TIGblogs - davyk

The will of Zimbabweans is supreme

HISTORIANS tell us that the first civilisation to codify its laws was ancient Babylon.

The codification, a means of writing down laws in a manner that is understandable and accessible to the ordinary public, was done by King Hammurabi around 1760 BC and is therefore known as the Code of Hammurabi.

And to demonstrate to those living in the territory and the world beyond the permanence and immutability of his codified civil law, King Hammurabi had them inscribed in a way reminiscent of the Christian 10 Commandments.

Other historians say that the first codification of any sort was by Ur-Nammu, the King of Ur, in the 25th century BC.

However, the first "permanent" codification system was done in China with the establishment of the Tang Code and this formed the basis of that great civilisation’s criminal code.

This is not to say other parts of the world did not have laws; it just means that for various reasons they did not write them down as a legal code.

The ancient Greeks and Romans also employed the practice of codification.

And it was the Romans who first showed the world how to codify laws in a manner that made it difficult for the ordinary person to access which was in contradiction of the whole purpose of codification.

Emperor Caligula is said to have written his laws in small characters and hung them high on pillars so that people could not read them.

Perhaps it was with this in mind that further down along the line of history, people began advocating for greater participation of the general populace in the crafting of laws and it was really a matter of time before the first constitution was written.

It must be understood that constitution-making is an overtly political act. This means that the creation of constitutions is ultimately driven by politicians for political purposes.

Not that this is a bad thing. After all, the ordinary people are the ones who elect the politicians they want to write the constitutions for them.

The first constitution officially written down was a very political act.

After European settlers in America managed to shake off the shackles of English and French colonialism they put in place a constitution that up this day they brag is better than anything anyone else can ever make.

Of course, that is typical American arrogance.

The American constitution was created to keep the English out of America’s politics even though most of the settlers in that country had come from England and other European countries.

It was written to preserve the subjugation of the indigenous Americans, who from time immemorial had inhabited that land.

It was put in place to ensure those with lighter skin would always have a head start in personal, social, economic and political development and that is why the US Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never be citizens in an 1857 judgment against a black slave called Dredd Scott.

Constitution-making is a political act. That is an inescapable but not always unsavoury fact.

The process relies on popular consent and that is why even though America introduced constitutions to the world in a rather unbecoming way we still use them today.

The people have to agree to abide by a certain constitution otherwise its crafting by politicians will turn out to be nothing more than an exercise in self-gratification, or as one Zimbabwean writer would put it, "political and intellectual masturbation".

Consensual legitimacy is necessary for a constitution to have any meaning and effect and that is why we hold referendums when we want to usher in a new national document or we leave it to legislators whom we have elected.

The late Israeli law professor, Daniel Elazar, noted that there are basically five models for constitutions across the world.

These are: the constitution as frame of government and protector of rights, the constitution as code, the constitution as revolutionary manifesto, the constitution as a (tempered) political idea and the constitution as modern adaptation of an ancient traditional constitution.

This writer is sure Elazar would have found Zimbabwe’s constitutional history quite fascinating in that it has more or less employed facets of all five models in coming up with the document that reigns supreme in the country today.

In 1980 Zimbabwe entered independence with a document that was a result of comprises made at Lancaster House.

This document has undergone significant changes so as to reflect more and more the contemporary and long-term political, economic and cultural aspirations of the people of this land.

As such, key amendments have been made to legislation concerning land tenure, the Office of the President, the make-up of Parliament, human rights, economic empowerment and so many other issues that concern the generality of the population.

Virtually all of these amendments have become the subject of feral attacks by the West and its pliant acolytes in the media.

Just about everyone in mainstream Western political circles and their embedded media enjoy taking potshots at various aspects of Zimbabwe’s legislation and its constitutional amendments.No one ever pauses to consider that these amendments and the accompanying laws are the fruit of the will of the majority of Zimbabweans as enunciated by the Members of Parliament they have democratically elected with commendable frequency since 1980.

The fact is the law of the land reflects the will of the people in that the people’s representatives see to its codification.

That is why just before the turn of the millennium the Government set up a Constitutional Commission to amalgamate the sum wishes of the people and subsequently present them for the ultimate test in a referendum.

Everyone knows how those with more access to the tools of democracy campaigned for that Draft Constitution to be rejected in February 2000 because they did not like the fact that the State would compulsorily acquire land.

