Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Those asking how the amendment to remove UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION on the roles of the Military after more than an hour of debate and a 20min adjournment we won and the constitution was largely left unchanged save for minor changes

38,810 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Zimbabwe Defence Forces role as political arbiter and power broker removed By Ruvimbo Muchenje The Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF)'s role as the country's political arbiter, power broker and kingmaker is now being decisively removed, changing the country's political landscape and its volatile dynamics in the process. This will have far-reaching political implications as the Zimbabwean military has been a power broker for a long time due to sustained militarisation of politics and the professional bureaucracy, particularly under the late former president Robert Mugabe and subsequently President Emmerson Mnangagwa. The army's critical role in local politics dates back to the days of the liberation struggle, with the Mgagao Declaration of 1975 that paved way for the late former president Robert Mugabe to seize power in Zanu from Ndabaningi Sithole being an example of that influence. For decades, the army has been the ultimate political arbiter, bound by Section 212 of the constitution to defend both the nation's territorial integrity and "to uphold" the constitution, giving it authority to self-deploy under the guise of upholding the supreme law as it did during the November 2017 coup which first - ironically - brought Mnangagwa to power before he legitimised himself through subsequent elections in 2018 and 2023. However, Constitutional Amendment Bill (No.3) introduces major legal changes to the country's political, electoral governance architecture, most notably extending presidential and parliamentary terms, allowing parliament to elect the President, and subtly altering the constitutional mandate of the ZDF. The amendments currently going through parliament propose a critical, yet subtle change that is far-reaching. The words "to uphold" the constitution are being stripped away, replaced by a mandate to act simply "in accordance with the constitution". By altering the specific phrasing of the army's duties and allowing parliament to elect the president instead of through a direct popular vote, Mnangagwa's government is effectively clipping the military’s institutional wings. Presenting his key second reading speech on Constitutional Amendment (N0.3) Bill to parliament on Wednesday after he had introduced the proposals to parliament the previous day, Ziyambi said the army must act "in accordance with the constitution", not have a special responsibility to "uphold the constitution" because "they are not a parallel constitutional authority". Ziyambi said: "I now turn to the function of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, Clause 16. Clause 16 amends the words that describe the function of our Defence Forces, replacing the phrase, 'To uphold this Constitution' with the phrase, 'In accordance with this Constitution'. It has been suggested that this weakens the constitutional position of the military. The truth is precisely the opposite. The amendment strengthens the subordination of the military to the constitution and I want to explain why b ecause the point is important and it is widely misunderstood. Consider the question honestly. Either the Defence Forces are subject to the Constitution, or they are a core equal guardian of it, standing alongside the elected President, the elected P arliamen t and the courts. If they are subject to the constitution, as in every constitutional democracy, they must be in accordance with the constitution, which is the correct exp ression of that subordination and the old wording which cast the military as an ind ependent upholder of the constitution in its own right was the anomaly. The institution whose function is to uphold the constitution, is the elected and appointed civilian institutions. The President takes an oath to uphold it. Judges take an oath to uphold it. Members of this House take an oath to uphold it. The Defence Forces protect the nation within the constitutional framework that those civilian institutions uphold and interpret. They are not a parallel constitutional authority."

TheNewsHawks

24,828 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat