A relational approach to supporting democracy in Zim
Because democracy is so basic to every human experience, and because it is such a key catalyst for good governance, it’s not surprising that our Constitution establishes five institutions to support it.
DEMOCRACY is one of the essential human non-negotiable entitlements. Everyone feels that it’s their democratic right to do something. It’s a feeling towards something that is considered precious in any society. It’s a pleasant emotion that sets people towards respecting each other’s fundamental human rights. By this nature, democracy involves peace and unity.
Democracy, however, is simpler to describe than to identify. Perceptions on institutional or individual cooperation can appear in a wide variety of forms: constitutional (because the constitution is the oasis of all forms of democracy); representative or indirect (because we appoint parliamentarians to represent us); direct (because we directly elect a President and his deputies); Orwellian (because the President may enjoy the best of several institutional worlds in Zimbabwe); and so forth.
Expressions of democracy range from peace and reconciliation, through the work of the National Peace and Rec- onciliation Commission (NPRC); gendered dimension of democracy under the Zimbabwe Gender Commission; protection of political rights under the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC); protection of information rights under the Zimbabwe Media Commission to the human rights protection under the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.
The above institutions are popularly referred to as institutions that support democracy in Zimbabwe. At times, democracy can appear like an abused word. It hits people in the mind. You see human rights abuses; gender-based violence (GBV); national conflict; electoral impasses and muzzling of the Press.
Your feelings and emotions hit your inner man. Your mind and colleagues tell you there are forms of rule that border on totalitarianism, dictatorship, authoritarianism, absolutism and so forth. Sometimes you feel like agreeing with the Rules for Rulers, whose ultimate aim is to consolidate power by minimising key allies in their power matrix.
You perhaps feel like the statement “absolute power corrupts absolutely” is perennially applied in any polity. Outwardly, your body tells you that you have the energy to campaign for peace; preach against GBV; strive to access information held by the State and join other activists, who fight to protect human rights.
You identify your democratic gains in your society. Sometimes you feel like nursing past wounds. You want the NPRC, but it’s not yet doing enough in that regard. You feel we are towards an important election. You feel ZEC should appreciate that the demand for genuine and credible elections is increasing in every corner of Zimbabwe.
You may feel like discussing a lot on elections. New methods of preventing electoral fraud must be at the epicentre of every discussion. Why? The credibility of elections is at the very core of democracy and good governance in any polity.
States increase the credibility by using systems technology such as Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) and de-duplication machines. These machines can be administered by those who have the know-how to effectively manage electoral processes. Even though you don’t have the know-how, you feel like being part of the process.
Zimbabwe has at least shown its preparedness in making the most of modern technology in elections. Using BVR has its own merits.
De-duplication is an election management system developed to effectively reduce the chances of double voting. It captures all data input on voters in a reliable way making it easier for political competitors to accept the electoral outcome.
Further, it makes it easier for observers, voters and political parties to assess the link between the data and the voters’ participation. This in turn makes it easier for researchers to monitor and evaluate the credibility, fairness, freeness or genuineness of the election.
From the perspective of inclusive and participatory governance in Zimbabwe, this year is largely one of mostly balancing forces and significant commitment to considering stakeholder demands on reforms and adherence to constitutionalism both at political party and national politics levels.
Informed by a political environment that is premised on openness and tolerance in many regards, Zimbabwe moves into an election period with questions on the impact of party fissures on the actual outcome; the party to win the rural or urban vote; the candidate to successfully win or fail to win the 50 percent plus one (not 51 percent); why we should change the 50 percent plus one voting method in future; will we go for a presidential runoff; how the 2008 runoff results must compel politicians to commit to peace and so forth.
Open dialogue is needed. Democracy demands that voters be allowed to freely assert their political rights, particularly relating to making political choices. We have seen that the ruling party and the MDC Alliance have rolled out their campaigns in areas such as Midlands and Matabeleland.
It’s too early to read into the numbers of the rally attendees. Do they point to a runoff? Will the institutions supporting democracy move to ensure that the 107 political parties campaign freely? Female candidates must also be respected.
Well, the publicity of the Zimbabwean election provides sufficient need for the consolidation of democratic gains that were ushered in by the current political dispensation. I would have loved to see institutions such as Afrobarometer and Mass Public Opinion Institute focusing on the approval ratings of the presidential candidates so that I could analyse the extent to which inclusivity and political tolerance bear on the outcome of this year’s election.
On the one hand, since our governance framework is based on several human rights that are listed in section 3 of our Constitution I believe the pace of political campaigns provides useful insights on the electoral outcome.
On the other hand, democratisation can be experienced as Zimbabwe complies with the Constitution and other international best practices on election management systems. The few aspects we complied with regional and international guidelines and best practices give impetus to our efforts at democratisation.
The stubbornness of an incumbent President or intolerance of a ruling party is often an indication that the election would be rigged or that other political opponents would have their voices stifled. Intolerance often becomes a weapon to discredit the election instead of an expression to give credence to it.
Because institutions supporting democracy have broad mandates to prevent acts of injustice in Zimbabwe, the political transition to be brought by the 2018 elections must be supported by the current activities of these institutions. We want them to go beyond Press statements. They must increase their visibility in urban, peri-urban and rural areas.
Because democracy is so basic to every human experience, and because it is such a key catalyst for good governance, it’s not surprising that our Constitution establishes five institutions to support it.
The Constitution, however, does not always paint an exhaustive picture on what is to support democracy. The broad principles in the Constitution and specific mandates of Chapter 12 institutions on issues like gender, elections, human rights, media freedoms, and peace and reconciliation refer to tenets of democracy. Sharon Hofisi is a lecturer in Law and Public Administration at the University of Zimbabwe. Read the full article on www. herald.co.zw