YES it is indeed possible, even in Tanzania, to remove the President from power without a military coup. It is a procedure which is commonly known as the “impeachment of the President”, and is provided for in the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977; which makes detailed provision for the procedure, and the terms and conditions, under which Parliament may proceed to impeach the President of the United republic.
Article 46A (1) provides as follows:-“Bunge linawezakupitisha azimio la kumuondoa Rais madarakani, endapo itatolewa Hoja ya kumshitaki Rais, na ikapitishwa kwa mujibu wa masharti ya Ibara hii”.
Thereafter, sub-articles (2) to (11) make detailed provisions regarding the methodology, as well as the procedure to be followed, in implementing the process of impeaching the President, which is the following:- (a) a written notice for a motion to be moved in the House for that purpose, signed by not less than 20 per cent of all the members of Parliament, must be submitted to the Speaker, and received by him, not less than thirty days before the date of commencement of the parliamentary session at which the said motion is to be moved.
(b) If the Speaker is satisfied that the said notice is in order, then, at any time during the scheduled session, the Speaker shall call upon the mover to move his motion, whose form must be that “a Special Committee be appointed to investigate the conduct of the President”.
In order for it to be valid, such motion must be adopted by not less than two-thirds of all the members of Parliament. Upon its being so adopted, the Speaker shall announce the names of the members of the relevant Special Committee, which shall consist of :- (i) The Chief Justice of the United Republic, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) The Zanzibar Chief Justice; and (c) seven other members appointed by the Speaker in accordance with the standing Rules of the House, in proportion to the numerical strength of the political parties which are represented in the House.
(c) On adoption by Parliament of the said resolution, the President shall be deemed to have been suspended, and his duties and responsibilities shall automatically devolve upon the Vice President, as provided for in article 37 (3) of the same Constitution, until such time when the Speaker informs the President about the outcome of the impeachment proceedings.
(d) The Special Committee is required to start its investigations within seven days after its establishment, and to afford the President adequate opportunity to be heard by the Committee.
The Committee must complete its investigations and report its findings to the Speaker, within ninety days; and the Speaker is similarly required to submit the said report to Parliament, for deliberation and eventual decision.
Parliament is similarly required to afford the President the opportunity to be heard. In order to be valid, the decision by Parliament must be made by an affirmative vote of not less than two thirds of all the members of Parliament, confirming that the President is guilty of the charges against him.
(e) In the event of Parliament deciding that the President is guilty as charged, the Speaker shall so inform the President, and the National Electoral Commission; whereupon the President is required to resign not later than three days after the adoption of such a resolution by Parliament. The Zimbabwe experience. What is described above, is the constitutional method of removing the President from power.
But the Zimbabwe experience is totally different! “Zimbabwe’s army has seized control of the country and detained 93 year-old President Robert Mugabe, but denied that it is a coup”. That was the ‘breaking news’ which dominated the news media immediately after the event had occurred. On that fateful day, the Zimbabwe army placed President Mugabe under house arrest, took control of the Headquarters of the State broadcaster, ZBC, and blocked all access to government Offices, while publicly denying it was a coup against Mugabe’s Government.
The army explained that its intervention was merely aimed at dealing with “criminal elements around Mugabe”. And indeed, this action by the Zimbabwe military, is totally devoid of all the known features of a military coup.
The history of military coups in African countries is pretty well known, especially those in West Africa where, during the early 1960s, military coups were a regular occurrence. But that experience shows that such military coups were always followed by the army itself taking over control of the Government, and such events were normally accompanied by the shedding of blood of many innocent people, and the suspension of the country’s Constitution.
But none of these evil things occurred in Zimbabwe. Instead, despite the announced confinement of President Mugabe, he was subsequently seen presiding at a University of Zimbabwe graduation ceremony. That was, probably, the army’s chosen way of demonstrating that indeed, no coup had taken place against President Mugabe.
Thus, the Zimbabwe experience is unique and unprecedented. So what are the lessons offered by this unique military action in Zimbabwe? The answer will probably depend on one’s personal perspective.
In my own view, the following two are the most glaring:- Failure to observe the requirement for retirement. The first major lesson to be learnt from the Zimbabwe events, is the need to observe the requirement for the President to retire from office, at the most appropriate time.
‘The most appropriate time’ will of course depend on the prevailing circumstances. This is because, unlike other public servants, or servants of the people, politicians generally have no legally prescribed age retirement; and indeed, the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, as well as the other laws of the land, do not provide for such retirement age for political leaders, including the President and the members of Parliament. Whereas in all other public service areas, the age of 60 years is prescribed by law as the mandatory retirement age.
