Voter at Cinquera Consultation, Feb 26. 2017. Credit: Aruna Dutt

By Aruna Dutt
Cabañas, El Salvador, Mar 1 2017 (IPS)

The citizens of Cinquera municipality in Cabañas delivered a resounding vote against mining, on Sunday February 26th, when 98 percent of residents voted in favour of becoming El Salvador’s fifth “territory free of mining.”

“Mining companies have a wide field with major extension in other countries, and often they need to use the comparative law of other countries to be able to apply their practices here in El Salvador. But the truth is that El Salvador is a country so small that industrial mining is not viable,”Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, William Iraheta told IPS.

El Salvador is the smallest country in Central America, but also has the highest population density, with 300 people per square kilometer. It is also the fourth most vulnerable country to climate change according to GermanWatch, with 95% of the population living in a high-risk zone.

Ana Marina Alvarenga, FMLN, speaking at Cinquera mining consultation. Credit: Aruna Dutt

Last year, the national government declared a water emergency. The Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) concluded that only two percent of the country`s surface water is fit for human consumption and for the growth of aquatic life. Currently, those living in rural areas pay to have bottled water shipped by private companies. El Salvador’s environmental crisis and contamination of the population’s water, two-thirds of which comes from the Lempa River, has also been caused by the disparaging practices of metal mining in northeastern El Salvador.

The case of the Canadian mining company, Pacific Rim, and San Sebastian River pollution are the most visible examples of this destructive legacy.

Acid Drainage from Abandoned mine in San Sebastian River, Credit: Aruna Dutt

Between 1998 and 2003, 29 exploration licences were granted to mining companies, the most prominent being the Canadian company, Pacific Rim – now OceanaGold. When the government of El Salvador refused to provide mining permits to Pacific Rim’s proposed El Dorado mine because it failed to meet the government’s environmental requirements, the company sued the Salvadoran Government in 2009 for $77 million through a World Bank trade tribunal, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Such demands are based on provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Salvadoran Investment Law. The Salvadoran Government won the lawsuit last October after spending millions on defense, but Pacific Rim/Oceana Gold has yet to pay up.

Even though the State of El Salvador recently won the case against the Canadian/Australian mining company, Oceana Gold, the struggle of the Salvadoran people for the defense of their environment continues.

“Currently it is the executive government, the president, who has been refusing mining projects, but there is no guarantee that these projects will be stopped in the future without a law,” said Ana Marina Alvarenga, FMLN (Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front) congresswoman for the department of Cabañas at the Cinquera consultation.

“The position of our FMLN party supports the creation and passing of a law at the national level that definitely prohibits mining in our country. It is part of the legislative agenda or of the legislative platform for the FMLN 2015 to 2018 period to approve this law of prohibition of the metallic mining.”

International Observers at Cinquera Consultation, Feb 26th, 2017. Credit: Aruna Dutt.

As a way to pressure the Salvadoran government to implement a law definitively banning mining in El Salvador, social movements together with organised communities have been organizing to bring community consultations.

“Cabañas is located in the upper basin of the Lempa River, and in this sense any mining project that is in Cabañas, unfortunately will bring negative consequences for all departments through which the river Lempa runs, which is the majority,” said Alvarenga.

Since 2005, coinciding with the emergence of opposition to mining in Cabañas, the El Dorado Foundation has been operating in Cabanas as the public face of Pacific Rim/OceanaGold in El Salvador.

The foundation makes donations to local schools, sponsors health clinics, offers computer and English classes, and promotes business training for women, among other activities allowing the mining company to act as a benefactor to the surrounding communities.

“Mining Contaminates and Kills” Mural in Cinquera. Feb 26, 2017. Credit: Aruna Dutt

“The communities understand the impacts of mining but have become dependent on these services they provide,” says Vidalina Morales, President of the Association of Economic and Social Develop (ADES), who is also a member of the National Round-table against Metal Mining in El Salvador (La MESA) and has worked directly on mining issues as an organiser in Cabañas communities since 2006.

The foundation’s work is intended to enhance the company’s public reputation and cultivate support for the proposed El Dorado mine project.

Of particular concern is the threat of angry and potentially violent reprisals from people or groups receiving benefits, or who expect to receive benefits, should the mining project proceed. As determined by the regional court, Pacific Rim has been responsible for violence in Cabanas which has already claimed five lives, including three environmentalists: Marcelo Rivera, Ramiro Rivera, Dora Sorto and her unborn baby, and Juan Francisco Durán. The climate of fear resulting from these assassinations and other threats of violence is still palpable in the communities today.

“Although these companies may have financial and resource capital, the capital we have is community organising” said Pedro Cabezas, a representative of International Allies Against Mining, and the Association for the Development of El Salvdador (CRIPDES).

Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, William Iraheta, overseeing the Cinquera consultation process. Feb 26th, 2017. Credit: Aruna Dutt

The election on Sunday was historic for the municipality of Cinquera, being  the first municipality of Cabañas, a largely agricultural territory bordering Honduras,  that initiated this process of popular consultation (consulta popular). Organised by the mayor’s office, along with the social organizations of the municipality of Cinquera, the direct vote resulted in 52% participation and 98% of votes against mining.

Community consultations (consultas) are a new phenomenon in El Salvador, but not a new phenomenon in Latin America. There have been consultas all through Mexico, Central America, South America, and there are different legal figures which communities utilise to hold consultas. A figure in El Salvador’s municipal code allows local municipalities to hold referendums to consult with communities on issues that truly affect them in their personal or family life.

Counting the votes, Cinquera, Feb 26. 2017. Credit: Aruna Dutt

Consultations are also a strategy to keep communities engaged and maintain the debate on both a national and local level. They involve an extensive organising process including petitions, campaigns, and work in every community in the municipality Said Cabezas.

It is also a process of educating the population at the grassroots level and keeping them informed about the issue of mining and involved in the process of using local democracy tools to defend their territory.

Vidalina Morales, ADES, at Cinquera Consulta, Feb 26, 2017. Credit: Aruna Dutt

“The subject of mining is seen to bring development to the communities. If the companies come, it’s true, they bring it as a profit: by units of work, development to the communities,” Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, William Iraheta told IPS.

“But that is only the beginning – and at the end is a disaster. They deplete natural resources and at the end, only leave disaster for the communities. Since this directly affects communities, they must take into account, and have information on both sides of the argument to be able to decide what is viable for the community. ” Iraheta said.

Bernardo Belloso, President of CRIPDES which was part of the preparation of the popular consultation, said that it is not enough to have this municipal ordinance.

