Normalising the abnormal

Normalising the abnormal

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

• Good riddance to Doha trade talks

• A shopping list for a New Zimbabwe

• Messy mix of football and politics

• Mkapa a wrong prescription for Zimbabwe

• MDC's 'Mugabe must go' strategy ill-thought

• The many lies told in your name

• Denial: Zimbabwe's collective psychosis

• Mugabe mortgages country to highest bidder

• No easy passage, but safe landing

• Mugabe can, and must face justice

• Civil society double standards inimical to change

By Lynette Mhlanga

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin.

Does Franklin's words apply to Zimbabweans? Oh yes they do!

When Zimbabwe declares its need to protect national security, the first casualty is liberty!

In Zimbabwe today, if you talk about how President Mugabe ruined the economy, the Public Order and Security Act is your highway to prison.

Now, Mugabe's government says if you write to your mother that the bread is too expensive, then the government must take action.

The Interception of Communications Bill, when passed into law, will crack down on freedom of speech on the internet, and decide how you say and what you say about your surroundings -- from the trees to the politics.

All this is a sure sign of a dictator clinging onto power by abusing his government's law-making privileges.

The Interception of Communications Bill highlights the troubling and worrying manifestations of the Zanu PF government’s legislative and political agenda. The need to protect national security and the need to prevent crimes has veered off into a war on civil liberties and human rights; poisoning the legal infrastructure that makes a living democratic culture possible.

The Interception of Communications Bill is a Zanu PF victory in which we and our democracy are the vanquished. This Bill’s main aim is simply to keep Zanu PF in power. When the Interception of Communications Act becomes part of the criminal justice system, Zimbabweans would have lost the last liberty they had.

Should society be accustomed to this process which normalises the abnormal? Something must be done here. Zimbabwe needs to reflect again. We are on the brink of losing the vital little liberty that we still have under the present Zanu PF regime.

This Bill is surely a hysterical act by Zanu PF. Zanu PF is aware that all forms of government operate as a form of authority in which an individual or group of individuals wield power over the majority. Zanu PF plays the rule of law game but fails dismally here. The party is very much aware of the fact that it now lacks this justification for authority, that its only method of staying in power is to beat the Zimbabwean population into subjection using funny laws to force people to tow its line.

The 21st century modern democracy faces not just a paradox but a multiple duty to balance the demands of national security effectively whilst it implements human rights and civil liberties; a tripod balance that often falls on one side to the detriment of the others. Terrorism, in all its form, is the greatest violator of human rights. It is a clear and present danger to the world today; it strikes a fatal blow to the human rights of innocent citizens. The greatest challenge to democracy is to retain long held and hard won freedoms and human rights from the arbitrary use of power or wrongful conviction whilst ensuring that democracy and the rule of law are not used as a cover by terrorists and criminals.

However, the question we have to ask is whether Zimbabwe faces any real threat of terrorism? No! Is the crime rate so high that that there is now need to snoop in our emails and letters? No!

Whilst states are responsible for the protection of their citizens from crime and terrorism, they must ensure that the measures they adopt do not violate human rights. Whilst the new Bill is clothed with what appears to be legitimate objectives, it must be seen as it is -- a draconian law which is unprecedented in peacetime, it is not justified to meet the present dangers in Zimbabwe.

Broadly speaking, modern liberalism places the rights of the individual above the needs of the group. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected. All this is being denied to ordinary Zimbabweans who are given laws that keep them from criticising the government.

Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about them. Privacy it’s argued, encourages information sharing between individuals, because it creates an environment in which any perpetuated information that does not reference a source can be identified as rumour. This right is under threat in Zimbabwe.

Democracy does not exist in a vacuum. It is premised on the existence of a polity with members, and for whom democratic discourse with its many variants takes place. The authority and legitimacy of a majority to compel a minority exists only within political boundaries defined by the citizens of Zimbabwe. Simply put, if there is no free speech, there can never be no operating democracy. Our freedom of speech and our right to Privacy are essential and this Bill is essentially nonsense upon stilts, a tool for Zanu PF to stay in power stifling criticising from the public. Zimbabweans must act here.

Lynette Mhlanga, is a, human rights activist, political commentator and Doctoral candidate based in the United Kingdom She can be contacted at lynn.lynette@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com