And even in certain non-political areas, such retirement age limits are prescribed. For example, the Bishops in the Catholic Church have a prescribed mandatory retirement age of 75 years. The Constitution of Uganda provides the only exception that I am aware of, for having a provision which prescribes the age of 75 years as the retirement age for Ugandan Presidents.
But this provision is now in the process of being removed from their Constitution, primarily in order to suit the requirements of the current President. But still, as the Holy Bible says, “there is a time for everything, a time to be born, and a time to die . . .” By extension, there should be a time for political leaders to retire.
However, the difficulty of an individual political leader, particularly the country’s President, deciding by himself to retire from office, is well appreciated; and it is precisely in recognition of that difficulty, that the Constitution of the United Republic was amended in order to include a provision for the compulsory retirement of the President of Tanzania, after a maximum service of two-year terms.
And, fortunately, this provision has been strictly observed by all our Presidents who came to power after the voluntary retirement of Mwalimu Nyerere from the Presidency, way back in 1985 Failure by President Mugabe to observe his ‘most appropriate time’ to retire, is clearly one of the major causes for the army’s action in Zimbabwe, as has been manifested by the massive support for that action, shown by the Zimbabwe public.
As an analyst, one Dr Wetengere put it, “President Robert Mugabe has only himself to blame for his masterminding the amendment of the Zimbabwe Constitution in order to provide for his overstay . . .No matter how good a leader may be, once his office tenure expires, he has to go”.
The consequences of ignoring the leadership ethics requirement. This is the second obvious lesson to be learnt from the Zimbabwe events, namely the consequences created by a President who ignores, or deliberately disregards, the central role of ethics in leadership.
The word “ethics” is normally defined as “a system of moral principles, or rules, which govern or influence a person’s behaviour. It is the factor which distinguishes right from wrong, or good from evil, in relation to the actions, volitions and character traits of human beings, including leaders. And when it relates to leaders, that is when it is referred to as “leadership ethics”.
Ethics is the heart of leadership, for the proper observation of the ethics principles and values lies at the heart of human relationships, and more specifically, the relationships between leaders and their followers.
There are certain universal values and principles that generally govern a leader in his observance of the requisite leadership ethics, both in his personal environment, and in the environment surrounding his position. They include respect for other persons, a belief in the concept of human equality, honesty, and fairness.
If a leader chooses to act as a bully, and use his power to force his will upon other people, including his colleagues in leadership positions, he thereby creates what may be described as a ‘command relationship’ with them which, strictly speaking, is not the required kind of leadership, which should always be based on trust, obligation, and a shared commitment of what is the common good.
The role of ethics in the practice of leadership is therefore absolutely central, and the proper observance, plus the actual practice, of ethical principles, are of crucial importance for good leadership; the avoidance of which constitutes a specific leadership weakness, which is referred to as “the ethics avoidance syndrome”.
This syndrome may be defined as ‘the general tendency, or inclination, by a given leader to ignore, or disregard, the ethics factor in his leadership style’. This ‘ethics avoidance syndrome’ is another factor which facilitated President Mugabe’s removal from power.
This is evidenced by the army’s reference to “dealing with criminals surrounding Mugabe”.
This is a manifest reference to President Mugabe’s wife Grace, and her supporters, who were making attempts, both unethical and unacceptable, to inherit the Presidency from her ageing husband. However, notwithstanding all that, President Mugabe’s greatest mistake was his failure to see that his time was up.
For more than a week after the army’s intervention, he still believed that he could retain power, even though his own political party, ZANU-PF, had asked him to step down, and the Zimbabwean people had informed him very clearly, through massive street demonstrations, that they no longer wanted him to be their leader. His stubborn behaviour had forced the Zimbabwe Parliament to commence proceedings for his impeachment.
But he finally made the expected wise decision to resign. Lessons from other sources. William Shakespeare, the famous English Dramatist, wrote the following lines in his Play titled Julius Caesar (Act V scene I) :- “Since the affairs of men rest still uncertain, let’s reason with the worst that may befall”.
President Mugabe’s removal from Office should serve as a useful reminder to all leaders of that level, about the need to observe the requirement for retirement ‘at the most appropriate time’; as well as the need to always implement the principles and values of ‘leadership ethics’, for “ethics is the heart of leadership”.
No comments:
Post a Comment