Madhuku is right in demanding a people-driven constitution

A few days ago the National Constitutional Assembly declared that it would reject the proposed constitution on the basis that it is not “people-driven”. This has led many to ask themselves what “people-driven” means. Is it a verb that defines a clear status of an action or it’s just sweet sounding rhetoric? It has become necessary that we examine the logical validity of this compound word, its relationship to the constitution and finally its implications to the proposed process.

A constitution of a country is a system for government that defines the fundamental principles of the country and the structure, behaviour and composition of its government. It explains which organs of the state has the responsibility and powers, to make new laws (legislative), implement the laws (executive) and arbitrates or adjudicates(judicial); further to this it defines the limits of these powers. Most modern day constitutions also have guarantees of certain rights to the people. In short therefore, a constitution is a set of rules on how the governors should make rules and implement them without impeding on certain fundamental rights of the governed.

So, a constitution represents a consensus between the governors and the governed. An examination of the evolution of constitutionalism shows that most constitutions were written after a period of revolt, uprising or revolution. Such circumstances demand that there be a clear demarcation of duties, jurisdictions and responsibilities to avoid anarchy. Zimbabwe is no exception; the fall of Rhodesia signalled the transfer of power from a largely white minority to black majority. All man became equal in Zimbabwe and so arose the need to collectively relinquish certain powers to what is termed THE STATE. The state is the molecular sum of individual influence.

From time to time; there is need to choose characters that we would extract from society to govern the affairs of the state- that is to exercise the powers that we would have relinquished to the invisible being called the state. This we do using the minimal power that we would still remain with; that is the power to choose who rules us.

Since the power that would be used to rule us in essence belongs to us, there is need to define how those people should use that power. This becomes the constitution: an agreement on who should use our power and how he should use it!

We have managed to define the relationship between the people and the constitution. Logically, it is the people who should define how their power is to be used and not the other way round.

Why then should the people whom we have elected with our minimal power to vote seek to describe how we should define the constitution? This becomes the bone of contention for NCA. The political leaders in Zimbabwe are seeking to retrospectively influence the process of defining how they should manage the State. What NCA is calling for is simply that; we start from point one. None of us has power that is above the other. We pool our power and define how that power should be used. Not that people use the power they have gotten through the use of a flawed system to define how they should use our power.

At this point in time we should appreciate that The State exists but we want to remould it to represent our undying desire for peace, prosperity, growth and democracy. We want to create a State that is dynamic enough to respond to the needs of time but rigid enough to preserve our social and cultural fabric. In this regard we need MDC and ZANU PF legislators not as characters managing the State but rather as simple leaders within society without special power over others.

What we need are people who are leaders in society; that is priests, coaches, civic leaders, teachers and many others to listen to what people want and put it in writing. This is what we would call a draft constitution. The authenticity and truthfulness of this document would then be tested by way of a referendum.

The purpose of the State in all this is simply to avail the required resources for the smooth running of such a process. Political leaders should either be spectators or contribute as simple citizens like anybody else. This makes Article Six of the Global Political Agreement incongruent with the aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe.

Conclusively therefore; Zimbabwe needs a PEOPLE-DRIVEN CONSTITUTION !