruling elites have mastered over the years is the art delaying of games which on several occasions has allowed themselves to escape public scrutiny. With time on their side, they can then manipulate laws and policies that operationalize institutions to the detriment of the citizen. It is then not shocking that currently, government is trying to institute a series of laws that do not make democratic sense. For example the right to demonstrate and petition that is exclusively provided for in Section 59 is under serious threat. Enjoyment of such a right will remain on paper and never be enjoyed by the citizen. The citizen in Zimbabwe has since lost interest in contesting and demanding the enjoyment of rights provided for under the constitution. This is demonstrated by the lack of interest by citizens to attend bill consultations meetings called for by Parliament. While active participation in such processes by citizens is not in itself a magic bullet to reform laws, it is however a positive step towards the much needed legal reform.

In the final analysis, building a constitutional democracy remains the preserve of the citizen because of their inalienable right to choose leaders into public office. Surrendering the country to ruling elites will never set the country on a trajectory towards the achievement and enjoyment of democracy. But then again, maybe the neopatrimonialism that Fukuyama talks about is allowed to find roots by the citizen.

Rawlings Magede is a Development Practitioner. He writes here in his own capacity. Feedback on vamagede@gmail.com