Let's avoid emotionalism over new Zimbabwe constitution

The parliament of Zimbabwe is like a tavern filled with Dynamos and Caps United or Highlanders supporters. The debate is noisy and rowdy, but leading nowhere in particular. The debates in parliament are sharply divided along the lines of Zanu PF versus the ‘opposition’. One believes the other is a group of sellouts and the other believes the other is a bunch of human rights abusers and looters; the gulf between ‘them’ (they don’t think much about us) is incredibly vast.

                It is no crime for MPs or senators to tow the party line as they are elected based on their party’s manifesto (but I doubt that is the case in Zimbabwe – there are many who were elected just because they are on the opposite side of Mugabe), but this should be done to reasonable extends. The current situation is a sad scenario where everything that is suggested by a Zanu PF MP is short down by the opposition without being considered in a mature manner and vise versa. Our MPs are always within half a step of a punch-up and therein lies our problem.

There has been a lot of opportunism, hatred, hate language, emotionalism in Zimbabwean politics that we have lost the ability to see beyond our noses if ever we had that ability.

                A case in point is the premature campaigning for a NO vote especially by Lovemore Maduku’s National Constitutional Assembly in the referendum of a yet to be drafted constitution. I am very critical of anything that involves Zanu PF, but I think we have to see the draft first and act like civilised, rational people for crying out loud.

                It has been asked several times where Zimbabwe would be if we had voted yes for the Jonathan Moyo draft: no matter from which angle you look at it, we would be rid of Mugabe by now. Either he would have lost the presidential elections in a convincing manner as he was not aware of how unpopular he was until we told him via the referendum vote and gave him an opportunity to ‘campaign’. Or he would have won and his term, according to the draft constitution we rejected, would be coming to an end round about now; never to contest again.

                Most of us did not know why we were voting NO; politicians with selfish motives told us to do so and we lost an opportunity, small, but an opportunity nevertheless. We stood in the long queue in the hot sun to deliver a blow to Mugabe and show him we were tired of his rule – we chose the wrong platform. The same emotional thinking went into the formation of the MDC; everyone who had ‘beaf’ with Mugabe was invited to the party and a group with too many people with differing motives and agendas is bound to fail.

As we look at the Zimbabwean problem and possible solutions we should be forward looking and leave emotions out of it – a difficult position to take considering lost limbs, burnt buttocks and missing relatives, but we must try. I remember when Jonathan Moyo was minister of information and publicity he introduced the 75% local content policy on our radios and television. Minus the other Zanu PF propaganda that he churned out with amazing efficiency, the 75% local content policy was a noble idea and many a local artist benefited from it. His unbundling of ZBC into ZBH holdings was also a sound business move.  But we failed to look at things with a clear mind and declared that anything Zanu PF is bad and should be rejected without even being glanced at.

                We should avoid such short sightedness when it comes to our new constitution: No one should tell us how to vote in the referendum because after forming reading groups to study and understand the proposed document we will know how to vote. I know Zanu PF is claiming that 80% of the views in the collected data are its views and that has got a few people seething and vowing to reject the draft and Mugabe relishes that situation. He will set an election date and the very faulty Lancaster House constitution will be used and we all know what will happen.

                I say let us wait for the draft constitution, read through it carefully and see what to make of it. For one reason or the other it might not be to everyone’s satisfaction, but we should ask ourselves if it will move us from the current hopeless situation to a reasonable position of hope, no matter how small.