“We hope that this experience will also serve for other municipalities, ” said Belloso, “We want a more secure society for our future generations. It is important that the entire Salvadoran population take a position in order to defend the territory and defend the few natural resources that remain and our sovereignty, ” he said.

Correction: An earlier version of this article included a misspelling of William Iraheta’s name.

Joaquín Roy

By Joaquín Roy
MIAMI, Jun 27 2016 (IPS)

The hopes of many of those who confidently expected the British electorate to vote, by a slender margin, for the country to remain in the EU have been dashed. All that is left to do now is to ponder the causes and background of this regrettable event, and consider its likely consequences, especially for relations with the United States.

In the first place one must point out and – and this is a general criticism of the present British political system – that Prime Minister David Cameron was hugely irresponsible to steer his country into this risky adventure. It has resulted in the worst calamity to befall Britain in the last half century and has inflicted severe damage not only on the EU but also on all the countries of the North Atlantic rim.

Cameron went out on a limb, thinking to secure total control over the country for his Conservative Party for the next several years. Next he pursued a surrealist referendum campaign agenda, seeking to persuade the public to vote to remain in the EU, against the Brexit proposal that he himself had engineered. He relied on the advantages and special privileges promised to the UK by the EU if the British people voted to remain.

Brussels had already warned that the EU would not grant Britain any further concessions or benefits over and above the conditions that apply in common to all EU members. It pointed out that Britain was in fact already a privileged partner, having opted out of the common currency (the euro) under a special agreement that did not even fix a timescale for its putative future membership of the euro area.

London also retains full control of Britain’s borders, having declined to sign the innovative Schengen Agreement which abolished many internal borders and introduced passport-free movement across the 26 Schengen countries.

The EU has indeed done everything in its power to keep the UK government and people happy and flaunting their prized British exceptionalism.

And now the fateful moment is at hand. The effect on Europe has been devastating. The one possible advantage for the EU – which has discreetly remained unvoiced – is that of ridding itself of an awkward partner, a dinner guest with an unfortunate habit of drawing attention to itself in negative ways. Britain slammed the brakes on progress towards fuller European integration and was a temptation to other recalcitrant EU countries to follow its bad example.

Recently concerns were raised in Washington over the Brexit referendum.

President Barack Obama himself did his best to urge Britons to stick with the EU when he visited London in April.

Cameron, and the people who voted for the UK to leave the EU, have done Obama a disservice. Britain’s image in the United States will deteriorate to unprecedented depths. The vaunted special relationship between the U.S. and Britain will no longer be an effective force underpinning one of the strongest alliances in recent history.

The first victim of the debacle may be the approval process for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, which is already looking shaky, at least for the immediate future.

The TTIP was meant to replicate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious deal to cut trade barriers, set labour and environmental standards and protect corporate intellectual property. The TPP was signed in principle by twelve Pacific Rim countries including the United States, and now awaits approval by legislators in each of the countries.

The rise of populism and anti-free trade sentiment is reflected in speeches by both U.S. presidential candidates, and is likely to slow down what is now viewed as “excessive globalisation”. There is a return to a style of nationalism that exerts control over economic as well as political initiatives.

The next U.S. president will find it difficult to advance their country’s alliance with London on defence issues. The UK will have freed itself from what was already problematic military cooperation with Europe, and only its link with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) will endure. Some European NATO partners will be cautious about developing joint operations with a fellow member they view as uncommitted to agreements within the EU.

In the matter of trade per se, Washington will not take kindly to the new position of the City of London once it has lost its enviable status as a financial hub embedded in the EU. Siren songs from other European capitals solidly anchored in the soon-to-be expanded European community will be hard to resist, especially if European leaders adopt policies to strengthen the euro zone.

In Latin America, Brexit will be read as a confirmation that supranational practices and thoroughgoing integration are no longer a priority for the UK. The referendum result sends the message that national sovereignty is now paramount. All the time and effort the EU has spent over the years to promote the advantages of the European model of integration, based on the strength of its treaties and the effectiveness of its institutions, will be regretted as a sheer waste of time and energy.

An alternative “model of integration” based on the U.S. agenda, favouring one-off arrangements or treaties limited in scope exclusively to trade issues, will prevail over the already weakened European model.

The Caribbean region has strong historical and cultural ties to Britain. It will suffer from a less secure bond with the UK and will incline more closely to Washington.

The continent of the Americas, which is closest to Britain from the point of view of history and culture as well as in political and economic terms, will thus find itself further apart from Europe than before.

Joaquin Roy is Jean Monnet Professor and Director of the European Union Centre at  the University of Miami.  jroy@Miami.edu

Translated by Valerie Dee

Excerpt:

By Roberto Savio
ROME, Dec 4 2014 (IPS)

The fact that in a referendum Switzerland has taken a path that goes in the opposite direction from that of Europe is an unusual fact which calls for reflection, especially because Switzerland has taken a much more progressive path, while we all were accustomed to see it as a very conservative country.

On Nov. 30, Swiss citizens were asked to vote on a proposal for reducing immigrants to a maximum of 17,000 per year, compared with 88.000 in 2013. This was rejected by 73 percent of the voters, after a unanimous campaign by the government, industrialists and trade unions that without immigrants there would be serious problems in keeping the economy expanding.

Roberto Savio

It is worth noting that foreigners account for 23.5 percent of the population in Switzerland, compared with an average of 4 percent in Europe as a whole.

Another proposal in the same referendum called for dedicating 10 percent of Swiss international cooperation to birth control in poor countries in order to reduce their birth rate. It was clearly a racist proposal, and was also defeated. Swiss citizens have no right to decide birth policies in other countries.

While the Swiss were voting, British Prime Minister David Cameron was making public his proposal to drastically restrict European immigration. Europeans would be expelled if they did not find a job within six months. They would have work continuously for four years before having access to the country’s social benefits of the country. They would also face restrictions to their right to bring their families with them, even after finding a job.“The real problem is that Europe has a dramatic lack of real statesmen or stateswomen who are ready to go against the polls for the good of their country”

The same debate is going on in Germany, where the government is also carrying out a media campaign to popularise its bill of law which also contemplates the expulsion of European immigrants who do not find a job within six months. It is obvious that this will have a cascade effect in several other European countries.

In both cases, this is an attempt to undercut anti-European parties – the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) which is on the rise in Britain and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, although the AfD is not a threat like the UKIP and what Chancellor Angela Merkel is doing amounts to an act of populism.

There is a wave of xenophobia spreading throughout Europe. Marine Le Pen’s National Front is aiming to become the number one party in France. In Italy, the right-wing Northern League is growing by the day. Today there is a xenophobic and anti-European party in every country of Europe, with the notable exception of Spain, where the People’s Party has been able to make a right-wing party redundant.

