Protect Universal Suffrage

My understanding is that our constitution is based on UNIVERSAL suffrage. That means EVERY citizen has a right to vote. That is what Zanu-PF (and PF-ZAPU) fought for, which is why one of the slogans was one man one vote.

Has our constituion now removed UNIVERSAL suffrage and replaced it with qualified suffrage. Qualified suffrage makes use of a voters roll with anyone not on there not allowed to vote.

The Rhodesian system used qualified suffrage with the qualifiying criteria being race. Later they introduced a B roll where the qualifying criteria was now property ownership for blacks. The A roll was exclusively for whites.

The property clause automatically disqualified most blacks who lived in native reserves. The property there was the Queen's Land, later Tribal trust lands. Also the Group Area act prevented blacks from owning property in areas where title deeds where issued. For the born frees Group Areas act barred blacks from owning propery in the suburbs (Waterfalls, Borrowdale, Chisipite even Southerton and Ardbennie). The areas for well to do blacks were Marimba Park in Mufakose and Old Highfield where Nkomo's house was.

So if now the constitution says someone has to be on a voters roll for them to vote, does this mean Zanu-PF has backtracked on what it fought for?

Please do not tell me that there is no qualifying criteria there is. Someone has to have money for transport and time available to go to the registration centres.

It also means gravely sick people are disqualified because someone has to be healthy enough to travel to the registration centres. If a person is bedridden or in hospital at the time of registration and inspection.

I need answers from Zanu-PF leaders, do we no longer have universal suffrage. If you say we do, please explain how the current system caters for that.

Remember universal suffrage means everyone qualifies to vote in the presidential election. It is only in the council and constituency elections where the address needs to be known for ward and constituency purposes. Even then someone can declare their intended voting ward at the time of voting. As long as they are prevented from voting in another ward (by the indellible ink) it is fine.

The proof of address requirement is a way of sneaking the property qualification used by the Rhodesians back into voting system. For you to have proof of address you need to have a property registered in your name.

Yes I do known that a letter from the headman or chief is acceptable but that means your voting right is now under the control and subject to the whims of another person. That is one of the reasons why chiefs and headman have started to increasingly assert control over the voting activities of people living in their areas. If I give you the letter (proof of address) that enables you to vote in the first place then you should do my biding shouldn't you?

At the very least I have a platform to tell you what my interests are (who to vote for) and if you do not take care of my interests why should I take care of yours? Besides the possibility of denying you proof of address next time, there are lots of other things like when drawing up lists for aid and food distribution.

Opposition parties complain about chiefs and headman influencing voters, yet they are the main advocates of a system that gives them direct power over voters.