If you take a group of four Zimbabweans, there is a high probability that at least three of them will be able to cite a verse or chapter of the Bible.
The same number might also be able to quote a verse verbatim.
Most homes will probably have at least one Bible, often two or more.
But if you ask them to cite just one provision of the constitution, you might struggle to get a clear answer.
Try asking them to quote a provision of the constitution and you are likely to get blank faces.
And chances of finding a copy of the constitution in a Zimbabwean home are very small.
This is not a criticism of Zimbabweans.
The pattern is likely to be the same in many parts of the continent and probably in many countries around the world.
- 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
Keep Reading
It simply reveals the chasm that exists between the citizens and the constitution compared to other important texts.
Religion is part of daily life from the very beginning so that it becomes almost natural.
Things like the constitution, on the other hand, are regarded as esoteric; they are things for lawyers and politicians.
This scenario reminds me of one of my favourite parts of the scriptures when Jesus is tested by the Pharisees.
They ask him about paying taxes, hoping perhaps that he would say something that would offend the laws.
To whom should we pay taxes, they ask.
He asks them to show him what they use to pay taxes.
After examining the coin, he asks whose head is inscribed on it, to which they say it is Caesar’s.
His answer is classic: Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and God what is God’s.
I always marvel at the wisdom in that answer.
He answered the question without breaching any of the laws, much to the chagrin of his inquisitors.
For me, it has profound meaning in the constitutional context: whatever people believe in, they must also remember that there are earthly laws that cannot be ignored.
If people ignore these earthly laws and leave them to politicians, they will submit themselves to oppression.
This is the reason why it matters that people must invest deeply in the constitution.
It is the law that governs them in their daily lives.
Now, back to the problem of constitutional illiteracy.
Even if some people know that there is a constitution, few know what it says and why it matters in their lives.
This is probably because the constitution is written in a legal language that is difficult to comprehend.
Yet the constitution is the supreme law of the country.
It is the law that sits at the top of the hierarchy of laws in the country.
What this means is that every law must comply with the constitution.
Every practice, custom, or conduct must conform with the constitution.
If a law, custom, practice, or conduct is inconsistent with the constitution, it is invalid to the extent of that inconsistency.
This is what is meant by the supremacy of the constitution.
Our legal system is complex: there is legislation which is passed by Parliament; statutory instruments that are issued by the executive, the common law which is derived from the Roman-Dutch law system; and customary law.
All of these laws must, however, comply with the constitution.
Considering the supreme role of the constitution, you would expect that citizens would know more about it.
You would think that there would be more efforts to ensure that citizens are more fully aware of the constitution.
In our case, the framers of the constitution appreciated the need to ensure that there is more constitutional awareness among citizens.
They included a provision that imposes a duty on the State to promote constitutional awareness. Section 7 of the constitution says the State must promote public awareness of the constitution.
It proposes three ways to do so, first, by translating it into all official languages and disseminating it widely.
Second, the state must require it to be taught in schools and to be included in the training programs of members of the security services, the civil service, and members and employees of public institutions.
Finally, the State must encourage all persons and organisations, including civic organisations, to disseminate awareness and knowledge of this constitution throughout society.
Section 7 is, therefore, the bedrock of the duty to promote constitutional awareness.
Unfortunately, eight years after the 2013 constitution became law, this constitutional duty is yet to be fulfilled.
The constitution is still not taught in schools systematically and purposefully.
While it may be part of the training programmes for the public sector, it is usually incidental rather than systematic.
There is a need for more work beyond translating it into the main languages.
In the civil society space, while some organisations have stepped up to defend the constitution as well as to disseminate information regarding constitutional matters, the conversion of the National Constitutional Assembly into a political party left a gap in constitutional advocacy.
Some civic organisations like Kubatana have done a good job in this respect, promoting constitutional awareness through campaigns like #KnowYourConstitution.
Veritas does a great job monitoring constitutional amendments and legislative developments.
The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights is ever busy defending individuals who are subjected to all sorts of persecutions under the guise of criminal prosecutions.
The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum working with the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights has lately been active in defending the Constitution in the wake of illegal constitutional amendments.
All this is commendable work in the cause of constitutional defence.
The environment is different from when the NCA was formed back in the late 1990s.
Then, the big idea was to place constitutional reform firmly on the national agenda.
This, the NCA achieved with great distinction.
It was a big idea for the time and progressive forces converged to make it happen.
It was in response to the campaign for constitutional reform by the NCA that the Government moved to establish the Constitutional Commission in 1999.
It led to a constitutional referendum in February 2000, at which the Constitutional Draft was rejected by the citizens, the first-ever defeat in an electoral contest that the Zanu PF government suffered and accepted.
When the constitutional reform process started in 2009 under the auspices of the Global Political Agreement and the inclusive government, it was a revival of a process that had begun a decade earlier, not a new thing.
This is why I credit the original NCA for the 2013 constitution because it would never have been achieved had the NCA not broken the ground and placed constitutional reform at the top of the political agenda back in the 1990s.
The problem is that this important platform was lost when the NCA changed into a political party.
But the adoption of the 2013 constitution needed a vigilant and strong constitutional watchdog in the civic spaces.
- This is an extract from Alex Magaisa’s latest Saturday Big Read