What is striking is that all those parties are creating alliances and creating a pan-European rejection of the European Union. Marine Le Pen has just chaired a meeting in Lyon of seven extreme right-wing parties, like the Flemish Vlaame Belang in Belgium and the Dutch Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders.

What was even more striking was the presence of two leaders of Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party. Among Europe’s right-wing parties there is growing support for Putin, and a Russian bank, the First Czech-Russian Bank with headquarters in Moscow, has just given a loan of nine million dollars to the Le Pen’s National Front.

The reality is that Europe is in serious need of young immigrants to remain competitive internationally, and innumerable studies show that immigrants have a positive impact on the economy.

In England, immigrants account for 4.3 percent of the population, their rate of employment is 78.8 percent, slightly higher than the British average (73.6 percent), and just 15 percent of immigrants request some kind of subsidy. According to a study by University College London, European immigrants who arrived in the United Kingdom contributed more than 20 billion pounds to the country’s public finances between 2001 and 2011.

Similarly, all national and European studies on immigration show that immigrants request less subsidies than nationals, are net contributors in terms of taxation, and take jobs that nationals no longer want.

According to United Nations projections, Europe has a deficit of 20 million people if it wants to keep the pension system viable, but this is not simply “politically correct” at this moment. The very small minority of immigrants involved in crime is what everybody sees through strong media exposure, and the parties which are making their fortune are calling for a white and pure Europe again.

Pope Francis speaks about ethics and solidarity with immigrants, but if parties are able to ignore economics, just imagine ethics!

The Spanish National Institute of Statistics has just released its latest findings, and they are in line with similar studies everywhere in Europe. In 1976, 676,718 children were born in Spain – 18.7 babies for every 1,000 mothers. In 1995, there were 363,467 births – 9.2 babies for every 1,000 mothers.

For every 100 Spaniards of working age, 27.6 are over the age of 64 – by 2050, this figure will be closer to 73. An even more extreme figure comes from the Population Division of the United Nations. If the Spanish borders were to be closed and nobody could enter or leave, and with the growing reduction in the number of women of fertile age, by 2100 the Spanish population would stand at around 800,000 people!

We have just to look to the United States to see the opposite policy. Every year, young people bring constant expansion to the labour force and the economy. Not even the most rabid Republican speaks of abolishing immigration, just of keeping it at a lower rate.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is riding the issue of immigration due his shrinking popularity, but in the opposite direction. He wants to legalise as many illegal immigrants as possible … and there are already 52 million immigrants.

The real problem is that Europe has a dramatic lack of real statesmen or stateswomen who are ready to go against the polls for the good of their country. The best example is the powerful Angela Merkel, who has never taken any risk or any difficult decision (except on abolishing nuclear power, and that only because of the general aversion after the Japanese tsunami).

Merkel’s comment on the law on restricting European immigrants was: “Europe is not a social union”. In other words, the flow of capital is protected, the flow of workers is not.

In all this, the European Commission has been silent on immigration. And now, its President, Jean-Claude Juncker, unmoved by the revelations on how he helped hundreds of corporations to avoid taxes in Europe with deals in Luxembourg, is now presenting a development plan to which the Commission would contribute just 10 percent and the remaining 90 percent would be funded by the private sector… and that is his landmark!

Europe is clearly committing suicide and people will find out when it has already lost its position in world competition … only then, maybe, will the difference between a statesman and a politician become clear. (IPS/COLUMNIST SERVICE)

(Edited by Phil Harris)

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

The blue and white Saltire flag of Scotland flutters next to the Union Jack during the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Credit: Vicky Brock/cc by 2.0

By Phil Harris
ROME, Sep 16 2014 (IPS)

After a two-year referendum campaign, Scots are finally voting Thursday on whether their country will regain its independence after more than 300 years of “marriage” with England.

It is still uncertain whether those in favour will win the day, but whichever way the wind blows, things are unlikely to be the same – and not just in terms of political relations between London and Edinburgh.If an independent Scotland were actually to abolish nuclear weapons from its territory, the government of what remains of today’s United Kingdom would be forced to look elsewhere for places in which to host its sea-based nuclear warheads – and this will be no easy task.

One bone of contention between Scots and their “cousins” to the south of Hadrian’s Wall – built by the Romans to protect their conquests in what is now England and, according to Emperor Hadrian’s biographer, “to separate the Romans from the barbarians” to the north – is the presence on Scottish territory of part of the United Kingdom’s nuclear arsenal.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), which supports an independent and non-nuclear Scotland, wants Scotland to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union, but rejects nuclear weapons.

The United Kingdom currently has four Vanguard class submarines armed with nuclear-tipped Trident missiles based at Gare Loch on the west coast of Scotland, ostensibly there for the purpose of deterrence – but that was back in the days of the Cold War.

If an independent Scotland were actually to abolish nuclear weapons from its territory, the government of what remains of today’s United Kingdom would be forced to look elsewhere for places in which to host its sea-based nuclear warheads – and this will be no easy task.

The search would be on for another deep-water port or ports, and the UK government has already said that other potential locations in England are unacceptable because they are too close to populated areas – although that has not stopped it from placing some of its nuclear submarines and their deadly cargo  not far from Glasgow since 1969.

In any case, if those in favour of Scottish independence win, just the possibility that Scotland might even begin to consider the abolition of nuclear arms would oblige the UK government to give the nature of its commitment to nuclear weapons a major rethink.

The same would be true even if those in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom win because there would still be a not insignificant number of Scots against nuclear weapons.

Either scenario indicates that Scotland could come to play a significant role in discussions on nuclear disarmament although, clearly, this role would be all the more important as an independent nation participating in NATO, following in the footsteps of NATO member countries like Canada, Lithuania and Norway which do not allow nuclear weapons on their territory.

And what could come of NATO initiatives such as that taken at its summit in Wales earlier this month to create a new 4,000 strong rapid reaction force for initial deployment in the Baltics?

As Nobel Peace Laureate Maired Maguire has said, that “is a dangerous path for us all to be forced down, and could well lead to a third world war if not stopped. What is needed now are cool heads and people of wisdom and not more guns, more weapons, more war.”

An independent Scotland could raise its voice in favour of prohibiting nuclear weapons at the global level and add to the lobby against the threats posed by the irresponsible arms brandishing of NATO.

Representatives of the SNP have said that they are ready to take an active part in humanitarian initiatives on nuclear weapons and support negotiations on an international treaty to prohibit – and not just limit the proliferation of – nuclear weapons, even without the participation of states in possession of such weapons.

What justification would then remain for these states?

Meanwhile, as Scots go to vote in their independence referendum, there is another aspect of the nuclear issue that the UK government still has to come to terms with – nuclear energy.

Scotland used to be home to six nuclear power stations. Four were closed between 1990 and 2004, but two still remain – the Hunterston B power station in North Ayrshire and the Torness power station in East Lothian – both of which are run by EDF Energy, a company with its headquarters in London.

A YouGov public opinion poll in 2013 showed that Scots are twice as likely to favour wind power over nuclear or shale gas. Over six in 10 (62 percent) people in Scotland said they would support large-scale wind projects in their local area, well more than double the number who said they would be in favour of shale gas (24 percent) and almost twice as many as for nuclear facilities (32 percent).

Hydropower was the most popular energy source for large-scale projects in Scotland, with an overwhelming majority (80 percent) in favour.

So, with a strong current among Scots in favour of ‘non-nuclear’, whatever the outcome of Thursday’s referendum, London would be well-advised that the “barbarians” to its north could teach a lesson or two in a civilised approach to 21^st century coexistence.

Phil Harris is Chief, IPS World Desk (English service). He can be contacted at pharris@ips.org

2012 Catalan independence protest. Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Kippelboy

By Julio Godoy
BARCELONA, May 24 2014 (IPS)

The debate on Catalonian efforts to become a sovereign state independent from Spain has become the centre of the otherwise tedious European Parliament elections campaign this month.

In December last year, the Barcelona-based regional Catalonian conservative government, the Generalitat, announced that it would carry out a referendum to decide whether Catalonia will remain part of the Spanish state, or declares independence. The local parliament has scheduled the referendum for November 9, 2014.

“Spain is undoubtedly a democracy … but it doesn’t have the same depth as British democracy” -- Artur Mas, President of Catalonia’s Generalitat
For the conservative central government in Madrid, such a referendum cannot take place because the national constitution does not foresee such popular consultations.

Catalonian independence activists argue that the region, Spain’s leading industrial cluster, pays too many taxes to the central budget, in exchange for low quality public services. Yet another argument in favour of independence is that the central government insists on imposing Castellan culture to the detriment of local traditions, in particular the use of the Catalonian language.

According to official 2014 figures, Catalonia is the fourth richest region in Spain, as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. However, Catalonia pays the largest contribution to the Spanish central budget, only after Madrid. To make this imbalance worse, the region’s benefit is a relatively low investment from Madrid.

In 2010, for example, Catalonia contributed almost 62 billion Euros in taxes to the central budget, but only received public investments of over 45 billion, amounting to a deficit of 8.5 percent of the Catalonian GDP. This imbalancehas been growing since 2007.

As Elisanda Paluzie, professor of economics at the University of Barcelona, puts it, Catalonia feels like a “a cash cow (which) pay(s) Swedish-level taxes in exchange for sub-par public services.”

Artur Mas, president of the Generalitat, and leading political figure supporting the Nov 9 referendum, has called this fiscal imbalance “discriminatory, unfair, and arbitrary”.

In a document prepared by the Generalitat, and released in October last year, the Barcelona government estimated that the central government in Madrid owes more than nine billion Euros to Catalonia, as a consequence of its non-compliance with investment agreements with the Catalonian region.

Despite years of Catalonian efforts to obtain a new fixing of this ratio and of the central Spanish budget, or to legally give priority to Catalonian culture and traditions, in particular the use of the Catalan language, so far nothing has changed, in particular because the central authorities in Madrid have always rejected such proposals.

In 2010, the Madrid Constitutional Court invalidated 14 articles and established an official interpretation of 27 other declarations contained in the so-called Catalonian Statute, a sort of Catalonian constitution, which had been approved by the Catalonian parliament and by a popular referendum in 2006.

In particular, the Madrid court annulled a statute article calling the Catalonian language “the preferred” language in the region.

Madrid authorities also deny the fiscal imbalance, and dismiss the Catalonian claims as “lies”. Spanish Minister of Finance Cristobal Montoro said in October last year that “Madrid pays Catalonia’s bills”.

Even Socialist opposition leaders in Madrid reject the Catalonian claims. Joaquin Leguina, former president of the Madrid regional government, proposed paying “the nine billion Euro that Catalonia demands, on the condition that the Catalonian people shut their mug for ever.”

In other declarations, local leaders have called the Catalonian independence campaign “nationalist vomits”.

As the European Parliament elections campaign, being held May 22-25, reaches an end, Spanish political parties have seasoned their electoral efforts with insulting allusions to Catalonia. María Dolores Cospedal, secretary general of the conservative Popular Party (PP), which rules the central government in Madrid, accused Artur Mas of “fomenting hatred and national division with his lies and frauds.”

Mas replied: “Catalonian is a peace loving nation which only wants to vote and to listen” to the people’s will

For Catalonian people, such debates “only heat the tensions” already in place among Spain’s regions. Dani, owner of a small enterprise in Gracia, a popular district in Barcelona, complained that “it should be possible to discuss such a matter in a civilised democratic way, without exchanging insults.

Dani, who has relatives in Britain, said that he has been following the debates about the independence referendum in Scotland, scheduled for September 18. “People in England and in Scotland are exchanging the pros and cons on the question of Scottish independence, but they don’t call each other liars or dictators.”

“Nobody in England questions the right of Scottish people to decide,” Dani added. A popular Catalonian slogan in favour of the referendum says “In a democracy, it is normal to vote”, a reaction to Madrid’s rejection of the November referendum.

Artur Mas has also referred to these differences in public. In an interview, Mas said, “there’s a more profound democratic will in Britain than in Spain. I regret that because I would love to say that in Spain there is the same talent for democracy or the same feeling for democracy.”

“Spain is undoubtedly a democracy,” Mas added. “But it doesn’t have the same depth as British democracy.”

The Scottish and Catalonian quests for independence constitute a major challenge for the European Union because, if the separatists win, the body would have to decide whether it accepts the new states as members. In the Catalonian case, European authorities would also have to decide whether the new state may keep the Euro as its national currency.

For Catalonia, with strong trade links with the rest of Europe, a loss of such status would represent a substantial economic setback. Both Scottish and Catalonian independence activists have made it clear that they want the eventual new states to remain as members of the European Union.

So far, the authorities in Brussels have tried to avoid taking sides in the debates. But José Manuel Barroso, president of European Commission, warned Catalonia and Scotland alike that, in case they become independent states, they would have to leave the EU and ask to be re-admitted.

