‘No’ Vote was a People’s Victory, not a ‘mistake’

A WEEK or so ago, Professor Welshman Ncube, a government minister, in his capacity as a member of the Joint Implementation and Monitoring Committee (JOMIC) was quoted by the Herald newspaper (February 25, 2009) as having said that the “no” vote result at the constitutional referendum of February 2000 was, in his words, “a mistake”. 

He further explained that, as a member of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) taskforce, he was of the view that “we lost”.

 Perhaps an alternative view is in need of explanation. Having also served on the national taskforce of the NCA at the time of the historic “no” vote in 2000, it would be necessary to actually be more honest about the significance of the result of the 2000 referendum.

As it is, the NCA never sought to achieve perfection in a constitutional reform process.  It sought primarily the direct participation of the Zimbabwean public in the beginning, middle and end of the constitution making agenda. 

This is to say, far from expecting that the Zimbabwean people would have views similar to those of the NCA at the end of a constitutional reform process, the national task force at that time emphatically supported the issue of “people driven” processes as key to the end product. 

As it was, the outreach programmes of both the NCA and the Chidyausiku Commission may have produced in part similar reports about what the people said, but the latter then chose, in its plenary sessions to not encompass the views of the people on a number of issues in its final draft constitution.

When people were informed by the NCA about both the flaws in the process of the collation of their views as well as the final proposed draft constitution, they resolved, as the referendum results showed, to reject it. And this was one of the less violent elections held in Zimbabwe since Independence. 

Add to this the ostensible fact that the NCA received minimal coverage on state television and radio against the immense propaganda machinery of the commission led by the acerbic Professor Jonathan Moyo as indicative of a clear determination by the people of Zimbabwe to vote the way they chose to vote.

Keep Reading

• Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
• Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
• Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
• Councils defy govt fire tender directive

To now want to label this decision by the majority of Zimbabweans who bothered to vote in the referendum a “mistake” is to be dishonest to the democratic process. 

And to move away from the blame the people approach of the learned professor, it is important that the true democratic significance of the 2000 referendum result can be explained within three contexts.

The initial and significance is that for the first time since 1980, the Zanu PF de facto one party state, with all its resources, was defeated in a national plebiscite on as important an issue as the national constitution.

Without a doubt, this first national defeat of Zanu PF played a significant role in assisting the people of Zimbabwe to dispel the myth of the invincibility of Zanu PF in elections. 

It also made the people of Zimbabwe have greater confidence in elections or electoral processes as the only source of political change in Zimbabwe, as opposed to violent means. 

This is evidenced by the fact that even after the Joseph Chinotimbas and Chenjerai Hunzvis had been unleashed on the innocent; the MDC (united) was to establish a significant presence in parliament, one that surpassed that of the legendary PF Zapu after independence. 

The referendum victory indicated the beginning of the still ongoing non-violent revolution against the dictatorship that still attempts to cling to power today.

The second placement of the significance of the referendum no vote of 2000, is in its unique ability to remove constitutionalism and issues of constitutional reform primarily from the hands of politicians on their own as well as legal experts working in tandem with political parties.

For the first time after our national independence, the people made a national decision on what was not an election for a president or a prime minister but something that affected every aspect of the polity that we call Zimbabwe, the constitution.

Agreed, there was civic education and the like but the end result was reflective of the people’s unfettered will. No one from the NCA went into the ballot booths to put an ‘X’ on the no section for anyone. People made their decisions and the people’s verdict must be respected not attacked with the benefit of dishonest politicised hindsight.  

 The third factor in recognising the positive significance of the ‘no’ vote of 2000 is that unless any constitutional reform process is rooted in the Zimbabwean people, it shall always be lacking in national legitimacy and subject to abuse by the occasional politician. 

This is evidenced by the fact that nine years after the 2000 referendum some politicians find the wherewithal to attack the people’s verdict as ‘a mistake’ with a casualness that makes one wonder if they are truly committed to the national democratisation of Zimbabwe.  

Further, to seek a top down approach in constitutional reform is to miss a fundamental point about the nature of the Zimbabwean political, socio-economic crisis. 

This being that this country as a political entity is a state that is in thorough need of the re-legitimisation of its institutions as well as public confidence in its ability to provide, as the Americans have, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

In order to avoid continued evasion of the state and its institutions, there is need to re-engage, publicly and transparently the people of Zimbabwe on the meaning of the same through the unique process of democratic constitutional reform.

This is because this is not merely an amendment, but a wholesale change to key structures of the state, and nowhere in the annals of democratic governance is it permitted to do so without thorough consultation with the people.  

Where respected politicians like Professor Ncube demean the expression of the people’s will, it borders on a lack of understanding as to the nature and depth of the Zimbabwean crises.

We are where we are not because the people of Zimbabwe do not have the knowledge or interest of how to interpret what politicians bring before them, but because of politicians who increasingly treat constitutional reform with a casualness that is a veneer for unbridled pursuit of power games as opposed to allowing true democratisation of Zimbabwe’s polity.  

So to conclude, it is imperative that those that are responsible for Article 6 in the Global Political Agreement come to the simple reality that there is an inherent danger in ignoring the will of the people in the manner that was done in 2000.

And this is not because the NCA or civil society seeks to self-righteously claim to represent the people, but because history, in instances such as these tends to repeat itself.

The people do make their own judgements as they did in 2000 after broadly participating in both the Constitutional Commission and the NCA processes, not because they are instructed by an individual leader or organisation to act in a specific way. 

Zimbabweans are very cognisant of history, and it must be said, will not easily forget principles of constitutional reform, especially after having undergone such processes since 1972 with the Pearce Commission, 1989 with the proposals for the one party state and in 2000, with the constitutional referendum, all in which, government proposals were turned down, save for the year of our national independence.

 As part of the way forward, there should be a departure point that does not seek to blame the people for having made a mistake or to accuse others for being “puritanists” simply because they have a different view on the same issue.

Instead it should be to galvanise both the government, national parliament, civil society organisations in a manner that inspires public confidence as well as being continually cognisant of the historical processes that have informed constitutional reform in Zimbabwe.  

The ‘no’ vote, was not and should never be considered a mistake because explaining it as such implies the people of Zimbabwe are not intelligent enough to decide on as important an issue as their very own constitution. 

It is our hope, my hope, that the government will realise this sooner rather than later that because of the important lessons to be drawn from the 2000 ‘no’ vote, the people’s will should be allowed to triumph.

Takura Zhangazha is the National Director for MISA Zimbabwe, he writes here in his personal capacity.

BY TAKURA ZHANGAZHA