|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Rev Dr. Kenneth Mtata
In 2019, the Zimbabwe Heads of Christian Denominations (ZHOCD), the largest platform of church bodies in Zimbabwe, proposed a moratorium on elections for a seven-year period. The proposal was made out of the realisation that (a) the citizens were too impoverished for meaningful participation in democratic processes, (b) the cost was too high (actually existential) for the ruling party and its leadership to lose power, and (c) that the national consensus that had attended to the crafting of the Constitution had been lost and hence there was no agreement on how to implement the Constitution.
Today, these considerations have just become compounded. According to Prof Steve Hanke, Zimbabwe has attained its perennial global spot as the country with the highest inflation. It means the citizens will have their third or fourth massive loss of economic value over the last twenty years. This will further create unemployment for the largely youthful population.
While the opposition may celebrate this as an advantage in their quest to attain power in 2023, for the ruling party this will cause more threats and hence needing to dig in deeper.
For me as a Christian, the concern is how all this affects God’s people who on one hand may be given the illusion of change that will bring better life yet these hopes will be dashed in the absence of any security for the incumbent who will have no choice but to stay in power. The process will be repeated in the hope that 2028 will be different.
Why was the Sabbath Call rejected by both the ruling party and the opposition?
The Sabbath Call was rejected for three reasons. The first reason was that it was said to be unconstitutional. The nation needed to have its elections every five years, the argument went. It did not matter what kind of election it was going to be. We just needed to tick that box. Of course, this reason was related to the following two.
The second reason was that the Sabbath Call was misunderstood as an attack on the government by the ruling party and was viewed as support for the status quo by the opposition. So both the ruling party and the opposition understood it as tacit support for their opponent.
The third reason for the rejection of the Sabbath Call was actually its implications. For the ruling party, it would be an admission of failure. They were saying, “we just got into office, why not give us a chance?” For the opposition, it was the fear of being seen to be willing to enter into another ‘elite’ pact. Some in the opposition felt that another GNU experience was not to be repeated.
The Sabbath call sought to help the ruling party to implement their policies in a conducive environment and the opposition competes for power on a fair ground. The people of Zimbabwe would be winners in both cases.
Can the Spirit of the Sabbath Call be recovered?
Currently, Zimbabwe has three ways out of its social, economic, and political trap. One way is through free and fair elections where the legitimate winners will unite the nation towards debt restructuring or debt forgiveness. Zimbabwe is currently not able to service its debt and cannot borrow enough to stimulate the economy. With the current conflictual and toxic relations among opinion leaders, no sane investor is interested in Zimbabwe. With the Ukraine situation continuing, no one will think about us if we are not a united force. But for the reasons mentioned above, we have no possibility to create mutually satisfactory conditions for elections that will be considered free and fair by all parties. The real reason is that those in government face the real risk of being arrested, put on trial, and jailed for alleged crimes against humanity and corruption once they are no longer in power. The only option they have is to stay in power whatever the outcome of the elections we have. The nation has no mutually acceptable and guaranteed transitional framework.
The second way out of our crisis is through force, either as a result of protracted and bloody mass protests, another operation by the security sector, or both. The problem with this kind of solution is that it never produces sustainable outcomes. If change is attained through force, the new status quo will need to be maintained through force. There will be no cooperation between the losers and winners of the forced transition.
The third way out of our crisis is through a negotiated solution. This is what the Sabbath Call was all about. This one is not an appeasement route as others may conclude. It is a pragmatic and homegrown solution. It is based on the realisation that the infrastructure for fair competitive politics must be built over time in an environment of trust. It recognises that the fears of insecurity for the incumbent are real, even though not verbalised. It also recognises that while elections may be the ideal way to confer power, we need to mature as a nation to reach a point where this ideal is attainable. We need institutions that can independently manage such processes. All real or implied insecurities for the incumbency must be addressed. A new platform must be established for national cooperation.
How would the Sabbath Call get implemented?
The Sabbath Call is a National Consensus-building process. It seeks to create an environment in which political competition is deferred to allow for the rebuilding of the economy, the institutions of the state, aligning laws to the Constitution, implementing the Constitution, and healing the hurts of the past. It, therefore, requires courage and focus. It is not an open cheque for maintenance of the status quo.
Procedure
First, a National Consensus Agreement must be negotiated by all sectors of society from business, students, traditional leaders, women, youths, CSOs, different sectors of government, political parties in Parliament, churches, etc. Once a tentative agreement is reached regarding (a) the rationale, (b) the contents, (c) the implementation structure, (d) the guarantees, etc, the second step must be taken.
The second step would be a National Referendum run by a non-partisan and independent commission to seek public ownership of the National Consensus.
The third step would be to establish an act of Parliament to institutionalise the National Consensus.
The fourth step would be the establishment of the implementation system and starting the implementation process.
The fifth step will be a mid-term evaluation to see if progress on agreed targets are being met.
Feasibility
I am hopeful that at some point the people of Zimbabwe will look for a sustainable solution to our protracted crises. I know there will be those who will dismiss this as a dream. One thing I know for sure is that every well-meaning Zimbabwean can see that we are heading towards a bleak future if we continue on the current mutually exclusive imagination of the future.
Happy 42nd Independence Day to you all!
Rev Dr. Kenneth Mtata writes this in his personal capacity.