However, there is no legal cadre sustaining such position. As Artur Mas pointed out in the interview, “there are no precedents. In the EU treaties, and more precisely in the Lisbon Treaty, there’s no consideration of cases” such as the Catalonian and Scottish quests for independence.

Indeed, no European law-maker has ever considered the possibility that a region within an EU member state would declare independence from that state but ask to remain part of the body.

Mas noted that European authorities could not take away “the rights of citizenship held for many many years by Scottish citizens or Catalans; citizenship rights that can’t be annulled or swept aside overnight.”

A pro-Russian protestor screams at Ukrainian riot police outside the regional administration building in downtown Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. Credit: Zack Baddorf/IPS.

By Zack Baddorf
DONETSK, Ukraine, Mar 23 2014 (IPS)

In Donetsk’s Lenin Square, Yuroslav Korotenko keeps a constant vigil inside a tent erected just a few feet away from a massive statue of Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.

“We stay here and save this monument and this place, because people in the West come [to] this place with war,” Korotenko told IPS. “People from Donetsk think about peace with Russian Federation and don’t want war in our town.”“People don’t accept the new government that is now in Kiev."

Korotenko describes himself as a protector of the square, where thousands of pro-Russian protestors have held daily demonstrations in support of a referendum to join Russia and in opposition to the government formed in Ukraine after former president Viktor Yanukovych absconded to Russia.

“People don’t accept the new government that is now in Kiev,” said Alex Yoktov, a Donetsk native who attends the rallies. “It’s like one oligarch switched to another oligarch in the government.”

Yoktov said the Euromaidan movement in the capital Kiev used violence and “extremists to get to power.” The Euromaidan protests in Kiev were held over the past several months to demand closer integration with the EU.

“I fear that Nazis like Svoboda [a Ukrainian political party] and stuff, and such parties will be the main power of the country,” he told IPS. “So they can do whatever they want. It will be almost the same situation … in Germany when fascists come to power.”

Home to about two million people, Donetsk is a major economic, industrial and scientific hub in the east located about 80 kilometres from Russia.

In early March, the city council of Donetsk called for a referendum on the future of the region to “protect the citizens from possible violent actions on the behalf of radicalised nationalistic forces.”

The council noted that it considers Russia a strategic partner.

Yoktov said he feels closer to Russia than Europe. “It’s like native relations. We are the same people as in Russia. They’re our brothers.” Many people in the region, including Yoktov, have relatives in Russia.

Nadiia Zima, a 24-year-old teacher in Donetsk, disputes Yoktov’s claim. She has protested on the streets of Donetsk in support of Euromaidan, and wasn’t paid.

Zima is convinced there will be a referendum in Donetsk, since Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the eastern part of Ukraine is historically Russian. “Any referendum is to my mind just an imperial desire of the Russian president,” Zima told IPS.

Zima worries about her country’s future. “I fear that war can start,” she told IPS. “The thing that I am afraid of more is that our Donetsk region is going to be the next after Crimea.”

Vitalik, standing guard at a Ukrainian police checkpoint about 20 kilometers outside Donetsk with about eight Ukrainians fears war, too. He didn’t want to give his last name because he fears being targeted by Ukrainian security forces.

The self-organised, unarmed volunteers huddle together near an orange and black St George flag that symbolises Russian military valour.

“We’re stopping buses that are moving around this country to check that there are no guns, weapons and stuff like that and some strange people,” Vitalik told IPS. “We are protecting Donetsk.”

The 30-year-old construction worker said he’s especially concerned about the new 60,000-strong Ukrainian National Guard, which would include members of the Right Sector paramilitary group who fought in the Euromaidan protests in Kiev.

“It’s not like we don’t trust the Ukrainian military. We don’t trust the heads of the Ukrainian military,” he said.

More than 700 kilometres away in Kiev, Vitalik Coida is also a volunteer guard, protecting the entrance of the Euromaidan protest area in central Kiev. He is a member of the Svoboda party, considered by many pro-Russians as one of the main “extremist” groups.

Cojda watches out for “provocateurs” who bring weapons and bombs. “But we patrol, we stop them, anyone who looks suspicious. All of these are people sent by Putin because you can hear their Russian accent,” he told IPS.

Cojda arrived at Euromaidan on Nov. 26, shortly after the protests began. He said his 19-year-old friend died in his arms after being shot during a battle with the Berkut, the elite riot police of Ukraine. “It was very difficult to look into his mother’s eyes because it was me that invited him to come here…to protect the country from bandits.”

The Svoboda party, he said, is “really fighting for truth and for freedom.” He said he would remain at Euromaidan until Russian troops leave Ukraine.

The mistrust of the Euromaidan activists is the result of an “information war” led by Russia and Ukrainian elites, according to Donetsk Euromaidan activist Aleksandr Beznis.

“The people do not know the truth,” Beznis told IPS. “There are no extremists from my country from Maidan.” He said Ukraine’s biggest problem is now Russia.

Beznis came from Donetsk to Kiev this week to get weapons training.

“We like Russia, too, but we don’t want any war here,” Beznis said. “As we don’t want to be involved, we need to support our safety and democracy in Ukraine. We must protect our democracy and we must train for our power.”

His biggest fear is civil war. “I hope that it will not happen. I really hope. I try not to think about it,” he said.

Vitalik, the pro-Russian checkpoint guard just outside of Donetsk, says much the same. “Nobody wants a war, everyone wants to stay in peace.”

A celebration erupted when the Dinka Ngok leaders announced they would be moving forward with the unilateral referendum in the disputed Abyei region which both Sudan and South Sudan lay claim to. Credit: Andrew Green/IPS

By Andrew Green
JUBA, Nov 4 2013 (IPS)

The non-binding referendum in Abyei – where people voted overwhelmingly to join South Sudan – and the ensuing celebration, has brought little immediate resolution to the long-festering Abyei problem.

Instead, the spectre of potential conflict looms between the Dinka Ngok and the Khartoum-allied Misseriya tribe, who also lay claim to the territory.

Both Sudan and South Sudan claim the 10,000 square kilometre area, which is home to the Dinka Ngok and – seasonally – to the Misseriya, who bring their cattle there for grazing.

As the Human Security Baseline Assessment (HSBA), which provides independent analysis on issues facing the Sudans, has pointed out, Abyei’s grazing season starts this month. Soon the Misseriya will come into contact with some of the tens of thousands of Dinka Ngok who returned to the area for the referendum. HSBA warns this will “pose great challenges for UNISFA” – the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei.“Both governments are not part of the referendum, so there is [no] disturbance that is going to happen.” -- Mawien Makol Arik, South Sudan's foreign affairs ministry spokesperson

Abyei Referendum High Committee spokesman Luka Biong acknowledged that violence is one possible – though unlikely – outcome of the vote. He told IPS a Misseriya attack could “spark a small war or escalate into a bigger war if the South is prepared to fight.” But neither government is interested in another battle, he added.

