Who Guards the Guards?

By Tony Reeler

From the point at which the senior members of the Joint Operations Command [JOC] stated baldly that they would not recognise any President or Government that did not support Zanu PF, civilian-military relations have been in conflict in Zimbabwe.

It is the sine qua non of democracy that the military shall be under civilian control at all times, even in states of emergency, and especially in times of war. The final protection for any democracy is that the military will defend the Constitution and the state. When the military take sides, declare support for particular political groupings, then democracy is in deep trouble.

This cannot be better illustrated by the situation in which the general-secretary of a trade union is summoned to explain the union’s actions to the assembled members of JOC. And yet this seems not to be the common understanding of the political parties, the trade union movement, the leaders of SADC, and the international community.

The single problem, expressed by the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, on his state visit to the United Kingdom, is that the problem in Zimbabwe is the restrictive conditions placed on Zimbabwean leaders (including the commanders of the security forces).

According to Zuma, the problem is the external pressures on Zimbabwe, and not the internal conflicts, that prevent movement towards the restoration of democracy and good governance. This view may be seriously doubted.

Actually, as all understand, and especially in the aftermath of the June 2008 Presidential re-run, it is the position of the security forces that is the problem in Zimbabwe. That they are partisan towards Zanu PF is beyond dispute, and this bedevils any progress towards a return to democracy.

Yet such a return to civilian rule was wholly anticipated in the Global Political Agreement and the consequent constitutional amendment. Good governance, even under the very confused terms of the GPA, implies the ability of the Inclusive Government to actually govern, and this further implies the ability to control the organs of the state; all of them, and including the security forces.

The intention of the Parties to the negotiations that followed the disastrous June 2008 Presidential re-run, that the military and the security forces be placed under full civilian control, was expressed in the GPA, codified in Constitutional Amendment 19, and finally expressed in the Zimbabwe National Security Council Act, passed by the Zimbabwe Parliament on 9 February 2009. As the Bill stated:
Reviewing national policies on security, defence, law and order and recommending or directing appropriate action; Reviewing national, regional and international security, political and defence developments and recommending or directing appropriate action; Considering and approving proposals relating to the nation’s strategic security and defence requirements; Receiving and considering national security reports and giving general or specific directives to the security forces; Ensuring that the operations of the security forces comply with the Constitution and any other law; Exercising any other function that the Cabinet may delegate to the Council; Generally keeping the nation in a state of preparedness to meet any threat or security.

It is absolutely clear that all the Parties to the GPA, and, subsequently the Zimbabwe Parliament, intended that the security forces be placed wholly under civilian control under a committee set up by law, with the security forces reporting to this committee.

Therefore, there would be no independent existence of any other body, such as JOC, except with the authority of the National Security Council [ZNSC]. This was a critical development in the aftermath of the violence in 2008, and the uncontested evidence that the security fo... ...

• 
  Share