I have been following the debates surrounding the constitution-making process with keen interest. This isn’t surprising. As a consummate graduate of political science, I have been fortunate enough to have passed through the hands of such eminent thought leaders as distinguished political scientist and fellow Financial Gazette columnist, the late Professor Masipula Sithole, Professor Eliphas Mukonoweshuro, Dr John Makumbe, Joyce Kazembe, Eldred Masunungure and Professor Jonathan Nathaniel Moyo, to name but a few.
There is no doubt in surmising the centrality of a constitution or bill of rights in Zimbabwe’s unfolding economic, social and political landscape. Indeed, there is a strong school of thought that the political crisis that Zimbabwe endured for close to a decade was largely a result of a dysfunctional and badly mutilated Lancaster House constitution. Another school of thought posits that a new democratic constitution is the sine qua non for Zimbabwe’s full reintegration into the global community of nations. Here, there is guarded optimism that it is only through a new democratic constitution that Zimbabwe will be able to address the outstanding issues/benchmarks of rule of law, respect for property rights, and good democratic governance critical in this rapprochement with the Western world.
I have read and heard arguments about why the Kariba Draft constitution should be used and equally strong arguments of why this process should be confined to Parliament alone, perhaps through some kind of ‘Constitutional Commission’ as was the case in year 2000.
Surely, the idea of constitution-making is never the preserve of a few individuals or political parties. The words of former United States Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr James D. McGee are instructive here. Commenting on the need for the constitution-making process to be inclusive, Ambassador McGee said: “The U.S. Constitution begins ―’We the people…’ for a reason; because the Constitution creates a government of the people. It is not- ‘We the major political parties’ or- ‘We the chief negotiators because it’s not their constitution. It is everyone’s. No constitution will succeed if it isn’t supported by the people”
Listening to the various arguments advanced so far e.g. by Professor Jonathan Moyo, ZANU PF and the two MDC formations, one is persuaded by Dr Lovemore Madhuku, who has been at the forefront of the ‘people-driven’ process. I have had opportunity to track the National Constitutional Assembly's (NCA) strong arguments (as contained in their detailed document released on 15/04/2009) against the Kariba Draft Constitution and am fully convinced that, going forward, Zimbabwe needs an inclusive constitution-making process that wins the support of the people of Zimbabwe.
For all intents and purposes, ‘people-driven’ means involving all key stakeholders in determining the content of the draft constitution. There is no better reflection of this ‘people-driven’ mantra than the just-ended All-Stakeholders Constitutional Conference and the resultant agreement on the 16 thematic areas, which essentially, are the sections of the envisaged constitution. This process will assume greater relevance when the thematic sub-committees traverse the length and breath of Zimbabwe, gathering the wishes and aspirations of every Zimbabwean without fear or favour. To put the cherry on the cake, the people of Zimbabwe will have the opportunity to participate in a referendum. To me, that is what ‘people-driven’ is all about. I do not, however, agree with the NCA and ZINASU on their preferred strategy of having a parallel constitution-making process outside the one currently taking shape under the control of the Parliamentary Select Committee. That would not only be wasteful of resources but also border on selfish intransigence on their part.
Having said this, it is imperative that I devote the remainder of this article to an articulation of a human resources (HR) viewpoint on the constitution-making process. It is hoped that this treatise will serve as a reference guide to employers, employees and trade unions alike in understanding how the envisaged constitution will impact on their rights and responsibilities within the ambit of labour relations. It is also hoped that the Zimbabwe Institute of Personnel Management of Zimbabwe (IPMZ) will play its role, as the professional custodian of human resource practice in the country, in the constitution-making process now underway.
There is no doubt in surmising the centrality of a constitution or bill of rights in Zimbabwe’s unfolding economic, social and political landscape. Indeed, there is a strong school of thought that the political crisis that Zimbabwe endured for close to a decade was largely a result of a dysfunctional and badly mutilated Lancaster House constitution. Another school of thought posits that a new democratic constitution is the sine qua non for Zimbabwe’s full reintegration into the global community of nations. Here, there is guarded optimism that it is only through a new democratic constitution that Zimbabwe will be able to address the outstanding issues/benchmarks of rule of law, respect for property rights, and good democratic governance critical in this rapprochement with the Western world.
I have read and heard arguments about why the Kariba Draft constitution should be used and equally strong arguments of why this process should be confined to Parliament alone, perhaps through some kind of ‘Constitutional Commission’ as was the case in year 2000.
