COVID-19: Rights and democracy

ZIMBABWEANS, like the rest of the world, last week celebrated the coming of the new year. People held festivities, some held all- night parties, bars were open and firecrackers were lit. Life for the first time resembled a normalcy, but reality quickly dawned after schools opening was postponed.

Since April 2020, Zimbabwe like many other countries had some lockdown of one level or another. This was in response to rising COVID-19 infection cases and deaths and to some measure, fear by politicians and their hope to err on the side of caution. Lockdown measures included a shutdown of industries or workplaces, restricted movement, curfew and a near total ban on social activities like funerals, sports and entertainment.

These lockdown measures were backed by section 86(2)(b) of the Constitution that allows for limitation of rights under certain circumstances that include in the interest of public health.

The section read: “The fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this chapter may be limited only in terms of a law of general application and to the extent that the limitation is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (b) the purpose of the limitation, in particular whether it is necessary in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional or town planning or the general public interest.”

The effects of the lockdown measures were felt differently by different classes of citizens. The poor and working class bore the brunt of the restrictions while the rich and powerful were scarcely scathed by the lockdown regulations.

The rich continued to hold parties, travel across provinces and in some instances internationally. They were not bound by rules and regulations that affected the lesser mortals.

In Zimbabwe, government officials including the President and Zanu PF were not bound by the lockdown regulations. They could hold mass rallies despite a clear and strict rule that gatherings of more than 50 people were banned. This was a classic example of George Orwell’s classic satirical book— Animal Farm.

The book has the famous quotation: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

There were lessons learnt that included the realisation that countries cannot be locked down forever. While public health is important, the economy cannot be allowed to flounder.

The economy had to be opened as many people were falling into penury and needed State assistance for their survival. State assistance is a function of the level of economic growth and development. Poor countries, even if they want to help their citizens, cannot because they have large budget deficits and would have to rely on donor agencies.

In the past week, there has been some interesting developments in South Africa, England and France. They prioritised their economies and putting measures to get back to pre-COVID-19 normalcy.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, despite surging cases of the Omicron COVID-19 variant, kept his country on level one lockdown.

He argued that he had to keep the economic wheels grinding, lifted the curfew and allowed all business to operate as normal. In other words, South Africa is trying to coexist with COVID-19 without panic.

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said his country was not going back to any lockdown despite registering 200 000 cases of COVID-19 cases daily. He wants the British to live normally again.

France’s Emmanuel Macron introduced a health pass. He argued the vaccinated should live normal lives and the unvaccinated should have their lives restricted. The law has since been passed by the French National Assembly and awaits debate in the Senate.

It seems there is an emerging convergence that lockdowns have not worked and in many respects hit the economy hard. There is also the realisation that COVID-19 may be around for some time.

After nearly two years of lockdown, Zimbabwe needs to debate COVID-19 restrictions candidly. How long can the economy survive the lockdown? How long can the country suspend election of public representatives? What has been significant benefits of the lockdown? Can the damage done to education by prolonged closures be remedied in the short to medium term?

Is it not time that Zimbabwe opens up on COVID-19 infections and deaths? Who and where is the COVID-19 genome sequencing being done? Why have all lockdown measures been introduced through Statutory Instruments and not primary Acts of Parliament?

Parliament has failed us. There has been no significant debates in the House on COVID-19, be it on vaccination, industry lockdown, suspension of elections or the efficacy of curfews.

The silence in the House speaks a lot on the level of democracy in Zimbabwe. It also speaks to the calibre of parliamentarians the country has.

Without being nostalgic, Parliament featuring Sydney Malunga, Lazarus Nzarayebani, Zororo Duri and Dzikamai Mavhaire had more vibrancy than what we have today. Interestingly, these were Zanu PF MPs robustly debating a then Zanu PF Prime Minister Robert Mugabe.

COVID-19 has exposed Zimbabwe’s democracy and the level of defending human rights in the country. It has shown what quality of leadership we have and more importantly how docile the citizens are.

As 2022 begins, a mark of 42 years of democracy since independence, the country can do better, leaders can show leadership and more importantly we become a country that not only cherishes but also defends its democracy.

Never again should a health crisis be used to enrich a few, to subjugate citizens’ rights and to stealthily introduce an imperial presidency.

This should be a general call to citizens to reclaim their agency, defend their rights and to hold leaders accountable.

This is the only way we can improve our democracy.