The Case for Ethnolinguistic or Ethnic Federalism in Zimbabwe

The case for the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe, what? Federalism divides nations! Zimbabwe is too small to be a Federation! No, it will lead to secession and disintegration of the country! We have too small a population for Federalism! It will never see the light of day in this country! We are a unitary state, and that unites us, we cannot afford the problems brought about by Federalism!

Such are the comments one often meets in the Zimbabwean political discourse whenever the subject of federalism is raised. From online chat-rooms to Facebook groups to some political commentators and political elites, one hears the rallying cry that federalism, or even devolution of power, is a bad idea for Zimbabwe. But well, the good thing is that such voices are a very small minority in the country. We know from the Copac outreach program for the country's latest constitution-making process that the majority of Zimbabweans, an average of 62.5% in such provinces as Matebeleland , Midlands, Manicaland and Maswingo, are in favor of some kind of federalism. The present talk is about devolution of power and not full-blown federalism, though we know in all truth that devolution of power is in itself a kind of limited federalism. For some strange reason few are willing to admit that we are actually talking of limited federalism when we talk devolution of power. In this article, I want to go beyond the devolution talk and make what I believe will be a strong case for the establishment of Zimbabwe as a full-blown Federal Republic - the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe.

But, what is Federalism? Let me give a definition of the concept from the definition supplied by the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. It states that: Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists."

Federalism usually happens in three major ways, and according to www.Forumfed.org, federations come into being as follows:

• In some cases, coming together was central to the emergency of a new, federal country. Previously separate units - independent states or colonies - concluded that they had enough common interest and shared identity to join together in a federal arrangement. The federal structure was preferred because it permitted each unit to preserve some of its autonomy while pulling other aspects in the new community.

• In other cases, the country may have originally been created with a unitary or highly centralized (often authoritarian and undemocratic) structure. The eventual choice of federalism was in response to democratic political pressures for devolution because of the country's multiple languages, religions or ethnicities, and perhaps major economic differences between regions. In some countries, the regions pressing for autonomy may have been distinct political entities in the past.

• In yet other cases, these two processes combined. Canada emerged from the creation of Ontario and Quebec out of a previously unitary regime and from the addition of new provinces. India too combined these two processes.

A look at the three origins of federalism presented above shows that the second one fits the Zimbabwean situation hand-in-glove. This second reason for federations coming into being and the definition of federalism alone should be enough to make Zimbabweans of every creed, color, ethnicity and political persuasion to rally around the rebuilding of Zimbabwe as a federal republic. But alas, there are amongst us, as in any given human society, those unitarists who believe that federalism is the second most evil thing in the cosmos after Satan himself. For the sake of such, we shall have to spend acres of space building a case for federalism in Zimbabwe. Before going into details about the specific type of federalism proposed in this book (that is, Zimbabwe: The Case for Federalism), that is, Ethnolinguistic Federalism, let us begin by laying out the benefits and advantages of Federalism in general as a system or organization of government. These are as follows:

1. Federalism enables States or peoples who differ a good deal from one another or have different backgrounds to join together for common benefits, without some of the States or groups being required to obey unquestionably whatever the largest state or population group orders. In this sense, federalism protects minority rights - the rights of communities or whole regions to maintain their customs, their diversity and individuality, their self-rule. Federalism enables communities with diverse cultures, languages and interests to cooperate on many matters, without having to resort to forcing everyone to look or behave the same way. Federalism, then, is associated with "States' Rights" and is an important means for the preservation of local self-government. It is in a sense a protection against the "tyranny of the majority".

2. Federalism offers representation to different populations. Citizens of various states may have different aspirations, ethnicity and follow different cultures. The central government can sometimes overlook these differences and adopt policies which cater for the majority as has been happening in Zimbabgwe over the last thirty years. This is where the regional or state governments step in. While formulating policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration by the state governments. Rights of the minorities are protected too. For example, in Bukalanga, the so-called Matebeleland, where there is diversity of languages and cultures, the State government will have the freedom to adopt policies which may not be followed nationally or by any other State. For example, there is no need to introduce policies aimed at alleviating the plight of and solving the problems faced by the San community in Manicaland because there is no such community there, as opposed to Bukalanga. Also, central government might just not be responsive to the plight of that community at all, as the last thirty years have amply demonstrated.

3. Federalism provides that States or regions can manage their own affairs rather than being directed by a central autocracy or bureaucracy. A federal structure is particularly important in modern representative democracy. For unless there are political units on a humane scale that are not too big for citizens to understand or share in, "democracy" becomes a mere phrase. Genuine democracy requires that a good many people should participate in public concerns and be governed by representatives chosen from and accountable to the local community. People enjoy a sense of personal safety and security when they are governed by representatives drawn from their own community, who share their values, customs and mores, and are accessible for consultation, advice and assistance. It is easier to control a native son, living in the community, than a stranger residing in a distant city. In a unitary government set-up, all the decisions are made in the capital, which is more of an imperial center and it is impossible for many citizens to take any part in public affairs and it is difficult for public officials to understand local needs or to be restrained by the local population. Such a system is what may be termed a plebiscitary democracy, that is, rule by a single man or a narrow clique of administrators, endorsed perhaps by a national ballot at intervals, yet allowing the public no share in decisions beyond the opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" against the dominant regime. (And often, as has been our experience for the last thirty years in Zimbabgwe, the voter is discouraged from voting anything but "yes.") To put it all in another way, a federal structure provides means for representative democracy to operate in both regional (State) and national affairs. For this reason, federalism is an important feature of political liberty.

