To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of Zimbabwe regarding the proposed change to the constitution which would allow President Mnangagwa to stand for a third term.
My Lords, UK officials remain in contact with the Government of Zimbabwe, civil society and other stakeholders as part of our ongoing engagement on this matter. The ambassador raised these issues yesterday with senior officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, constitutional amendments are a sovereign legislative matter for Zimbabwe. However, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association are essential to democracy. We continue to monitor reports of harassment and stress the importance of transparent, inclusive and lawful processes.
I thank the Minister for that response, but does he realise that the constitutional changes proposed will mean that the people of Zimbabwe will no longer elect their president, the electoral commission will be abolished, judicial appointments will become very unsafe, and there will be many more changes, all of which are anti-democratic? This is coupled with continued brutality, beatings, torture and imprisonment against opposition figures and those in civil society. I am glad that our ambassador has been having meetings, but can we have an assurance that he will speak out more strongly against the tyranny of the ZANU-PF regime, which rules by terror and threat of terror and is using these corrupt political processes to change the constitution and stay in power? Is it not time, finally, for a radical reappraisal of the United Kingdom Government’s engagement with SADC and the African Union to impress on them that only when we get free and fair elections throughout Africa and corruption is tackled will there be sustainable economic growth and social development in Africa?
There are a lot of questions there, but I will set out the position as clearly as I can. We share the concerns that have been highlighted in the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission’s report, that the constitutional amendment public consultations —to which the noble Baroness refers—were highly managed, with limited space for dissenting voices, civil society, and the media. I should also say that the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission is an agency of the Zimbabwean Government. We continue to urge that the constitutional reform processes are inclusive, transparent, and fully consistent with democratic principles and the rule of law. I spoke to the ambassador this morning, and he raised these issues yesterday.
On speaking out more strongly, frankly, the Government’s view is that 20 years of megaphone diplomacy did not get us anywhere, and we are now in the business of engaging, though we do not underestimate the concerns that the noble Baroness is raising.
My Lords, I begin by declaring that my British wife is also an African Zimbabwean. My father-in-law, who as a young man taught Robert Mugabe, resisted Mugabe’s regime with humour and disparagement. The Zimbabweans have a sophisticated understanding of democracy, which is their cultural tradition. Their democratic sentiments were eloquently expressed in the protests that accompanied Mugabe’s steps to appoint himself president for life. The symbol of the protests was a little red card held aloft. It signified that politics is a game that must be played according to the rules, which Mugabe had violated. It behoves us—
The question will come. It behoves us to support this spirit of democracy, and to prevail upon other African members of the Commonwealth to exert pressure upon this regime. Might I ask the Minister—
My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot match my noble friend’s commitment to humour and disparagement as a tool for democracy today. I take seriously what he says about the importance of democracy, and it is no secret that we have a long people-to-people relationship with the people of Zimbabwe, not all of which reflects terribly well on the UK. We will continue to build those relationships.
My Lords, ZANU-PF has justified extending the term of the president, and giving him a third term, on the grounds that he is “doing a good job”. It has also said that not having elections from the people, but in parliament, will save money and reduce the risk of violence, which we know is mostly perpetrated against the people by ZANU-PF. What is the price of democracy? Does it not show that ZANU-PF has utter contempt for democracy, and how can we challenge it to reverse its decisions?
There is an active civil society in Zimbabwe. My noble friend Lord Collins visited last year, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including the Zimbabwean Government. We welcome the president’s re-engagement efforts, and the progress on economic reform, but we understand the concerns about these constitutional reforms as proposed, and we will continue to advocate about that.
My Lords, the Minister probably knows that Zimbabwe is rather keen to rejoin the Commonwealth. Could it be explained to President Mnangagwa that the chances of doing so will be much improved if he stands down after two terms, since the Commonwealth on the whole—it does not always work—prefers presidents of two terms rather than indefinite terms?
The noble Lord regularly raises the Commonwealth, and I appreciate its importance. There was a Commonwealth assessment mission in 2023, and we would welcome another assessment mission. In the end, it will be a matter for the Secretary-General to make a recommendation, and for all members of the Commonwealth to take a view.
My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, my diocese of Southwark is linked with four of the five Anglican dioceses in Zimbabwe, and I have visited our link dioceses on many occasions. I note that the Zimbabwe Council of Churches has called this week for the withdrawal or amendment of the Bill currently before the Zimbabwean parliament. Would the Minister advise the House what the reaction has been of neighbouring states to this latest development in the governance of Zimbabwe and its wonderful people, so poorly served by those currently in power?
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. If he will forgive me, I do not think I should speak on behalf of the other states around Zimbabwe, but I have made clear what this Government’s view is on these proposed constitutional changes, and we shall continue to make that case.
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say. These changes are profoundly undemocratic, extending the current presidential mandate and abolishing the elections, with violence and intimidation at the public meetings when it was discussed. What I have heard from the Minister is lots of “consultation” and “listening carefully”, but I have not heard any condemnation in what he had to say.
I have not used the words “consultation” or “listening carefully”. I have said that we will engage with the Zimbabwe Government on these issues, and the ambassador raised our concerns as recently as yesterday. I am sorry, that is a complete travesty of what I have said.