Comrade Mugabe Stumbles

Avid readers of our Monthly Salute may be concerned over what appears to be the Increasing Parochialism of the Turtle -- all four of our most recent Salutes have focused on struggles and victories in the United States of America. This month, however, the Turtle is very pleased to acknowledge that there's quite a lot more to the world than the Left Coast.

This Month's Salute, then, proudly goes out to the People of Zimbabwe. In a triumph for popular democracy, they heroically voted against a tyrannical Constitution cobbled together by a politically-loaded though nominally-independent Constitutional Commission. Had the result been "Yes", President Comrade Robert Mugabe's powers would have increased substantially. Immunity from prosecution; the ability unilaterally to appoint members of independent commissions (particularly those investigating him); and the ability to sack the government at will -- these were some of the enhancements to the Presidential role that snuck in to the draft Constitution. And all this, despite the fact that, in consultations, the majority of Zimbabweans wanted significantly less power for the executive, and more democratic accountability from the Prime Minister.

This victory is important because it demonstrates that Robert Mugabe -- head of state for over 20 years now first as Prime Minister, and then since 1987 as an executive President -- is no longer confident enough to ride roughshod over his people, and that Zimbabweans are beginning to realise just how powerful they can be in the face of a largely corrupt and moribund Government. To be sure, this wasn't a clean fight. The national radio and TV stations only permitted the women's coalition -- more about them in a moment -- to air an alternative to the "Vote Yes" message. The radio announcements were particularly toe-curling: "Vote Yes in the National Constitutional Referendum. It's not about party politics, it's about a new future for Zimbabwe, etc. etc.". A very different story from the party political tantrums being thrown at the ruling party (ZANU-PF: Zimbabwe African National Unity Popular Front) headquarters in Harare.

Nominally, the vote was over a new Constitution to replace the Lancaster House Constitution, drafted in 1979 in Britain, in partnership with the outgoing white minority government. The replacement, though, wasn't much cop. Aside from swelling the powers of the executive, and a surely empty promise about land reform, the new Constitution was barely an advance on the existing arrangement. This isn't terribly surprising when one considers that the Government-appointed Constitutional Commission was given five months to consult with "the people", draft a new Constitution, take comments and redraft. At the beginning of this year, one month after the first draft was published, Mugabe decided that the referendum would take place in February, to be followed -- despite the protests of the judiciary -- with elections in March. Clearly, he counted on winning the referendum first.

Mugabe himself took defeat with something close to good grace. "The people have spoken", he said, "and unfortunately, the result was a "No" vote". Several of Mugabe's supporters, on the other hand, were much less sportsmanlike. Accusations of racism and neo-colonialism were levelled at those who voted against the Constitution, not least because of a clause that promised land reform. The costs for the purchase of high quality land, inherited by a white minority from Rhodesian rule, would be borne by the UK. Newspapers carried photos of voters lining up outside polling stations in Harare: all the voters in the photo were white. This was not, however, an all-white affair. Although turnout was low (1.3 million voted, of an electorate of around five million), there are only 200,000 whites in Zimbabwe. In the final result, 54% of those who voted said "No", while 46% approved of the new Constitution.

The Government attributes the low turnout to political apathy. Others rightly point out that in many rural areas, the population simply weren't informed. As with most Zimbabwean politics, in a country where two thirds of the population live in rural areas, the battle was fought in the provinces. And it seemed largely to boil down to questions of decentralisation, logistics and trust. The winners in the rural areas were those who could distribute the message to vote one way or another with enough vehemence to help the rural population overcome their increasing distrust of state-centred politics. ZANU-PF godfathers urged the villages in their charge to vote for the Constitution, but they were up against a mighty coalition of "No-vote" forces. The most potent among these was the array of church-based organizations that suffuse Zimbabwean society. Their disapproval of the Constitution -- "While we are worried about such issues as the protection of the unborn child, the independence of public commissions, and the separation of legislative, executive and judicial arms of the government, our greatest concern is the hasty procedure of drafting and ratification" -- meant that the missions and churches, with a widespread and tight grip on rural communities, were able to sanctify a "No" vote. In the simplicity of the call to action, "Vote No", the Churches were joined by some more, and less, unsavoury forces. Evil white commercial farmers told their indentured labourers to vote against the Constitution, for fear of having their land repossessed (and having to approach the British government for compensation).

A more hopeful sign was the opportunity that the Referendum afforded for the creation of a genuine, and genuinely vibrant, women's coalition. For weeks in advance of the Referendum, women's organizations had mobilised, explaining the new draft and what it would mean for the majority of Zimbabwe's women. The absence of clear guidelines in the draft Constitution for the protection of women's rights together with the gendered production of the draft in the first place, prompted womens' groups to adopt a unified "Vote No" position. And, most importantly, this involved for the first time a shared deployment of rural outreach networks. These are the sorts of networks that the fledgling Movement for Democratic Change will be looking to develop over the next few weeks, as the ZANU-PF gets ready for an election.

At the moment, it is unclear when the parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe will be. Some say that it would be wise for ZANU-PF to call an election sooner rather than later, before strong rural support for an oppostion party can develop. Others say that the current economic situation -- Zimbabwe is bankrupt, funding soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, at the same time as domestic inflation soars and people are unable to afford basic food products -- would lead to a summary butt-whupping for the ruling Party. Perhaps the best scenario for ZANU-PF would be to postpone the elections until the development of a new constitutional process can be legitimately enacted. The government would do well, too, to ensure that the new Constitution contains ample safeguards for parties in opposition. They'll need them. Because the people in Zimbabwe have shown that they are no longer prepared to be treated with disrespect, no longer prepared to be taken for granted.

Thus, for shrugging off the yoke of tyranny, for raising a finger to managed democracy, and for the wonderful things that they're sure to accomplish in the coming elections, whenever they are, the Turtle says "Pamberai neChimurenga!" -- Onward with the Struggle!

The Turtle Salutes the People of Zimbabwe!