4. In his famous work, On Liberty, the nineteenth-century English political philosopher John Stuart Mill presented a powerful argument against centralized bureaucratic government that illustrates the advantages of federalism from another perspective. Federalism, he observed, encourages independence and self-reliance. Using America as an example, he noted that Americans are in every kind of civil business; let them be left without a government, every body of Americans is able to improvise one, and to carry on that or any other public business with a sufficient amount of intelligence, order and decision. This is what every free people ought to be; and a people capable of this is certain to be free; it will never let itself be enslaved by any man or body of men because these are able to seize and pull the reins of the central administration. No bureaucracy can hope to make such a people as this do or undergo anything that they do not like. But where everything is done through bureaucracy, nothing to which the bureaucracy is really adverse can be done at all. No less significant, he concluded, is the fact that decentralized government releases the creative force and genius of a free people. The absorption of all the nation's energy and ability into the central authority, said Mill, "is fatal, sooner or later, to the mental activity and progressiveness of the body itself." Government must aid and stimulate individual exertion and development or it will stultify and retard a society. "No great thing can really be accomplished" if there is a monolithic government which "substitutes its own activity for theirs; when, instead of informing, advising, and upon occasion, denouncing, it makes them work in fetters or bids them stand aside and does their work instead of them. The worth of a state, in the long run, is the individual worth of the individuals composing it." He who doubts this advantage must just take a look at the most inventive and creative countries of the world. They are free countries, and federalism is a great way of entrenching that freedom. The United States, Canada, South Africa, India, Switzerland, and others come to one's mind in this regard.

5. Federalism makes it difficult for an unjust dictator or fanatical political party to seize power nationally and rule the whole country arbitrarily, having first taken the national capital (a process which has occurred repeatedly in centralized countries). With a federal political structure, obedience to all orders from a national capital is not automatic, and State or regional leaders can resist political revolutions or coups d'état through political means, or perhaps through State militia if need be. To gain dictatorial control over Germany in the 1930s, the dictator Adolf Hitler had first to destroy the federal structure of the Weimar Republic. Totalitarianism cannot succeed where federalism thrives. We in Zimbabwe know very well what a unitary system can do to a country, and that could easily be solved through federalism.

6. Federalism allows States, regions, and localities to undertake reforms and experiments in political, economic, and social concerns without involving the whole country and all its resources in some project that, after all, may turn out unsatisfactorily. If it is true that "variety is the spice of life," surely a nation is interesting and lively when it has some diversity and freedom of choice in its political methods. For example, in a federal set-up, one State can plan some particular educational reform, another State can take a different approach to improving schools; and results can be compared and discussed. Or, different projects of unemployment relief, or experiments in making tax assessment more just, can be carried on in several States simultaneously and States can compete with one another in healthy fashion. In a unitary political structure, no place exists for innovation or experiment except the bureaucratic central administration, which administration is commonly complacent about its own policies.

7. Division of work between the central and State governments leads to optimum utilization of resources. The central government can concentrate more on international affairs and defense of the country, while the state governments cater for local needs. As will be seen later, I shall be pointing out to the areas that the national or federal government will have to concentrate on in an era of the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe.

Such are the many advantages of Federalism compared to the unitary system that has been in place in Zimbabwe for the last thirty years. None but the diehard unitarists can find much fault with Federalism. But still, like any man-made system, questions have been raised about it by some political scientists and politicians. They point out to certain disadvantages such as follows:

1. Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for what. For example, when a natural disaster strikes in a state, there may be delays if it is not quickly decided and cleared as to who is responsible for the disaster management work - the State government or the Federal government. But where there is proper planning and coordination of activity between the State and Federal government, this disadvantage can be easily overcome.

2. Federalism can be a bit more expensive as more people are elected to office, both at the state and the center, than necessary. Too many elected representatives with overlapping roles can also lead to corruption. In Zimbabwe we cannot complain about this since the new Copac Draft Constitution has proposed a bloated parliamentary structure of 400 MPs in a country of twelve million people, though I firmly believe that number has to be reduced. This is just a question of good planning and management, and a commitment to rooting out corruption. Where there is good planning and management, federalism does wonders to a nation. After all, a unitary structure fares no better at all when it comes to corruption. If anything, it is worse off as it provides little room for public officials to be held accountable for their deeds as all power is centralized in the hands of a few people.

3. Federalism sometimes leads to unhealthy competition between different regions. There can be rebellion by a regional government against the national government too. Both scenarios pose a threat to a country's integrity. It promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources, industries, employment opportunities differ from one region to another. Hence earnings and wealth are sometimes unevenly distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor states. Thus the gap between the rich and poor states widens. It can make State governments selfish and only concerned about their own regions. They can formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions. For example, pollution from a state which is promoting industrialization in a big way can affect another region which depends solely on agriculture and cause crop damage.

