By Nick Mangwana
The most prevalent carping remark provoked by any talk of a
National Diasporan Policy is "We want our vote". This has been a detraction from the main
thrust of a wider diasporan policy
framework. We have therefore decided to focus on the topic of a diaspora vote
this week. Like all political debates,
it will benefit more from an open mind
and maturity from all interlocutors.
The major argument being advanced by those who advocate to
participate in Zimbabweans elections
from their bases is that the diasporans
contribute over $2 billion to the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every
year. This therefore entitles them to some recognition and should obligate
their governments to facilitate them to vote from wherever they are based.
Those that oppose this argument contend that this money is not going through
the fiscus and therefore not taxation. Much of this money is for familial
social support therefore whilst it covers a lot of what a government would have
been expected to do for its citizens, it is still not taxation. One cannot say
that simply because they look after their mother or siblings therefore they
should be given a vote. If everyone in
Zimbabwe who looks after their folks was stopped from paying taxes then the
government would not function. At the
heart of this argument is the fact that the Zimbabwean diaspora should not be
lobbying for a vote unless they are prepared to pay taxes. Is it taxation or citizenship which should
determine who votes in an election? In Britain practically every tax payer
votes regardless of their citizenship.
The United States levies taxes on its expatriates income and
allows them to participate in all its elections and referenda. The old slogan
"No taxation without representation" comes to mind. So Americans are
taxed on everything they earn from anywhere in the world. Eritrea has started
taking 2% of all UK earnings from its diasporans for use back home. One can
already hear apoplectic shouts from the Zimbabwean diaspora against the mere
suggestion that they pay part of their income to the Government of Zimbabwe
(GoZ)!
Well, if people want to vote in the diasporan do they expect
the few taxes levied against street vendors and on airtime and other
micro-economic enterprise to be used to facilitate their vote in Birmingham,
Gauteng or Dallas? Someone has to pay. How would you justify taking millions
away from key services and allocating to the people that live in far off places
to determine your destiny?
From the cost of
campaigning to the holding of elections itself. Would you still expect an
economically challenged and an overstretched budget to track down,
register, conduct voter education and
campaigns and still hold an election with due integrity? This is because managing a vote in all these
places is quite expensive even if it based at the embassies. On the other side
of this argument is that with modern technology electronic voting should be
able to alleviate these challenges. Even this does not come cheap.
How about the security of the vote itself?We have always suffered from the sore loser syndrome in
African politics and particularly in Zimbabwe . Opposition parties never hardly
ever concede an election loss no matter how flawlessly it is conducted. Will
this not add another complex dimension
to the tired manipulation accusation? If one considers the figure of 3-4
million Zimbabweans in the diaspora
being thrown around, it means the value of the diasporan vote is not
only of a swing value but if the turnout is good it will be more than 3
provinces worthy. This makes it very substantial and as a result very
contentious. This leads straight to the question of whether everyone over
18 in the diaspora would be allowed to
vote.
The United States allows everyone. Britain allows only those
that have been out of the country for not more than 15 years only. Most countries the average is 6 years. Should we use the British system, most of the
people in the diasporan would be excluded from voting in 2018 anyway. The
United States is unlimited because of the issue of taxation. In the same vein we have to ask ourselves who
we should allow to vote in our national election. The person that left Zimbabwe 40 years ago,
his children and grand children or just him within 20 years of emigrating? To
make it limitless would provoke the question of, how much attached and in touch
are they still. How much engaged with the issues at home are they to be allowed
to determine leaders of a country they have little to with now? In most cases
they already vote where they reside and pay taxes, why would they be allowed to
vote and determine leadership in 2
countries (unless of course they pay taxes in both)?
How informed is someone resident elsewhere on issues on the
ground? The proliferation of the internet and social media makes it a bit
easier to be more or less au fair with the situation on the ground, but it is
still different from the one that experiences it. If the people in Zimbabwe
cannot boast that they are very much in touch with the situation on the ground
in Britain, then the reverse also holds true.
Can a person based in Zimbabwe vote on matters in Britain saying they
know all about it through social media and reading papers and the worldwide web?
The answer would probably be that parties would come and
campaign. Then the question of certain candidates having restrictions of
visiting other countries is another issue to deal with. The playing field would
not be fair as long as other key candidates are under sanctions. So a key step
is for everyone to campaign for the removal of sanctions against President
Mugabe and his family.
Currently Zimbabwe has a very simple attitude to the vote
from their diaspora. If you register to vote in Zimbabwe, by all means be
available on election day to vote. This
seems simple enough. But the diasporans do not want that. They want to vote
from their countries of residence. Over
120 countries allow some sort of voting in the diaspora and 21 of those
countries are African. The next question is over the threshold. How many
Zimbabweans should be in a certain
country to consider having a vote there? Mozambique says 1000. Maybe that's
actually not a bad thing. If we ask those who would vote in a Zimbabwean
election to go and register at their embassies as South Africa did in 2014,
wouldn't that be a good starting point in computing that illusive figure of
Zimbabweans in the Diaspora. That figure
is way too important for any meaningful policy formulation to be left unknown.
How about allocating
some parliamentary seats to the diaspora. This is not a new phenomenon. Some countries have already pioneered this.
France has 12 out of 331 reserved for the diaspora. Croatia allocates 6 out 152
seats to its diaspora. Algeria has a
parliament of 389 and 8 of the seats are reserved for the diaspora. Angola
allocates 3 out 220 seats to the diaspora.
Our own neighbour, Mozambique allocates 2 out of 250 seats to its
diaspora. This thrust is predicated upon the premise that these representatives
will be dealing with matters that not
only affect the diaspora, but will bring an international perspective to the
debate in the house which will also enrich it. At the heart of all these
structural arrangements is an effort not to disenfranchise any citizen. In
seeking a formula that works, every practical solution should be explored.
There is a global trend towards having a diaspora vote as a
universal standard. The fact that over 120 countries allow overseas voting does not necessarily mean that Zimbabwe is
out of step with others. The government position is mainly based on economics
rather than politics. Economic contributions to the fiscus would come with the
political outlet. This is not putting a price tag on democracy. It is just
being pragmatic to the reality of our circumstances. Goodness of an act must be
measured by consequences on society.
We do not even know how many Zimbabweans are out there
and where they are. How can even talk of
giving them the vote? We are even
fighting over the voter's roll in Zimbabwe. How much more will fight over the
diasporan voter's roll? In any case who will be eligible to vote in these
elections? The fact that there are more
questions than answers in this piece is probably a hint that there will be more
peevish and querulous bickering emanating from adding a diaspora element to the
conundrum of Zimbabwean elections. In all the arguments for and against
diaspora voting out there, the major ones are not against the principle itself
but are impinged on the practical feasibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cde Nick Mangwana is the Chairman of ZANU PF UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment