In Zimbabwe, the tussle for political supremacy between the ruling party, ZANU PF, and the opposition parties has evidently transcended beyond mere electoral contests. The battleground has extended to the provision of fundamental human rights, most notably, access to clean, safe water. Despite the nation’s supreme law, section 77, stipulating every citizen’s entitlement to clean, safe, and portable water, a shocking 82% to 89% of the population find this basic necessity elusive, decades post-independence.
ZANU PF, the country’s ruling entity, has been at the helm since independence and consequently, bears the brunt of the blame for this appalling statistic. Critics argue that the party’s apparent reluctance in enhancing water accessibility is a deliberate ploy aimed at monopolising political power. The allegation is not entirely baseless; the landscape in Chinhoyi provides a vivid depiction of this political wrangling over water provision.
In a bid to alleviate the residents’ water woes, opposition officials took the initiative to spearhead the drilling of boreholes in Chinhoyi. This humanitarian venture, however, hit a snag as ZANU PF reportedly thwarted the effort. The ruling party’s contention wasn’t the initiative per se, but rather who was behind it. The successful completion of this project under the opposition’s banner, ZANU PF feared, would tilt the public support scales against them. It was a classic case of political interests overshadowing humanitarian needs.
The dichotomy between the two political factions’ approach to this basic necessity is glaring. Whereas the opposition’s initiative appeared devoid of partisan interests, focusing solely on alleviating the water scarcity problem, the ruling party’s alleged stance seemed to be steeped in political bias. Critics opine that had it been ZANU PF spearheading the borehole project, the green light would have been granted swiftly. Furthermore, they assert that the party would likely centralise such projects in regions synonymous with staunch support, leaving opposition and neutral areas high and dry.
This ordeal highlights a much larger issue — the melding of state and party which has seen ZANU PF’s ambition of a one-party state blur the lines significantly. The need for a clear demarcation between the two is imperative, not only for the realisation of constitutional rights such as water accessibility but for the broader democratic health of the nation.
The scenario in Chinhoyi isn’t an isolated one but emblematic of a nation grappling with political self-interest at the expense of basic human rights. It accentuates the need for a paradigm shift towards a more inclusive, welfare-centric governance model where the populace’s needs take precedence over political ambitions.
In conclusion, Zimbabwe’s water access quandary is a stark illustration of the nation’s struggle with intertwining political ambitions and fundamental rights. The Chinhoyi episode amplifies the call for a governance model that aligns with constitutional provisions, guaranteeing basic rights like water access are not ensnared in a web of political rivalry. It’s a clarion call for a people-centric approach, sidelining partisan interests for the greater good of the citizenry.
About The Author