Biong explained that the Dinka Ngok leadership was under no illusion the referendum would settle the Abyei question once and for all. That, however, was not really the point.

“There’s a possibility this could [create] real pressure,” he said, adding that officials will have to “see the consequence of what we have said.” And in that they have been successful. Though they are trying, the Dinka Ngok’s actions will be hard for the two governments – especially Juba – to ignore.

In the peace agreement that ended the decades-long Sudanese civil war, the Abyei community was promised a referendum to coincide with the January 2011 ballot to determine the future of southern Sudan. The south got their vote and promptly split from Sudan. But there was no referendum for Abyei.

Last September a panel of African Union (AU) experts called for a Dinka Ngok-only referendum for October this year. However, the AU backed away from the proposal when Khartoum objected to the exclusion of the Misseriya.

The Dinka Ngok leadership pressed ahead with the referendum, despite warnings from the AU that the move could threaten peace in the region. And on Oct. 31, Abyei Referendum High Committee officials announced the results of their hastily-organised, unilateral referendum to determine the future of the disputed area.

The vote only included the pro-South Dinka Ngok community and, as anticipated, the decision was nearly unanimous – more than 63,000 people voted to join South Sudan. Twelve people voted for Abyei to remain part of Sudan, officials reported.

As soon as the votes were read, leaders of the nine Dinka Ngok kingdoms signed pledges declaring their intention to join South Sudan.

Officials in Juba, unwilling to upset their relationship with Khartoum, made their feelings about the referendum known by keeping silent.

But Biong is hoping that the Dinka Ngok vote will trigger the AU to re-start negotiations between Khartoum and Juba. There is evidence this is already happening.

An AU team is set to arrive in Abyei Tuesday, Nov. 5, for a two-day visit. Ahead of the visit, they have already called for the U.N. Security Council to extend its support to the September 2012 proposal, which calls for “Abyei residents to determine their political future, and the right of continued access for migratory populations.”

Bringing Khartoum and Juba to the table will be difficult, though. The notoriously chilly relationship between the two governments is currently thawing, signalled by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s visit to Juba in October.

Both countries are benefiting from the détente. When landlocked South Sudan seceded, it took with it three-quarters of Sudan’s oil reserves. But Sudan retained the only pipeline South Sudan has for exporting its crude. Early last year Juba cut off oil production, citing the high fees Khartoum was charging to use the pipeline. The issue was resolved after more than a year and production restarted in March. So far South Sudan has made 1.3 billion dollars from renewed sales, according to the Ministry of Petroleum, of which it has paid 329 million dollars to Sudan.

Dr. Alfred Lokuji, a professor of peace and rural development at the University of Juba, told IPS that in light of the current situation, both sides will “be careful about trying to escalate things” when it comes to Abyei.

The leaders of the two countries have skirted the Abyei question. They have called for a joint administration and police force for the region, but failed to set a timeline. They did not even broach the issue of a referendum, though Juba has voiced support for the AU proposal in the past.

Mawien Makol Arik, South Sudan’s foreign affairs ministry spokesperson, told IPS that the government would not allow the Dinka Ngok vote to upset the improving relations.

“The two presidents have laid out a communiqué to actually expedite the Abyei administration to be set up,” he said. “Both governments are not part of the referendum, so there is [no] disturbance that is going to happen.”

While Khartoum may be able to get away with not immediately addressing the issue, Juba might not have that luxury. There are deep ties between Abyei and South Sudan, with many members of the Dinka Ngok serving in high-profile government positions where they are well positioned to lobby the government.

And President Salva Kiir’s political rivals have already signalled they are prepared to make political hay out of the issue if South Sudan decides to keep quiet about Abyei.

William Rial Liah, the secretary-general of the opposition Democratic Unionist Party, travelled to Abyei in the days ahead of the referendum to show his support.

“We are behind the Abyei people,” he told IPS. “Let the Abyei people go with this decision and we back them until the end.”

While the outcome of the referendum may never be recognised, Dinka Ngok leaders may have gotten exactly what they wanted out of the vote: bringing diplomatic and – in Juba’s case – political pressure to bear so they finally get the referendum they were promised.

A woman registering to vote at a school in the border town of Abyei on Oct. 20. She was one of more than 100 people living in the town who showed up to register on the first day as people voted whether to join Sudan or South Sudan. Credit: Andrew Green/IPS

By Andrew Green
ABEYI, Oct 30 2013 (IPS)

When Chris Bak returned two weeks ago to the disputed border town of Abyei, which voted this week on whether to join Sudan or South Sudan, he barely recognised it as the place where he grew up. “Everything is dirty,” he told IPS. “We were just going around and around, but we didn’t [recognise] this place.”

The town lies in the centre of the Abyei region, a 10,000 square kilometre area that straddles the border between Sudan and South Sudan. Both countries lay claim to the area, with its oil reserves and vast tracts of fertile land. A 2005 peace agreement ended the decades-long Sudanese civil war and paved the way for South Sudan’s independence, but failed to resolve Abyei’s fate.

Since he returned, Bak has been camping out in an abandoned classroom, hoping it does not rain because the school has no roof. He is sharing the room with a friend who is showing symptoms of malaria. Bak has been trying to track down a doctor, but after three days of asking around he had still not located anyone.

“There are difficulties that face us,” he said. “We need to bring up Abyei.”“The children, the old men just die. There’s no medical care. It’s not good.” -- Deng Agos Lowal, member of the region’s Social Welfare Commission

Bak, 25, returned to Abyei after five years away to participate in a referendum initially proposed by the African Union (AU) for this month, which is meant to decide the fate of the contested region.

But Sudan refused to sign on, as the referendum would have excluded members of the pro-Sudan Misseriya community, who visit Abyei seasonally to graze their cows. In the face of Khartoum’s intransigence, the AU did not organise the vote or present a new proposal.

That did not staunch the enthusiasm of the majority Dinka Ngok community who pressed ahead with a unilateral referendum that ended on Tuesday Oct. 29.

An organisation of tribal leaders, calling themselves the Abyei Referendum High Committee, began organising trips last month for people who wanted to take part in the vote. They estimate they have brought 100,000 people back to the area, though it is impossible to verify that number.

They plan to announce the results before the end of the month and it is likely they will vote to join South Sudan.

However, the AU has “strongly condemned” the move, calling it an “illegal action” and warning that it could threaten peace in the region. South Sudan has said it will refuse to acknowledge the results.