That was their democratic right and the State did not quibble with the fact that a few people with control over the tools of democracy overrode the democratic will of the many without but who wanted land.

Fair and fine. Parliament, the most democratic institution in this thing called the State, enacted legislation that paved the way for the revolution called the Third Chimurenga.

That is the way democracy functions.

The second issue is that no one ever pauses to question why the West is so concerned about Zimbabwe’s constitutional and legislative processes and structures.

Surely, Americans should be more concerned about how their own elected representatives can override the will of the majority and cheer as George W. Bush invades Afghanistan and Iraq.

The inescapable conclusion is that the West has a vested interest in what happens in Zimbabwe that goes beyond normal fraternal concern and borders on the illegitimate and illegal.

That is why the West has sought to override Zimbabwe’s internal constitutional and legislative processes vis-a-vis the recent harmonised elections and the subsequent run-off.

In the case of Britain it is understandable. They do not have a constitution and it is highly unlikely that they ever will have one. That partly explains why they have an extremely unpopular prime minister imposed on them by an equally unpopular guy called Tony Blair and they cannot do anything about it.

Zimbabwe’s constitution and legal processes are clear.

Last year, the major political parties agreed to a constitutional amendment that would see elections harmonised and a run-off necessitated should no one presidential aspirant manage to secure more than 50 percent of the vote.

We allowed our politicians to make Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment) Act Number 18 because we voted for these ladies and gentlemen and vested in them the authority to make such changes as and when they become necessary.

That is why the populace generally accepted this amendment. It is our amendment.

As a consequence, when none of President Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai, Simba Makoni or Langton Towungana managed to pass the presidential poll benchmark the top two performers were constitutionally "ordered" to go for a run-off.

That run-off was held, President Mugabe emerged the winner with an overwhelming majority and Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku swore him in as Head of State in the presence of the service chiefs, members of the judiciary and the diplomatic corps.

The whole sane world has understood and respected this constitutional and logical flow of events and processes, but for some reason we still find dunces who say only the March 29 poll should be recognised as reflecting the will of the people.

That is a contradiction of sorts and is the kind of thing only to be expected from people who do not have constitutions (such as the British) and those who established constitutions so that they could subjugate the rightful owners of the land (the Americans).

If the will of the people is to be respected then it means the recognition of June 27. The will of the people was that there should be a run-off in the event that there was no absolute winner in the first round of voting and so to abridge the constitutional process so that it ends on March 29 is to stifle that same will of the people.

The will of the people is reflected in Amendment Number 18, which created the run-off, and so June 27 is the will of the people.

Attempts to tell the negotiators currently meeting in South Africa that they should come up with an agreement that is based on March 29 are balderdash and should be treated as such.

The will of the people of Zimbabwe is supreme, and not the will of people in some faraway lands like America where Europeans colonised the land by carrying out genocide against indigenous Americans

http://www.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=69&cat=10

[ث ويلّ] [زيمببون] عليا
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
[ث ويلّ] [زيمببون] مؤرخات عليا

يقولنا أنّ كان ال [سفيليسأيشن] أولى أن ينسّق قانونه بابل قديمة.

الترميز, [منس] من يكتب نزولا إلى قانون [إين ا منّر] أنّ يكون مفهومة ويتيسّر إلى الجمهور عاديّة, كان أتمّت بملك [همّوربي] حول 1760 قبل المسيح ويكون لذلك عرفت كالرمز [همّوربي].

وأن يعرض إلى أنّ يعيش في الأرض والعالم إلى ما بعد الدوام و [إيمّوتبيليتي] من ه ينسّق [سفيل لو], تلقّىهم ملك [همّوربي] ينقش في طريق تذكّريّة من المسيحية 10 أوامر.

أخرى يقول مؤرخات أنّ الترميز أولى من أيّ نوع كان ب [أور-نمّو], الملك [أور], في ال [25ث] قرن قبل المسيح.

مهما, الأولى "دائمة" ترميز أتمّت نظامة كان في الصين مع الإقامة من السيلان رمز وهذا شكّل الأساس من أنّ [سفيليسأيشن] عظيمة رمز إجراميّة.

هذا ليس أن يقول أخرى لم يتلقّى أجزاء من العالم قانون; هو [منس] صحيحة أنّ لأسباب مختلفة هم لم يكتبواهم إلى أسفل ك جائز رمز.

ال استخدم [أنسنت غريك] و [رومنس] أيضا الممارسة الترميز.

