{"id":12922,"date":"2016-04-15T09:14:55","date_gmt":"2016-04-15T17:14:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/independentlens\/?post_type=blog&p=12922"},"modified":"2017-11-16T14:34:33","modified_gmt":"2017-11-16T22:34:33","slug":"zimbabwe-constitution-update-still-in-flux","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/independentlens\/blog\/zimbabwe-constitution-update-still-in-flux\/","title":{"rendered":"Zimbabwe Update: Still In Flux"},"content":{"rendered":"

The film <\/span>Democrats<\/i><\/a><\/strong>, which aired on <\/span>Independent Lens<\/span><\/i>, traces the challenges and tensions that arose in Zimbabwe over the attempt to charter a new national constitution. While that African nation had a constitution before, this new document was to usher the country into a new, more democratic\u00a0era. After many years under the rule of President Robert Mugabe, who remains both revered and reviled with almost equal measure in his home country, international pressure led different factions in Zimbabwe to agree it was time to move forward politically. <\/span><\/p>\n

While the film captures an important and ultimately positive story about a country expanding its civil rights, Zimbabwe’s new constitution remains in flux and not entirely resolved. It appears to be a case of two steps forward and one step back.<\/span><\/p>\n

New Update (11\/16\/17)<\/span>:\u00a0<\/strong>Since this post was originally written in 2016, something major has happened in Zimbabwe.\u00a0 A coup was orchestrated by the military and long-time president Mugabe is under house arrest.\u00a0 Read the latest on the BBC<\/a>, as well as their\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0of what this means for Zimbabwe.<\/p>\n

Many Zimbabweans almost instantly warmed to the military’s move to take control of the country, and confine President Mugabe to his official residence.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

“The military has done a good thing,” says one bookseller. “They will ensure we get a transitional government.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

He is firmly convinced that Mr Mugabe’s 37-year rule is coming to an end.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

There has been a sudden change of tone in the country, and the sense is that many Zimbabweans have been yearning for change.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Any change, it seems, would do.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Democrats<\/em> Banned in Zimbabwe<\/strong><\/p>\n

One important update related to Democrats<\/em> is about the film itself: it remains banned in Zimbabwe<\/a>. <\/span>Douglas\u00a0<\/span>Mwonzora, an opposition party representative featured in the film,\u00a0accused the Zimbabwean government of being oppressive by banning the documentary.<\/p>\n

\u201cI am aware that they banned Democrats<\/em>, which is the documentary on the constitution-making process. The documentary has won over 15 international awards and it\u2019s ironic that it is banned in Zimbabwe,\u201d he said. “It contains the truth and the people of Zimbabwe are eager to see the documentary. I hope the Constitutional Court will intervene positively. The ban is not justified. It is oppressive to ban it because they (government) don\u2019t want the truth in that documentary to be shown,\u201d Mwonzora said, insinuating he would mount a legal challenge against the ban.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Democrats <\/i>filmmaker Camilla Nielsson also provided us with her own update in the interview<\/a> we did with her.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=C013L1M8u4w<\/p>\n

The Constitution: Is it Working?<\/strong><\/p>\n

While the new constitution for Zimbabwe was finally ratified, it hasn’t fully become the democratic dream many had envisioned. Here’s more from the Voice of America<\/a> news site:<\/p>\n

Marking two years since its ratification, however, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) released a statement calling for \u201ca deep and sincere reflection\u201d on whether the charter was being used to bring greater accountability and to safeguard people’s rights and freedoms. Indeed, many critics say the new constitution, which many perceived as more liberal than its predecessor, hasn’t changed realities on the ground. ZLHR spokesman Kumbirai Mafunda, for example, calls the new constitution a “paper tiger that is becoming increasingly meaningless and ineffectual.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The constitution does have some\u00a0positive\u00a0points, at least. “[It]\u00a0<\/span>is particularly strong where it puts the aspirations of ordinary Zimbabweans at the centre of government,” writes <\/span>Petina Gappah on Comment is Free<\/span><\/a>. “A strengthened bill of rights obliges the state to put the empowerment of women and girls ahead of regressive cultural practices; makes significant inroads into the death penalty; forbids all forms of torture; guarantees freedom of expression and belief; and imposes obligations on the state to take steps to ensure access to shelter, health education, food and legal aid.”<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe<\/p><\/div>\n

Mugabe Still In Power<\/b><\/p>\n

President Mugabe is seen in the film <\/span>Democrats<\/span><\/i> as an aging leader who has severely divided the country, from loyalists who want him to reign as long as he can to those who have seen their country decline under his increasingly disconnected and arguably totalitarian rule. There was hope for the future when\u00a0the\u00a0new constitution was agreed on and set into law in 2013, yet Mugabe remains\u00a0in office. In fact, just last week thousands protested in Zimbabwe’s capital against Mugabe’s alleged misrule<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

Why is he still in power?<\/span><\/p>\n

For one thing, there are numerous key clauses in the constitution that won’t take effect until 10 years have passed. For another, it allows for Mugabe to maintain power as long as he’s alive. From the Guardian<\/a>\u00a0(emphasis ours):<\/span><\/p>\n

[T]here’s the constitution’s most exciting clause: the introduction of term limits. Each president is <\/span>allowed a maximum of two five-year terms, but this does not apply retrospectively, meaning that \u2013 if he is re-elected \u2013 Mugabe is constitutionally entitled to another decade in office. <\/b>And if he should die, or resign, within that 10-year period, then his party would be allowed to appoint a successor rather than go back to the electorate.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Opponents and critics of Mugabe have often criticized him for having a “let them eat cake” attitude, so it was probably ironically amusing, or upsetting, to see him literally doing that at his recent birthday party<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n