“If the people of Abyei decide, we will see to whom will they direct their results, because they said they will do it without the government of South Sudan and without the government of Sudan,” South Sudan’s government spokesman Michael Makuei Lueth said last week. “And if it is done without us, to whom will they direct their results?”

Dr. Alfred Lokuji, a professor of peace and rural development at the University of Juba, told IPS that the vote “is not going to accomplish much of anything” as both the AU and Juba have made it clear they will not recognise the outcome.

He does not anticipate any violence to result from the vote. However, he described the unilateral move as “symbolic,” showing the Dinka Ngok community is determined to have the situation resolved.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir travelled to Juba last week for a meeting with South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir. At the end of the summit, the two leaders announced plans to move ahead with a joint administration and police force for Abyei, though they failed to set a timeline on when that would happen.

The Dinka Ngok leadership, tired of living in limbo, have rejected the proposal.

In part that is because they no longer have the luxury of waiting for Juba, Khartoum and the international community to reach a permanent solution.

In 2008, fighting broke out in this area between militias supported by the Sudanese government and forces from what was then southern Sudan. Human Rights Watch estimates 60,000 people fled the violence. At the time, Bak and his family fled to Aweil, which is a five-hour drive west of Abyei and is located in South Sudan.

Fighting erupted again in 2011, only weeks before South Sudan officially split from Sudan to become the world’s newest country. The battles left Abyei town in ruins. The ground is dotted with concrete foundations where houses used to stand. A toppled red-and-white cell phone tower rests crookedly on top of trees and buildings.

Having brought thousands of people back to Abyei to see the area’s devastation first-hand, the Dinka Ngok leadership are facing pressure from people like Michael Acuil Deng, an engineer who has been living in Juba, to make something happen now.

“You see around, we have [to do] a lot of planning for our area to be the best,” he told IPS. “Now everything is like the desert. It’s crushed. Now we start from the scratch. We have to build the area.”

Development is difficult in a no man’s land, though.

Deng Agos Lowal stayed in the area despite the fighting. He is a member of the region’s Social Welfare Commission, a locally-appointed body that attempts to provide basic services to people. With no support from either Juba or Khartoum, he said there is little they can do to actually help people, let alone track the fluid population.

“The children, the old men just die,” he told IPS. “There’s no medical care. It’s not good.”

A United Nations peacekeeping force is visible here, but Lowal said the region’s uncertain future has kept most humanitarian organisations out. All anyone can do, he said, is wait for the vote to decide Abyei’s fate. When that is resolved the rebuilding of Abyei can begin.

Despite the warnings from Juba and Khartoum, Dinka Ngok leaders are holding out hope that the international community will eventually recognise the outcome of their unilateral referendum.

At the very least, Dinka Ngok paramount chief Bulabek Deng Kuol said he hopes the vote means the regional and international community will no longer ignore Abyei’s needs.

“We are excited to rebuild, to give our energy for everything,” he told IPS. “We hope all the organisations … are rushing here to give some help to the people here.”

Prominent Zimbabwean human rights lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa was arrested for allegedly obstructing the course of justice. She is pictured here exiting a police vehicle as she arrived at the Harare Magistrate’s Court on Mar. 20. Credit: Nyarai Mudimu/IPS

By Nyarai Mudimu
HARARE, Mar 21 2013 (IPS)

Heightened political tension between the major rivals in Zimbabwe’s coalition government and increased clampdowns on civil society have left questions about the country’s readiness for a true democracy just days after people voted to adopt a new constitution.

Just over three million Zimbabweans voted on Sunday Mar. 17 in support of the draft constitution, which paves the way for elections later this year, while 179,489 rejected it. There were 56,627 spoilt ballots.

However, on the day after the referendum, prominent local human rights lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa was arrested for allegedly obstructing the course of justice. She is said to have requested that police show her a search warrant when they raided Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s support staff offices on Sunday Mar. 17. Four staffers were also arrested.

“The government clampdown on individuals and organisations that support democracy… clearly demonstrate that there are forces that are not yet ready to welcome the democratic dispensation that will come with the new constitution,” Nixon Nyikadzino, a human rights activist with the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, a grouping of more than 350 civil organisations in Zimbabwe working together to bring about democratic change, told IPS.

President Robert Mugabe’s ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF), and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change led by Tsvangirai (MDC-T), entered a Global Political Agreement (GPA) for a power-sharing government in 2008 after political violence marred the election. Mugabe has been in power for the last 33 years and his time in office have been plagued by allegations of corruption, abuse of power, political intimidation and human rights abuses.

The draft constitution that Zimbabweans just voted for limits the president to only two five-year terms of office, but it also has clear provisions that require security forces to be politically neutral and not to interfere with electoral processes.

Mtetwa and her co-accused are facing charges of impersonating the police, possessing articles for criminal use, breaching the Official Secrets Act and obstructing the course of justice. The act is vague and says that any matter that the state may allege to be “prejudicial to the safety and interests of Zimbabwe” breaches it, but it does not define what “interests” mean.

They are also accused of unlawfully compiling dockets about government officials, including members of Zanu-PF, who are thought to be corrupt.

On Wednesday Mar. 20, Mtetwa and her co-accused were denied bail in the Harare Magistrate’s Court. This is despite a Mar. 18 Zimbabwe High Court ruling that ordered police to release Mtetwa. Police defied the order and she was held in custody and appeared this week in the magistrate’s court.

The move has been condemned by activists here.

“We do not know how a junior court has nullified a senior court’s order. The High Court ordered that she be released but police defied that. Now a junior court has just defied the order again. How the court arrived at that decision is still a surprise to us. We are still studying the decision,” the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights spokesman Kumbirai Mafunda told IPS.

Nyikadzino said he was not surprised by the court’s decision to deny bail to the five.

“That is their style: to keep you under their custody for as long as they can, because they know they don’t have a case. I know of cases where the police have had to resort to evoking section 121 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which allows them to hold suspects for longer periods before they appear in court,” he said. In January  international rights organisation Human Rights Watch said the justice system still remained “extremely partisan” towards Zanu-PF.

Nyikadzino added that the tension between Zanu-PF and MDC-T suggested that the coalition government was not ready to embrace democracy.

However, police have insisted that the arrests are legitimate. National police spokesperson assistant commissioner Charity Charamba told IPS that Mtetwa’s co-accused were not staffers in the prime minister’s office.

“These four people are not civil servants. You have to be a civil servant to be deemed a staffer in the prime minister’s office. The people work for a non-governmental organisation, the Institute of Democratic Alliance in Zimbabwe. They had no right to pretend to work in the PM’s office,” she said.