وكان هو [رومنس] الذي أولى أبدى العالم كيف أن ينسّق قانون [إين ا منّر] أنّ جعل هو يصعب للشخص عاديّة أن ينفذ أيّ كان في تناقض من الغرض كاملة ترميز.

قلت إمبراطورة [كليغلا] أن يتلقّى كتبت قانونه في رموز صغيرة وعلقتهم إرتفاع على أعمدة [س ثت] الناس استطاع لم يقرأهم.

ربّما كان هو مع هذا في عقل أنّ زغبة بعيد على طول الخطّ التاريخ, الناس بدأ يدافع لمشاركة عظيمة من العامة عامّة في ال يحبك من قانون وهو كان حقّا أمر الوقت قبل أن الدستور أولى كان كتبت.

هو ينبغي كنت فهمت أنّ [كنستيتثأيشن-مكينغ] عمل سياسيّة [أفرتلي]. هذا يعني أنّ قدت الخلق الدساتير أخيرا بسياسيات لأغراض سياسيّة.

لا أنّ هذا شيء سيّئة. [أفتر لّ,] ال [أردينري بيوبل] الأحد الذي ينتخب السياسيات هم يريدون أن يكتب الدساتير ل هم.

كان الدستور أولى رسميّا يكتب إلى أسفل عمل سياسيّة جدّا.

عقب أدار مستوطنات أوروبيّة في أمريكا أن يهزّ من القيود من إنجليزيّة واستعمار فرنسيّة هم وضعوا [إين بلس] دستور أنّ فوق هذا يوم هم يتبجّحون يكون جيّدة من أيّ شيء أيّ شخص وإلّا يستطيع في أيّ وقت جعلت.

[أف كورس], أنّ عجرفة نموذجيّة أمريكيّة.

خلقت الدستور أمريكيّة كان أن يحافظ الاللغة الانجليزية من أمريكا سياسة [إفن ثوو] أكثر من المستوطنات في أنّ بلد كان قد أتى من إنكلترا وأخرى بلد أوروبيّ.

هو كان كتبت أن يحفظ ال [سوبجوغأيشن] من الأمريكيات محلّية, الذي من وقت سحيقة كان قد سكن أنّ أرض.

هو كان وضعت [إين بلس] أن يضمن أنّ مع جلد خفيفة دائما تلقّى بداية رئيسيّة في شخصيّة, اجتماعيّة, اقتصاديّة وتطوير سياسيّة وأنّ لما ال [أوس] محكمة عليا حكم أنّ أسود استطاع أبدا كنت مواطنات في 1857 حكم ضدّ عبدة سوداء يدعى [دردّ] سكوت.

[كنستيتثأيشن-مكينغ] عمل سياسيّة. أنّ [إينسكببل] غير أنّ لا حقيقة [أونسفووري] دائما.

يعتمد العملية على رضاء شعبيّة وأنّ لما [إفن ثوو] أمريكا قدّم دساتير إلى العالم في بالأحرى [أونبكمينغ] طريق نحن بعد نستعملهم اليوم.

الالناس يضطرّ وافقت أن يلبث بدستور مؤكّدة خلاف ذلك ه يحبك بسياسيات [تثرن ووت] أن يكون لاشيء أكثر من تمرين عمليّ في [سلف-غرتيفيكأيشن], أو بما أنّ واحدة [زيمببون] كاتبة وضع هو, "سياسيّة واستمناء عقليّة".

شرعية بالتّراضي ضروريّة لدستور أن يتلقّى أيّ معنى وتأثير وأنّ لما نحن نمسك استفتاءات عندما يريد نحن أن يواكب في وثيقة جديدة وطنيّة أو نحن نترك هو إلى مشرعات الّذي نحن قد انتخبنا.

المتأخّرة إسرائيليّة قانون أستاذة, دانييل [إلزر], يلاحظ أنّ هناك أساسيّا خمسة نماذج لدساتير عبر العالم.

هذا: الدستور كإطار الحكومة ومدافعة من حقوق, الدستور كرمز, الدستور كبيان رسميّ ثوريّة, الدستور ك [ا] (يليّن) فكرة سياسيّة والدستور كتكييف حديثة من دستور قديمة تقليديّة.

هذا كاتبة يوقن أسّس [إلزر] زمبابوي تاريخ دستوريّة الى حدّ بعيد رائعة داخل أنّ هو يتلقّى كثير أو أقلّ يستخدم سطيحات من كلّ خ