Citizens should not be passive passengers in matters that affect them
Nick Mangwana View From the Diaspora
SOME say that being a citizen is a right. You are born with it and our Constitution says that nobody can and should take that away from you. That is very correct from a legal perspective. But from a moral perspective, that truth is not an absolute. Citizenship without a responsibility becomes a privilege. Nobody can take the right away, but the citizen would not optimise the benefit of such a right.
Citizens pay taxes and obey the law. But they also expect that the State and its players will apply that law equitably and fairly.
In short, there is an expectation that everyone will take responsibility and act within certain legal parameters. The citizen expects the State to provide them with security.
So if the citizen does not feel secure anymore and the source of apprehension is the State then that’s a pervasion of the State.
But the State does not expect the citizen to be a threat to it as well.
A few weeks ago a lot happened in the electoral sphere.
The so-called Diaspora vote issue was clarified by the supreme law of the country. Some were saying that they were being denied their right.
But this columnist contends that voting is not only a right, but a patriotic responsibility for every eligible citizen.
But that responsibility extends further in that people are not only expected to vote but to do so wisely.
And taking responsibility includes doing what it takes and going where it is that will make you cast that wise vote.
Some citizens accuse the Government (both central and local) of abdicating its responsibility. That may well be true. But people should never forget that they get a Government that they deserve. Every contract has a sunset clause. That includes the social contract between a government and its people.
In a republic like ours, the people are not the subject of their Government.
They are its principals and the Government is the agent.
A principal who doesn’t know what to do when they feel that their agent is acting in bad faith has only themselves to blame for their un-asserted right.
That principal is failing to take responsibility.
Our problem comes from those who don’t even bother to vote.
They believe that once their compatriots have chosen a government then that’s it.
They are passive participants and when things go wrong their role is to mourn and whinge.
They probably have never heard of the term “social innovation”.
It is up to the citizen to find their own social space in which they can flourish.
Any failures to do so again should be blamed on the proverbial man in the mirror.
Social innovations are new models, solutions, products or processes which are meant to meet a social need not met by the existing solutions.
But as citizens we have an expectation that a government we did not choose would deliver everyone of our outcomes whilst we act as passengers. As we know, the duty of a passenger is to pay a fare and then they have to be taken to their destination.
But in the socio-politico world it does not work like that, does it? You choose your government and you still hold it to account through your representatives. You also still also help steer the canoe to the shore.
We have to note that social challenges are not only a result of governmental problems.
They are more a result of citizen problem. Whilst some say the buck stops with leadership, the truth is that the buck should stop with Comrade Citizen.
Some might misread this by thinking that this piece is calling for political activism.
That’s a very small part of it. The lives of people are not all about politics. When people engage their Government there should be a subject on which they are engaging on. It is that subject that should be a social innovation. There is a need to be engaging with ideas that bring solutions to an obtaining need.
This is why the Government of Zimbabwe said some of its agenda will be met by private public partnerships. The “private” could be a private individual or a body corporate. It could also be a group of individuals that come together to form a consortium which will invest and bring about employment.
But, unfortunately, all we have are, “give us the promised jobs” cries. Whilst a lot of these cries would make sense, nobody is able to challenge the rebuttal that the Government does not create jobs except those in civil service. Now that one is already bloated and what should actually happen is the loss of some of those jobs to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The private sector and individuals should create jobs.
Where the Government comes in is the creation of an enabling environment for that to happen. This comes in the form of infrastructure such as adequate supply of energy, communication network and roads. Part of the enablers should also involve an incentivising tax regime as well as policies that are friendly enough to enable both local and foreign investment. To that add fiscal and economic policies that attract capital.
So when the citizenry engages its Government it should be issue specific. Rather than simply that the Zanu-PF-led Government should go. If it wins again like it is going to do in 2018, then what? Another five years of the “Zanu Yaora” insult? Those who say the indigenisation policy should go, though wrong is better, are engaging in a direct issue. Their problem will only come when they are asked specifically about the mining sector.
Do they want foreigners to come and extract mineral and spirit them away leaving just heaps of earth and former employees? On that one they can’t offer a solution but to accept the old. But they have a point in the packaging, the branding and execution of policies. The citizen has a role in interrogating and engaging in these issues. In fact, it is a responsibility.
There are areas where social provision has failed or collapsed. It is the role of the citizen to engage the State to change the necessary legislation so that social innovation can play a role. But a social innovative idea can only work when the State is lobbied directly on what needs to be done to enable the idea to come to fruition.
What poisons the social contract between the citizen and the State is a confrontational attitude by either part.
The citizen responsibility should not just be about street activity and defiance. Whilst those remain leverage, this columnist argues that these should be the nuclear option. Many a time this column has called on the State to deploy soft power in its dealings with the citizen. For it to work that call also goes to the citizen to deploy both the soft and smart power. The citizenry hardly has any hard-edged power anyway. So it has to play to its own strength.
The glaring gap between the citizen and their Government partially comes from the failure by the citizen to take responsibility that they have a role in making sure developmental programmes are oriented towards the needs of communities.
If the public has no influence in policymaking, it means that the public does not want it. Whilst the establishment is a bit hard of hearing there is some listening that goes on.
At the beginning of July this year a fellow Diasporan just walked into the right office and suggested that a junction that was notorious for being a traffic bottleneck could improve if it was converted into a roundabout/traffic circle. This was immediately considered and accepted. By now all wheels should be turning to full implementation. The citizen’s intervention was specific and in the right spirit. One hopes they would name the roundabout after him.
Citizens should not be passive passengers in matters that affect them. There should a cultural shift. Citizens have enough power to influence public affairs beyond the power to mourn and rant on social media. We have not heard of a group of citizens that have gone to their MP or counsellor as a unit and asserted their position on issues. Whilst MPs are voting on issues according to party whips, if the constituents were to engage their representative as a unit and express a firm position on an issue, the MP has no option but to take note.
The constituents’ position is likely to carry the day seeing that it is their view that MP has to represent if they want a chance of being retained in the next election.
We only have this top-down approach to public affairs because the citizens do not use their power.
Citizens are not leveraging their social capital because they use political parties as vehicles for social change.
This is what creates hostility between themselves and the establishment.
Even those that pretend to be apolitical let themselves be hijacked by politicians or in a bid to have impact incorporate political rhetoric literature and speeches.
The relationship between the establishment and the citizen is where it is today because the citizen has focused on how the State is organised instead of how the citizen is organised and who controls the developmental narrative outside politics. It is time for more social innovation.