Zimpapers Logo

WHEN the first ever NCA convention was held at the University of Zimbabwe at the end of 1997, the participants were coming from far and wide, and the mere composition of that formative gathering pointed to an idea that was leading to a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, with each foreseen part dwarfed by the lofty idea of doing away with the Lancaster House document — all for the national good of having a home-grown constitution.

That day all sorts of ideas were thrown around including the idea that the proposed constitutional movement was to be named the National Constitutional Assembly — itself a name apparently chosen to showcase the gigantic vision ahead of the proponents, among them trade unionists, students, academics, opposition politicians, who at that time were fronted by the likes of Isaac Manyemba, Urayai Zembe and Margaret Dongo. Religion, namely Christianity, was also strongly represented at this stage and so was the civic society. In fact, the Zimbabwe Council of Churches funded the launch of the NCA.

At the end of January in 1998 the NCA was launched on the basis of sharp criticism targeted at the Lancaster House Constitution — the compromise document that was a product of the wartime negotiations leading to the independence of the country in 1980.

This writer was part of this historic process as part of the student representatives, alongside the likes of Pedzisayi Ruhanya, Learmore Jongwe, Job Sikhala, Daniel Molokele (then known as Fortune Mguni) and many others.

Then Ruhanya wrote for the IPS that the Lancaster House Constitution had been condemned as “anachronistic” and “undemocratic,” and as such it had outlived its purpose and usefulness; 27 years after it had been put in place mainly to end the war, but also to protect colonial privileges for the white community.

The founding NCA chairman, Bishop Peter Nemapare, had this to say at the launch: “Let it be known that we are not seeking to run the country but to be governed justly. The current constitution cannot be the foundation of democracy and good governance.”

“The beauty of the constitution must foster accountability upon those that are elected or chosen to positions of public life and service,” Nemapare then told the gathering of more than 500 people.

Among the most criticised provisions were the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, as well as the presidential powers. In the aftermath of the chaotic mid-January 1998 food riots and the involvement of the military in the restoration of order, there was a lot of criticism over the protection of citizens’ rights during protests. Voices such as Mike Auret of the CCJP were quite audible on this matter.

Opposition politicians like Margaret Dongo complained against the appointing of parliamentarians. Dongo said she strongly believed that “no one should be appointed to Parliament.”

Professor Welshman Ncube weighed in saying accessibility of the constitution to the people could only happen if the constitution was a product of broad-based consultations.

Tendai Biti added, “A constitution must place beyond the reach of the government of the day those rights that are dear to us. The free test of a democratic constitution is its capacity to promote disagreements at a political, social and economic level. This does not happen in Zimbabwe.”

Then the ZCTU secretary-general, Morgan Tsvangirai, had this to say: “This issue has been put on the national agenda for debate and it must be fulfilled. We did not expect this large gathering. This means people are reclaiming the rights to set the rules, not leaders doing it for us.”

The then Zanu-PF Secretary for Legal Affairs, Cde Eddison Zvobgo, issued a statement saying: “I wish the organisers of the national constitutional debate well. The constitution is archaic. It is too clumsy . . . We in Government are also looking at it. We will want to see their (the NCA’s) recommendations so that we can move forward.”

So Bishop Peter Nemapare came and left, Morgan Tsvangirai and Welshman Ncube took over the NCA and also left, Douglas Mwonzora came and also left at a later stage, so did the likes of Brain Kagoro and others.

But things have never been the same since Professor Lovemore Madhuku took over at the NCA, proving in a number of ways to be self-absorbed with the project, and harsher critics have dared to label the luminary academician narcissistic. Others have called him a plain dictator after he refused to leave office at the expiry of his constitutional term, even daring to amend the constitution in the name of the “people’s idea” that Mahuku was irreplaceable.

Morgan Tsvangirai thinks the same at the MDC-T.
Zanu-PF has no term limits for its leadership.
So Madhuku feels quite Zimbabwean about his behaviour. Invincibility is a virtue in our politics, is it not?
As if to prove that no one can do things differently or better after Madhuku, the man has almost unilaterally decided to end the lifespan of the NCA by converting it to a political party under his leadership, literally taking the project with him as he pursues his personal political ambitions.

We have been told that the NCA has been transformed into an ideologically colourful political outfit whose credo is a confusing mixture of social democracy, Pan-Africansim, nationalism, and according to one of the organisers “anti-West,” whatever that means.

Clearly the sum parts of Lovemore Madhuku, Maddock Chivasa and Blessing Vava have become greater than the ever-diminishing whole of the NCA. All other political actors joining the project are simply auxiliary pieces to help shape up Madhuku’s complex political puzzle — itself clearly a personal project designed to protect the Madhuku legacy.

It is not entirely the fault of Lovemore Madhuku that the noble intentions of the NCA got derailed along the way.
The 2000 Draft Constitution’s Section 57 that provided for the compulsory acquisition of land resulted in Rhodesians and Western forces developing a keen interest in the NCA, taking it over financially and strategically in order to use the body to block the 2000 constitutional draft — all in the failed bid to stop land redistribution.

