Zimbabwe: Time to change the rules

I am making a clarion call to all and sundry to radically change our orientation and approach to national issues. I am calling for increased interaction with the various pieces of legislation governing our country. I believe it is only through that kind of interaction that we can be able to say no to evil laws. This, my humble contribution, focuses on four provisions of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act Chapter 10:20 indicating their impact in relation to democratic practice in Zimbabwe. A lot shall undoubtedly be depicted in the subsequent paragraphs.

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act Chapter 10:20 is an act to empower the president to make regulations dealing with situations that have arisen or are likely to arise and that require to be dealt with as a matter of urgency; and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. That a number of provisions of this act are detrimental to democratic practice in Zimbabwe is beyond dispute and this requires nothing but a cogently convincing discussion of this matter and I am overly sanguine that I will not disappoint my readers with regards this issue.

The abovementioned act empowers the president to make urgent regulations. When it appears to the president that a situation has arisen – or is likely to arise – which needs to be dealt with urgently in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, the economic interests of Zimbabwe or the general public interest; and the situation cannot adequately be dealt with in terms of any other law; and because of the urgency, it is inexpedient to await the passage through parliament of an act dealing with the situation, then the president may make such regulations as he considers will deal with the situation. At face value this appears to be noble, but since human beings are not angels, there is a general tendency by the president to want to enact laws that suit his selfish desire to tighten his grip on power and to thwart any dissent. This however does not encourage democratic practice in Zimbabwe but it is instead curtailed and restricted.

The president is also empowered by this act to declare a state of emergency. This happened during the ‘dissident era’ in the early and mid-1980s that was characterised by mass executions of the Ndebele people by the North-Korean trained Fifth Brigade in what is known today as ‘Gukurahundi’. Nobody apologised and nobody wants to apologise. The thing is that all fundamental freedoms and human rights may be flagrantly violated when the President declares a state of emergency. Detention without trial will be rife and rampant, and the rights to life, personal liberty, and freedom of expression, association, assembly and movement will be badly hampered and this is clearly a negative effect on democratic practice in Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, the president may also dissolve parliament in urgent situations. This dissolution of parliament works against democratic practice in the country because the president may dissolve the parliament that has gone against him. Who then can go against an autocratic leader with excessive powers to dissolve parliament and appoint new members of parliament? Noteworthy however is the fact that such action by the president is constitutional but is equally detrimental to democratic practice in our country. For example, Section 31 (F) of the constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the vote of no confidence in government. Parliament may pass a vote of no confidence in the government if a two-thirds majority votes to do so. In the event of such a development, which is very unlikely given the circumstances of our country, the president has to either dissolve parliament or suspend all vice presidents, ministers and deputy ministers and cabinet or to step down within fourteen days. The likely scenario in these circumstances is that the octogenarian tyrant will dissolve or prorogate parliament as is provided for in Section 31 F (2) (a) of the constitution and this again hinders democratic practice in Zimbabwe.

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act also provides for notification of the public about the intention to declare the state of public emergency through parliament. More often than not, notification by the president is minimal at best and non-existent at worst. For example, the act was used in 2006 during the currency seizures when the new currency was introduced (tichine mari here yatinoti ndeyedu?/do we still have money that we call ours?). A number of people found that development inconvenient because it came with little or no notice at all. In short, the act is prone to abuse by the incumbent president whose political fortunes have been waning as long as we can remember.

After having said all this, it can now be concluded that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act has serious negative implications for democratic practice in Zimbabwe as has surely been depicted in this presentation. I rest my case and I put it to you.

* Mutsa Murenje is a Zimbabwean human rights defender and an intern with World Youth Alliance Africa. He writes here in a personal capacity.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/.