Zimbabwe: 'Second All Stakeholders' Conference': historic breakthrough or false dawn?

Following the abortive attempts by the Zimbabwe Africa National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) to force the Constitution Select Committee of Parliament (COPAC) to make 266 changes to the draft constitution, COPAC convened the Second All Stakeholders’ Conference last week. Both Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations had endorsed the draft constitution produced by COPAC in July and would not countenance its renegotiation to incorporate ZANU-PF’s proposed amendments. ZANU-PF’s climb-down can be seen as a function of fear of being labelled spoilers of the constitution reform process; reluctance to antagonise the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which is the broker and guarantor of the power-sharing Global Political Agreement (GPA); and the possibility of using the Second All Stakeholders’ Conference as a platform to argue its case.

The conference essentially became yet another political battleground as ZANU-PF delegates, reciting from prepared scripts, attempted to push through the party’s preferred changes. Significantly, all diplomatic mis­sions in Zimbabwe were invited to attend the conference, which was held in a relatively peaceful environment compared to the first conference in 2009. Predictably, the three coalition parties could not agree on changing the key constitutional issues brought up by ZANU-PF, such as the whittling down of the imperial presidency, security sector reform and selection of presidential running mates during elections. Rather, they approved cosmetic amendments such as grammar. A technical team is currently compiling thematic reports on the conference that should be released this week. COPAC will have to reconcile the different views expressed at the conference before incorporating them into the draft. Should COPAC fail to reach a consensus, the Management Committee, composed of the six negotiators of the GPA (three from each party), the three COPAC co-chairpersons and the Minister of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs, will step in. A failure to find agreement at this stage would result in the draft being referred to the principals/leaders of the three parties in Zimbabwe’s parliament, where reports suggest that President Robert Mugabe would have the upper hand. President Mugabe reiterated this when he officially opened the fifth and last session of parliament on Tuesday. There is concern this would be in violation of the GPA, which states that parliament should be in charge of the whole constitutional reform process. The GPA gives the principals neither an explicit role nor a final say in the process.

When agreed, the draft constitution and accompanying report have to be presented before Parliament for debate within a month of the conference. A referendum where Zimbabweans will vote to either accept or reject the draft constitution should be held within three months of the conclusion of Parliament’s debate. There remains concern that the constant bargains and compromises in order to accommodate numerous divergent political party interests may have resulted in the production of a draft constitution that does not mirror popular views. The December/January referendum timeframe being mooted by COPAC may also be too optimistic in hindsight. It is, however, critical that SADC and the SADC facilitator, South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma, remain seized with guaranteeing the completion of the constitutional reform process and the subsequent conduct of credible elections that can imbue the elected government with legitimacy through popular consent.

Compiled by the Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis Division