But HRW criticised the government in a Mar. 19 statement, and listed a number of “politically motivated abuses against civil society activists and organisations.”

Zanu-PF spokesman Rugare Gumbo scoffed at and dismissed the accusations of a clampdown on civil society.

“We know this sensationalism is a ploy by (Prime Minister) Tsvangirai and his handlers to push for a SADC (Southern African Development Community) summit before we hold our general elections. Let the police and the courts do their work. We have become more aware of their (MDC-T) machinations,” Gumbo told IPS.

Tsvangirai warned his supporters to expect more violence from Zanu-PF.

“History has recorded that when change is about to happen, there are certain elements who are bent on diverting it. In 2000 we rejected the draft constitution, and a few weeks later, there were land invasions and widespread violence. In 2008 when we signed the GPA how many people were arrested?” he said at a press conference in Harare on Tuesday Mar. 19.

Meanwhile, Mugabe, who is currently in Rome for Pope Francis’ inauguration, is reported to have said that the draft constitution will now be gazetted for 30 days and then tabled in parliament for debate. It will not be amended.

Five million registered voters in Zimbabawe have an opportunity to change the lives of this country’s women. Women represent the majority, some 53 percent of the Zimbabwe's 12.6 million people. Credit: Trevor Davies/IPS

By Nyarai Mudimu
MOUNT DARWIN, Zimbabwe, Mar 15 2013 (IPS)

“Ten reasons why women must vote ‘Yes’ for the draft constitution…” says the Constitution Select Committee’s campaign radio jingle that plays over the airwaves in a grocer’s store at Mukumbura border post business centre on Zimbabwe’s northeastern border with Mozambique.

Zimbabwe is holding a referendum on Mar. 16 to decide on whether to adopt the draft constitution that has taken almost four years to draft and gobbled 50 million dollars of donor funds from the impoverished country’s economy.

The Constitution Select Committee (Copac) is the constitutional parliamentary committee tasked with writing the draft constitution, and ahead of the referendum has been tasked with informing Zimbabweans about the draft and encouraging them to vote.

But the radio jingle is almost drowned by noise from a neighbouring beer hall’s jukebox.

Ironically the jingle’s message is seemingly aimed at women at the border post business centre, but they appear to be busy going about their daily chores – vending fruits and vegetables, almost indifferent to a process that local politicians have described as a game changer in this southern African nation’s political history.

A disinterested Maria Nyamasoka, 48, tells IPS that she does not care about the draft constitution.

“Nothing will change for me. Maybe for you people from Harare it will. Maybe that’s why you have travelled all this way to come down here to talk about this draft. In the last election my homestead was burnt and I narrowly missed rape from some party youths. I really do not want to talk about this…I don’t want to have anything to do with politics,” she says.

Despite attempts by Copac and political parties to push supporters for a “Yes” vote this weekend, some say they are unaware of the referendum or the draft constitution that they have been asked to vote on. Sithembile Mpofu, a Bulawayo housewife, is one of them.

“Maybe it is because I do not watch ZTV,” Mpofu tells IPS, referring to the national television station where programming has, in recent weeks, been dominated by campaigns asking registered voters to tick “Yes” on the referendum ballots.

“I cannot go and vote for something I do not know, even if I vote ‘No’ I will be dishonest,” she says.

But despite the lack of interest by some, five million registered voters here have an opportunity to change the lives of this country’s women. Women represent the majority, some 53 percent of the country’s 12.6 million people. The Women’s Coalition, a grouping of women’s rights NGO, has been campaigning for the acceptance of the draft constitution.

“Women have fought hard to get almost 75 percent of our demands adopted in the draft. Definitely life for women will never be the same again under this new constitution, if it’s adopted,” says Slyvia Chirawu, a national coordinator at the Women and Law in Southern Africa, and a member of the Women’s Coalition.

Chirawu says that women suffered particularly from Section 23 of the current constitution, which denies them equal rights as men with regards to custody and guardianship of their minor children.

“Under Section 23, a woman could not apply for a passport for her child without the consent of the father…(a woman) could not get her child’s birth certificate in the absence of the father of the child. But men could do all these things in the absence of the mother of the child,” says Chirawu. In the draft constitution women are now able to apply both for passports and birth certificates for their children without the consent of their child’s father.

Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Deputy Minister Jessie Majome, a member of Copac, tells IPS that according to the current constitution girls can marry at 16, while boys can legally do the same at 18.

“What this meant is girls had to drop out of school to be married off, while boys continued with their education. The boys had to wait to reach the legal age of majority, creating an unfair advantage against women. But according to this new draft, both boys and girls will be allowed to marry when they reach the legal age of majority,” says Majome.

The draft constitution will also ensure women relief from some harmful cultural practices that have been considered permissible.

Under-age girls have been married off to older men, while widows have been forced to become the “wives” of their late husbands’ male relatives.

“Although the (current) constitution had been amended recently to forbid some harmful cultural practices, this draft actually forbids and makes it unconstitutional for customary law to take precedence over common law. Women had been disadvantaged when it comes to inheritance, as they could not inherit family property. Widows also lost their property upon the deaths of their spouses,” says Majome.

Jane Chiriga, a gender researcher, says the draft is “a triumph for women.”

“There is a deliberate effort to address the flaws and gaps of the current constitution. What remains, I think, is to align this with the country’s laws,” Chiriga says.

In the past, the participation of women in politics has largely been left to the discretion of political parties to create quotas for women. But the draft constitution proposes to set aside 60 seats for women in the 210-seat parliament. In addition, women will constitute at least half the membership of all commissions and other elective and appointed governmental bodies.

“What takes the cake for me is the half membership for women in all commissions and other elective or appointed governmental bodies,” says Chirawu.

A legislator from the Movement for Democratic Change led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T), Tabitha Khumalo, says “it is a big step for women to be given prominence in the supreme law.”

“(In the past), women’s issues in this country have been addressed in token terms as if to appease us. But we have rights as equal citizens and this draft, if read with other laws, is something that will change both our public and private lives,” she tells IPS.

Constitutional law expert Alex Magaisa also believes that the draft could help stop the “politicisation of the security forces,” who have not hidden their support for President Robert Mugabe and in the process aimed their baton sticks at men and women alike.

The current constitution is silent about the key issue of political neutrality of institutions such as the army, police, and civil service.

“The draft has clear and extensive provisions that require these bodies (security forces) to be politically neutral and not to interfere with electoral processes,” he tells IPS.

*Additional reporting by Ignatius Banda in Bulawayo.