From debates that I have held with many people on Facebook and from the position of unitarist Shona political elites, especially in Mashonaland who are opposed to Federalism, it seems this disadvantage is their main rallying point. They look at the resources of Bukalanga and think that once they allow for federalism, then they will lose out. This is a very greedy and selfish way of looking at things. Mashonaland itself is a bastion of agriculture in this country, and come what may, there will always be need for food. Not only is that the case, they already have a strong industrial base in Harare, not to mention the largest platinum mines in the country and tourists resources in Kariba and Chinhoyi. The same applies to Manicaland which sits on an estimated $800 billion dollars of diamond wealth. How on earth can such a region ever go broke? All we need is good planning and management on how to share resources and see to it that no region is left behind. This will also ensure even development in the country, instead of skyscrapers rising daily in Harare when all other regions have small towns that were built by the colonial regime!

There seems also to be fear of secession, something which has not been helped by the noises of the Mthwakazi movements. But this can simply be avoided by affording all communities their rights as well as maintaining a strong national defense force, which itself must reflect the country's diversity, as well as setting out very stringent rules if and whenever there is real need for any of the states to set up for themselves. Therefore, this supposed disadvantage has holes in it. Even a unitary system promotes regional inequalities as the last thirty years have amply demonstrated to us! The disparity in terms of national development between Harare and, say Bulawayo, Mutare, Gweru and Maswingo are just evidence enough. A unitary government fares no better at all when it comes to equitable national development.

4. Federalism does not eliminate poverty. The reason for this may be that during policy framing, it is the intellectuals and not the masses who are invited by the local government. The intellectuals may not understand the local needs properly, and thus policies might not yield good results. But again, this is a question of good governance and management versus bad governance and bad management. Any policy maker worthy his or her salt will ensure that in formulating policy, they reach out to all segments of society, instead of just the intellectuals or elites. And in any case, unitary government fares worse that federalism in this regard. If unitary government eliminated poverty, then Zimbabwe should have been very rich.

As we can see above, the disadvantages of Federalism are nothing more than mere challenges that can always be overcome. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Hence, Federalism is one of the most highly praised forms of government. Apart from John Stuart Mill referred to above; one commentator on American type federalism was Alexis de Tocqueville, an astute French observer visiting the United States in the early 1830s. He considered the American system of federalism unique and the greatest achievement of the Constitution of that country. Yet he was a citizen of France, one of the most highly centralized countries in Europe. In his celebrated study of American government and society entitled Democracy in America (1832), Tocqueville came to the conclusion that the federal arrangement was "the most favorable" form of government ever created to promote the "peace and freedom of man."

Half a century later, the distinguished British statesman and legal scholar James Bryce (the Lord Bryce we mentioned in The Rebirth as encouraging the missionary Henry Junod to undertake research on the culture and customs of the Tsonga) published The American Commonwealth (1888), a profound, comprehensive, and sympathetic analysis of American institutions that ranks with Tocqueville's work as one of the great classics of the American political system. Like Tocqueville, Lord Bryce was favorably impressed by American federalism, not withstanding his personal allegiance to the unitary system of Great Britain. He found federalism particularly well adapted to American soil because it united the States without extinguishing their governments and local traditions, and also supplied "the best means of developing a new and vast country." Moreover, he thought that the American system stimulated interest in local affairs, encouraged constructive experimentation in legislation and administration, and "relieved the national legislature of a part of that mass of functions which might otherwise prove too heavy for it." Echoing Tocqueville, Bryce equated federalism with freedom and surmised that it had made a valuable contribution to the welfare of the American people by preventing the rise of "despotic central government" in the United States.

To the durability of American federalism Lord Bryce attributed the fact that it tends to promote political stability. In framing a federal system, the architects of the Constitution faced an eternal dilemma: how to balance power between the central and State governments; or as he put it colorfully in an astronomical metaphor: how "to keep the centrifugal and centripetal forces in equilibrium, so that neither the planet states shall fly off into space, nor the sun of the central government draw them into its consuming fires." The advantage of the constitutional edifice built by the Framers is that it solved the problem by giving the national government a direct authority over all citizens, irrespective of the state governments, thereby safely leaving broad powers in the hands of State authorities. "And by placing the Constitution above both the national and State governments," observed Bryce, "it has referred the arbitrament of disputes between them and an independent body [i.e., the Supreme Court, for us the favored one being a Constitutional Court independent from the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal], charged with interpretation of the Constitution, a body which is to be deemed not so much as a third authority in the government as a living voice of the Constitution, the unfolder of the mind of the people whose will stands expressed in that supreme instrument."

Ndzimu-unami Emmanuel Moyo is the author of two books, The Rebirth of Bukalanga and Zimbabwe: The Case for Federalism, and can be contacted on ndzimuunami@gmail.com or www.ndzimuunami.blogspot.com.