Find us on Google+

Sunday, 17 January 2010

NCC Updates (50% + 1, MPs recall, 30% rule)

The National Constitution Conference (NCC) has resumed sitting and the madness never left over the long break. After some work by the committees, the main conference is voting on various proposals.

There was confusion last week after the 50% + 1 proposal previously adopted failed to gain the backing of the conference.

The delegates were more open to the 30% rule  which allows for greater gender represenation. We have previously discussed this in Angola and Rwandan contexts.

Opposition for 50% + 1 is largely led by the MMD (or is it "government"?) as exemplified by this contribution from Ronnie Shikapwasha :

"We shouldn't forget to see how this system being propagated has created chaos in other countries. Many democracies don’t use this system and you want us to use this chaotic system? The effects of it in Zimbabwe we are feeling it, we are feeding Zimbabweans...NGOs are the ones that created chaos in Zimbabwe by sponsoring this system…Chairperson, Zambia has always been known as a haven of peace and we are admired for this. Why are we going for a system that promotes chaos? Why is it that big democracies in the world have not adopted this system? I must appeal to my fellow delegates that we should not adopt this system because it is wrong."
Another Mung’omba Draft Constitution proposal came unstuck. The NCC roundly rejected the proposal which would empower people to sack their local MPs. A lot of hubris advanced ranging from causing anarchy to retarding development. But Daniel Munkombwe did hint at the underlying assumption : “If an MP does not work according to people’s expectation, the electorate will be free to speak through the ballot paper instead of petitioning their removal before the elections are held ”.

It seems to me that Munkombwe's reason should be the starting point for the debate. Are the "electorate free to speak"? If so, is five years too long to wait to "speak"? Why are MPs different from any employee who faces a sack if they under-perform? Would having this clause increase bye-elections or will it have the deterrent effect of making MPs more disciplined? Would corrupt elites hijack the process? Under what conditions would someone be removed? Is what we actually need for all this to work an Independent Regulator of Parliament?

These are some of the questions I expected to come from the NCC. There's been a lot of debate in the United Kingdom about having similar legislation in the wake of the expenses scandal. Interested readers may want to see this and this.

1 comment:

  1. FODEP Commends NCC
    Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) has commended the NCC for unanimously adopting the clause that allows only candidates with a degree from a recognized institution to contest the presidency.

    FODEP Information Officer, MacDonald Chipenzi said the clause should not be seen as way of deterring others from standing as the winning candidate will rule the nation with intellectuality.

    Chipenzi said the winning president would be learned and bring out issues when invited for regional and international conferences.

    He further said this was a good move as it would encourage individuals who wish to stand as presidents in future to work hard as the performance of the office of the president would now depend on academic qualification.

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.