Navigating Constitutional Conundrums: The Art of Reconciling Opposing Views
Undertaking a doctoral dissertation offers a profound lesson in the art of reconciling disparate propositions. Typically, a thesis is submitted to an external examiner, tasked with identifying its flaws. This critical evaluation often comes as a jolt after years of dedicated research and presentation. While a student is not obligated to concur with the examiner’s criticisms, they must acknowledge and meticulously explain any contradictory viewpoints. This process, known as reconciliation, precedes the candidate’s final defense.
In the current Zimbabwean political landscape, a central issue revolves around the ruling party, Zanu PF’s, conviction that a particular leader, referred to as “Mukuru,” is an exceptional road builder and possesses the unique ability to attract direct foreign investment (DFI). The party posits that extending his tenure by two years would yield substantial benefits for the nation.
However, a complication arose when Brother Ziyambi Ziyambi, acting in a capacity akin to “Tsuro Magenga,” introduced provisions that were not present in the original resolutions from the Bulawayo and Mutare Conferences. These resolutions, notably, included a proposal to waive popular presidential elections, replacing them with parliamentary elections. This alteration would effectively reduce the number of presidential electors to a mere 500 members of parliament.
The External Examiner’s Critical Input
An external examiner, applying rigorous analysis, would likely highlight several critical points. Firstly, a significantly smaller electorate, comprising only 500 members, could be susceptible to undue influence. The sum of US$40,000 in forgivable loans and the provision of “Road Ranger” automobiles, for instance, could easily sway such a limited group.
Secondly, extending the presidential term from the current five years to seven years would directly conflict with established constitutional provisions. Specifically, paragraph (952) (328) (98) of the constitution stipulates that a presidential term is five years, commencing and concluding in conjunction with the parliamentary term. Furthermore, these terms of office, while aligned with parliamentary cycles, are limited to two five-year periods. The constitution also specifies that any period of service exceeding three years, perhaps due to the incapacitation or death of a predecessor, is considered a full term.
While constitutional amendments are permissible, the current officeholders are explicitly barred from benefiting from such changes made during their tenure. Moreover, any amendments deemed consequential, even if passed by a two-thirds majority in a subservient parliament – as perhaps envisioned by Ziyambi Ziyambi – must be subjected to a national referendum. These actions, both the amendment and the referendum, are mandated to occur within a 90-day timeframe.
The Peril of Intellectual Compromise
The aforementioned points represent the kind of critical feedback an external examiner would offer to an aspiring doctoral candidate. Ziyambi Ziyambi’s decision to seek external counsel to navigate these complex legal and constitutional waters is commendable. However, the choice of advisor, Professor Jonathan Moyo, a figure known for his perceived intellectual flexibility, has drawn significant criticism.
While acknowledging Professor Moyo’s capacity to identify the aforementioned constitutional challenges, his proposed solutions have been characterized as disingenuous. One of his primary arguments involves a redefinition of the term “term limit.” Moyo suggests that extending a five-year contract to seven years does not fundamentally alter the nature of the “term” itself. Drawing an analogy to the Latin root “terminus,” meaning “end,” he posits that a “term” is distinct from “time” or the conclusion of a journey.
Furthermore, Moyo proposes a stratagem that might prove effective, assuming a populace and political system amenable to manipulation, comprised of “stooges, crooks, or those on the payroll.” This strategy involves a hypothetical legal challenge where an entity, such as the “Lika Zulu” or “Mtwakazi Party,” could seek a judicial reinterpretation of “term limits” and “time limits.” A compliant judiciary, it is argued, could then establish a new legal precedent, divorcing the concept of a “term” from its temporal implications.
This line of reasoning, while intellectually stimulating, rests on the problematic assumption that all participants in the political process are inherently compromised. If Professor Moyo is indeed the architect behind the “stooge party” led by Sengezo Tshabangu, this demonstrates a pattern of successful, albeit controversial, strategic maneuvering. His approach also presumes a susceptibility within Zimbabwe’s opposition parties to external influence.
Professor Moyo’s surprise at the opposition from war veterans and retired generals, whom he labelled “ignorant and cowardly,” overlooks his own past actions. His “cowardly flight” from these same generals on November 17, 2017, is a stark reminder of his own vulnerabilities. The “ignorant” label is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the messenger rather than the message. While a student need not agree with an external examiner’s proposals, attempting to redefine fundamental terms like “term” represents a weak argumentative strategy.
It appears Professor Moyo’s assumptions about the opposition are not entirely accurate. Prominent figures such as Professor Lovemore Madhuku, attorney Tendai Biti, Ibbo Mandaza, and several retired generals have expressed similar reservations regarding the proposed constitutional changes. The alleged physical assault on Professor Madhuku by two secret service agents, and the fire-bombing of Mandaza’s conference centre, underscore the intense pressure and potential retribution faced by those who dissent.
Both Moyo and Temba Mliswa frequently resort to ad hominem attacks, suggesting a deficiency in their intellectual arguments. For Brother Mliswa, one might speculate that his public pronouncements are driven by envy towards the perceived positive standing of others.
Conservative jurists typically begin their analysis by inquiring into the original intent of the founding fathers. In Zimbabwe’s case, the constitution’s framers were acutely aware of the potential for a ruler to overstay their welcome, citing the extended tenure of Robert Mugabe, which persisted until his alleged senility. Testimonies suggest that during this period, the pronouncements of his wife, Sister Grace, held more sway than his own. The word “consequential” is significant here, as a professor recounted Sister Grace’s directive to expedite a degree for Joice Mujuru, a task undertaken by an individual reportedly lacking the requisite doctoral qualifications.