Surely, the idea of constitution-making is never the preserve of a few individuals or political parties. The words of former United States Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr James D. McGee are instructive here. Commenting on the need for the constitution-making process to be inclusive, Ambassador McGee said: “The U.S. Constitution begins ―’We the people…’ for a reason; because the Constitution creates a government of the people. It is not- ‘We the major political parties’ or- ‘We the chief negotiators because it’s not their constitution. It is everyone’s. No constitution will succeed if it isn’t supported by the people”
Listening to the various arguments advanced so far e.g. by Professor Jonathan Moyo, ZANU PF and the two MDC formations, one is persuaded by Dr Lovemore Madhuku, who has been at the forefront of the ‘people-driven’ process. I have had opportunity to track the National Constitutional Assembly's (NCA) strong arguments (as contained in their detailed document released on 15/04/2009) against the Kariba Draft Constitution and am fully convinced that, going forward, Zimbabwe needs an inclusive constitution-making process that wins the support of the people of Zimbabwe.
For all intents and purposes, ‘people-driven’ means involving all key stakeholders in determining the content of the draft constitution. There is no better reflection of this ‘people-driven’ mantra than the just-ended All-Stakeholders Constitutional Conference and the resultant agreement on the 16 thematic areas, which essentially, are the sections of the envisaged constitution. This process will assume greater relevance when the thematic sub-committees traverse the length and breath of Zimbabwe, gathering the wishes and aspirations of every Zimbabwean without fear or favour. To put the cherry on the cake, the people of Zimbabwe will have the opportunity to participate in a referendum. To me, that is what ‘people-driven’ is all about. I do not, however, agree with the NCA and ZINASU on their preferred strategy of having a parallel constitution-making process outside the one currently taking shape under the control of the Parliamentary Select Committee. That would not only be wasteful of resources but also border on selfish intransigence on their part.
Having said this, it is imperative that I devote the remainder of this article to an articulation of a human resources (HR) viewpoint on the constitution-making process. It is hoped that this treatise will serve as a reference guide to employers, employees and trade unions alike in understanding how the envisaged constitution will impact on their rights and responsibilities within the ambit of labour relations. It is also hoped that the Zimbabwe Institute of Personnel Management of Zimbabwe (IPMZ) will play its role, as the professional custodian of human resource practice in the country, in the constitution-making process now underway.
The one good thing about Zimbabwe to date has been its commitment to improving the country’s labour laws. This, it has done through a raft of progressive interventions namely, ratification of key International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, ratification of allied United Nations conventions such as CEDAW, and progressive reform of the various pieces of labour legislation, principally, the Labour Relations Act. To a large extent, Zimbabwe can be regarded as one of those few countries in Africa with dynamic labour laws that really protect the rights of the workers. Going forward, there is need to safeguard these gains by ensuring that the envisaged constitution has a clear section devoted to Labour Relations.
The South African Bill of Rights/Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most progressive in the world. It may therefore serve as a guide to employers, employees and trade unions as they contribute towards the constitution-making process underway. Section 23 of the South African Constitution is devoted to Labour Relations and outlines the specific workers' rights that must be contained in the new constitution. This section guarantees workers the right to fair labour practices, to form and join trade unions, and to participate in union activities and strikes. Likewise, employers have the right to form and join employers' organisations and to take part in their activities. These groups have the right to organise, form federations and engage in collective bargaining. The right to strike is written into the Constitution, but the right of employers to lock out their workers is not expressly included. However, the Labour Relations Act grants employers this right in certain situations. Other rights e.g. freedom from slavery, servitude and forced labour; freedom of assembly, picket, demonstration and petition; and freedom of trade, occupation and profession are also adequately covered under other sections of the constitution.
In conclusion, it is important that the envisaged constitution protects the rights of workers, employers and unions alike in such a way that they reflect tripartism, which is the cornerstone of modern-day labour relations.
The South African Bill of Rights/Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most progressive in the world. It may therefore serve as a guide to employers, employees and trade unions as they contribute towards the constitution-making process underway. Section 23 of the South African Constitution is devoted to Labour Relations and outlines the specific workers' rights that must be contained in the new constitution. This section guarantees workers the right to fair labour practices, to form and join trade unions, and to participate in union activities and strikes. Likewise, employers have the right to form and join employers' organisations and to take part in their activities. These groups have the right to organise, form federations and engage in collective bargaining. The right to strike is written into the Constitution, but the right of employers to lock out their workers is not expressly included. However, the Labour Relations Act grants employers this right in certain situations. Other rights e.g. freedom from slavery, servitude and forced labour; freedom of assembly, picket, demonstration and petition; and freedom of trade, occupation and profession are also adequately covered under other sections of the constitution.
In conclusion, it is important that the envisaged constitution protects the rights of workers, employers and unions alike in such a way that they reflect tripartism, which is the cornerstone of modern-day labour relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment