The rights of war vets in Zim: Sirens of hope

The welfare (of war veterans) has its foundation in the Constitution. The rights holder has to assert his or her entitlements to pension and basic healthcare using the constitutional foundation, not some “employment” contract with a State institution. Ind

GENERALLY speaking, the Constitution provides the normative way of describing war veterans in Zimbabwe. In this piece, I consider the last instalment on elaborated rights in the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013. Other rights in this regard include women, children, the elderly, and the rights of persons with disability. Because the Constitution broadens the definition of “veterans of the struggle”, there is urgent need to ensure that all those who fit into this description are equally and equitably treated using the constitutional benchmarks.

In setting the tone of this article, allow me to exclude those who feel they were part of the November 21, 2017 revolution, which they equate to the American War of Independence and French Revolution. If there exists in most Zimbabweans the notion that all born before 21/11 ought to receive the roll of honor as some “veterans” I submit that this notion is not yet part of our Constitution.

A realistic appraisal of the rights of war veterans is, however, needed. While one is always on dangerous ground in generalising concerning national characteristics - since the values of the liberation struggle are part of the Preamble, the founding values in Section 3 of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, the same cannot be said on the actual realisation of constitutional rights. Every Zimbabwean would agree that human rights are inalienable, indivisible, interdependent and universal - the rights of war veterans included.

Constitutionally speaking, Section 84 of the Constitution considers the following groups of persons to be veterans of the struggle: a) those that fought in the War of Liberation; b) those who assisted the fighters in the War of Liberation; and c) those that were imprisoned, detained or restricted for political reasons during the liberation struggle.

The normative framework under review enjoins the State, faithfully doing what is of its duties, to promote, protect, respect and fulfil constitutional rights as envisaged in Section 44 of the Constitution, to understand that all the persons described above are entitled, or put simply, have a fundamental right to be recognised and to receive pension and access to basic health care.

The fact that the Constitution grants rewards to veterans of the struggle on the basis of some contribution by each group so described gives credence to the need for the State to design laws and policies that ensure that such persons effectively enjoy their constitutional rights. This is especially when regard is given to the fact that the Constitution is both the supreme law and the political map of a country.

Constitutional politicians like me can only interpret the Constitution in light of its givens - the rights and the duties. The State is the primary duty holder and must show how the varying degrees of rewards to the right holder may be justified at both the legal and at policy levels. If it is normatively recognised that there is a reward, it follows that ordinary politicians must also respect such framework.

Now, the Constitution clearly gives us various groups of veterans. We see what it envisages: give them due recognition, cater for their welfare including giving them pensions, and access to basic healthcare. Nothing is clearer than what the Constitution says, whose content is also interpreted using the various methods listed in Section 46 of the Constitution: constitutional provisions; foreign law; international law and so on.

In an attempt to treat the war vets as the measure of their own rights, it can be easily stated that without war vets, the constitutional provisions on their rights would not be in the Constitution. They alone can provide the evidence for the content of their rights: fees for their children, medication, welfare, and even down to farming inputs.

If they are to be complete rights holders, it must be shown that the treatment of war vets stands the normative test; final exam coming at the time when they receive their constitutional entitlements such as pensions. Of course, the rewards may not be the same for all veterans. Let me put it in this way: those who were at the war front may have rewards for such participation; the assistants will be recognised for oiling the liberation machinery; the prisoners will likely be considered for psychological and physical suffering (and have to receive mental health care); the restrictees may need to show how frequent they were prohibited from joining the war front.

In all this, I would say, pitching my argument constitutionally, there is need for a comprehensive State register for all such persons: at ward, district, provincial and national levels. I understand war collaborators are benefiting, yet those who were “chimbwidos” (female assistants) and “mujibhas” (male assistants) to the liberation fighters have not largely been recognised. They are not on Government payroll and this needs urgent review in light of the Constitution.

Because of the interdependence of fundamental human rights, the potential catalyst for the recognition of the rights of all war vets as envisaged by the Constitution is to be found in Section 76 of the Constitution - the right to health care. This right is part of second generation rights or economic social and cultural rights (ECOSOC).

Constitutionally, this right includes reproductive health care and care for chronic illness. There is need to ensure that all the war vets who are still procreating benefit from sexual reproductive health and those who have various chronic illnesses are identified and made to benefit.

Under international law, healthcare boasts of developed content in soft laws such as the General Comments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Essentially, basic healthcare must be made available; accessible; affordable in a quality manner.

Institutionally, civil society organizations such as Zimbabwe Doctors for Human Rights (ZADHR) must also work with the Ministry of Health to ensure that the health laws are fully aligned with the Constitution and also consider the content of soft law provisions under international law.

The evolution and increasing importance of hospice palliative care must also be emphasised so that the needs of every veteran are catered for as envisaged by the Constitution. Because of Budget constraints and general economic downturn, it is important that veterans be clearly advised that the right to basic healthcare is progressively realised (not instant).

Using a human-rights based approach the State has to show the legislative and other measures that show its commitment to fulfilling the minimum content of the right under review. Put differently, there is a minimum threshold that is expected of the State under international law. The State has to show the measures that are biased towards war veterans, simply as rights holders.

The minimum threshold can also be understood by considering the provisions of Section 84 which simply talks about basic healthcare. There is an urgent need for a law to give content to the rights of war veterans as laid out in United Nations Committee on ECOSOC rights’ General Comment No. 14 which deals with the right to the highest attainable right to health.