From the time the NCA was successfully used to campaign for the “NO” vote in the 2000 constitutional referendum, its hijacking and derailment became irreversible, just like the Madhuku hold on the assembly has become — albeit not much of a national assembly these days. The twinning of MDC political activities to those of the NCA did not help matters in as far as keeping the original vision of the assembly went. There has always been this disturbing doubling of duties by people holding positions in both the NCA and the MDC structures, and this immensely destroyed the credibility of the NCA as a genuine civic organisation.

The 2009 political resolution on the part of the MDC formations to spearhead constitutional reforms infuriated whatever remained of the NCA constituency, namely Madhuku, Chivasa and Vava. Frankly the disappointment was understandable. What the MDC politicians did could easily be seen for selfish betrayal of long-time allies, and Madhuku had every reason to go mad.

It appears like Madhuku has simply determined that he has to hit back at the politicians by taking over their agenda as they did his. It would be more exciting and democratic if Madhuku and his colleagues were not taking with them the NCA to pursue Madhuku’s unquenchable political ambitions.

Morgan Tsvangirai does not seem to know what hit him when Zanu-PF larruped his party in the July general election, and he seems to be struggling with handling his diminishing political fortunes, especially the calls for his stepping down.

Lovemore Madhuku claims he is very clear of what went wrong, and he says he knows perfectly what hit Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC-T.
The missile was not Nikuv or Tsvangirai’s outrageous vote-rigging claims. It was deep slumber on the wheel on the part of Morgan Tsvangirai and his colleagues, so Madhuku puts it.

According to Maduku, the MDC-T was simply unprepared for the election and they duly lost it. No amount of outcries can take away the glaring facts. Madhuku first indicated the lack of seriousness on the party of the MDC formations during the drafting of the Copac constitution, now the adopted national constitution.

It now turns out that Mwonzora and Biti have no idea what is contained in that constitution — blundering like perfect lunatics in applying elementary provisions like which court to approach for what cases, and failing to make basic interpretations over governance issues like how mayors and council chairpersons should be elected.

Madhuku clearly sees himself succeeding where Welshman Ncube faltered after 2005; that is eliminating Tsvangirai from the political scene by simply taking over his support base. After all, Tsvangirai and everyone around him seem to be habitually making spectacular suicidal political blunders. But there is a complication over what remains of Tsvangirai’s support base, especially after July 31.
But Madhuku knows that Tsvangirai has gotten away with his numerous blunders before, even with plain stupidity in some instances. This is why it is very important for Madhuku to mimic the winning team.

Zanu-PF is at its strongest in the last 13 years, and Madhuku knows the revival is a result of nationalist people-oriented policies. It is understandable for Madhuku to pretend to be nationalistic, or to be genuinely so, if he can. The question is how effective that would be when that is being done as a “me too” policy to Zanu-PF’s manifesto.

Do voters admire me too politicians, or they normally go with the real deal? Perhaps real ideologists like Takura Zhangazha can shape better the borrowed reasoning that Madhuku has adopted for his newly launched party — repackaging it as the new party’s own vision. But that is a tall order for a party that seems to borrow the MDC claim to commitment to social democracy — all for the strategic importance of luring financial backing from Western funders.

Social democrats who produce the kind of looting urban councils as given to Zimbabwe by the MDC-T between 2009 and 2013 are a shame to the concept, and one hopes Madhuku has a plan in place to work with men and women of integrity in shaping up a practising social democratic party, especially one that is nationalistic, Pan Africanist, and “anti-West” — nevertheless hoping to be funded from the West.
The prospect of integrity becomes a bit questionable when Madhuku announces that the likes of Job Sikhala have “interests in this party.”
The seriousness of Sikhala as a politician fares no better than that of Sarah Palin, and he is likely to bring a lot of that seriousness to Madhuku’s project.

The Madhuku project has a good five years to prepare for elections in 2018, and what Zimbabweans must do for now is celebrate the flourishing democracy that is giving us so much political entertainment.

Democracy by its nature does provide a lot of entertainment. In the Australian 2013 election there were about 75 registered political parties competing, among them the Australian Sex Party (ASP), Bullet Train for Australia Party (BTAP) and Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party (HEMP). That is the flavour of democracy. In a democracy even the weird minority deserve their own political parties. The more the merrier, and this is why Professor Madhuku must parade his political project for scrutiny by the public, starting with columnists like this writer.

But the ultimate judge is the electorate, and we wish the NCA all the best, as the quasi-political civic organisation is being dragged to follow the political pursuits of its own chairperson — all in a sign that part can be greater than the whole.

Which sociologist said organisations outlive their membership and leadership? They should be reminded of the Madhuku exceptionalism.
Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome! It is homeland or death!!

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer based in Sydney, Australia.