Mukai: State, citizenry responding to pandemic
ZIMBABWE is 40 years old as an independent, sovereign State. But of course it has a much older history with roots in prehistoric times, as witnessed by rock paintings in caves. We have inherited an oral culture of great beauty and wisdom.
But, tragically, there is also a long history of violence, war, cruelty and torture. Newly independent Zimbabwe has also for the first time in its long history a written Constitution for the literate population. This new Constitution (2013) upholds the right to life (48), right to healthcare (76) and freedom of conscience (60) which includes religion or belief (1a).
The government of Zimbabwe is acting in line with the Constitution by protecting human life from the threat of viral infections that might do great harm to the health of citizens or even cause deaths among the people, especially elderly people.
But there are unintended side effects. While isolation, separation and distancing of people may be medically necessary, these measures may also contravene human rights and other freedoms, like the freedom of assembly and association or religious freedom (see freedom of conscience, 60). They may also disturb families, communities, the economy and free trade.
The universal order that people should stay in their homes and not be seen in public, except in emergencies, seeking medical help or shopping for food, while observing social distancing and wearing face masks, may render people very lonely and cause depression.
The life of families and communities is deeply disturbed. Have the citizens no say in this matter? Are they not taking part in the process of decision-making concerning their lives? Is there no dialogue between ordinary citizens and their democratic representatives in city councils, rural districts and Parliament?
Is there not a grave risk that civil authorities will get so used to making such rulings about people’s lives outside the laws of the country, that we may become a lawless society? Will we not end up with an extraordinarily authoritarian regime, and get used to undemocratic behaviour?
Even in a severe health crisis like such a pandemic, should we not consult citizens and let them take part in the decision-making, while making sure that hygiene is preserved and protection is provided?
Parliament is a vitally important tool of democratic government. If it is not allowed to truly represent the citizens and speak for them at such a critical time, will this not do harm to this vital political institution and render it irrelevant in the eyes of citizens who have voted for its members? If MPs are sidelined at a time like this, who will want to give them respect as leaders?
If an emergency like the present COVID-19 epidemic makes a limitation of rights and freedoms necessary, such a limitation must be “fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on justice, human dignity, equality and freedom” and not “impose greater restrictions on the right or freedom concerned than are necessary to achieve its purpose” (Constitution no 86).
For example: “Every person has the right to freedom of assembly and association” (Constitution, No 58). If this freedom cannot be upheld because of the risk of infection in a crowd, then consultations with the people have to be conducted in such a way as to bypass this risk. Why are even small congregations barred from their churches, while big crowds fill supermarkets?
The announcements about further “lockdowns”, the need for wearing face masks and constant “social distancing” suggest that the State is in total control of the lives of its citizens. The virus seems to have given the State power and authority it never had before. Surely, we do not want this newly-created Zimbabwe to become an authoritarian, even totalitarian State to an even greater extent than in the past. And to harass people with oppression that we thought had been done away with by the “war of liberation” and the resultant independence.
The freedom of conscience, including the freedom of religion, is fundamental. It must not be suppressed if public health and hygiene can be preserved by holding church services without increasing the risk of infection. The religious education of the young is vital for the moral and spiritual wellbeing of the nation (Constitution no 60).
“While the State and the Church are independent and autonomous in their own spheres, both are at the service of man (human person)…..The more they co-operate, the more effectively will they serve the good of all citizens. ……. (The Church) must carry out its mission unhindered” (statement of Catholic bishops, at independence 1980).
The church has a vital interest in preserving public health and is committed to healthcare and always ready to help in a health crisis. It augurs well for church healthcare, that just now St Anne’s Hospital in Harare is about to re-open, joining other facilities equipped with intensive care beds.
“Parents and guardians have the right to determine ….the moral and religious upbringing of their children” (Constitution, no 60). The authority over their children must be respected by educational authorities. Parents must be consulted about their children’s education when the young are taught temporarily “online” or schools can be reopened under safe conditions.
If we wish to be respected and recognised among the nations as an independent, sovereign State, we must respect and uphold the freedoms and rights of our citizens. Even a dangerous epidemic cannot wipe away these basic rights. We used to enjoy our own music and art, the freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and denounce violence in a newly-liberated country. This pandemic should not set us back.
Father Oskar Wermter is a social commentator. He writes here in his personal capacity.