By Nicholas Aribino and Cyprian Muchemwa

Some citizens think that voting is a waste of time. Many a time, these don’t-ers think that their circumstances cannot be changed by voting because of the assumption of associating politics with dirtiness. Bad things sometimes happen in politics that is true, but we can still confidently argue in this opinion piece that politics is not always dirty, rather it is politicians who sometimes make it dirty. The opportunity to vote for eligible voters should not be missed as it comes with attendant benefits for the electorate and for democracy in general. It is the object of this opinion piece to connect with the readership with the message that a vote not cast translates to a future lost.
When citizens think that voting is a futile exercise, they unwittingly give up their right to political participation and those who decide to vote will determine the legal and policy framework for them through descriptive representation. The authors of this opinion piece believe that the decision to give up on voting under the perception of nothing coming out of Denmark approximates a passive political culture. A passive political culture is not good for democracy and nation building because it may lead to political leaders not being accountable to people that they lead. Birds have not stopped singing because of lack of listenership and to that effect it is our duty and obligation to remind the electorate that the right to vote should be taken seriously. Voter apathy undermines the whole concept of democracy and it is also an insult to those who fought hard and some even lost lives for one man/woman one vote. As people vote, they elect into office their representatives that would serve as their conveyer belts for communicating their needs in the matrix of governance. Voting is a powerful tool which influences public policy.
Good governance and accountability by those in leadership can only be guaranteed when there is a consciousness by the leadership of a people with an active political culture. When citizens decide to exercise their right to vote, they should first of all consider the value systems and principles that they would want advanced by their political leaders in various institutions to which they would be deployed. It is important to have a tooth-pick analysis of the personality and technocratic capacity of the person you would want to vote for. Some of the things to consider are the level of both soft and hardware support that the person has contributed towards the growth and development of his or her community or country. For example, in Singapore it is generally believed that appointing a technocrat to be a cabinet minister is more effective because he or she can easily be turned into a politician than getting a non-technocrat who can never be turned into any expert by power. The above approach can be productive considering that the deployment of human capital to governance structures is powerful in that the nation ends up with a crop of politicians who have both craft-literacy and craft-competence to manage the affairs of the country. Today Singapore’s unemployment rate stands at 1.8% because every needle has been put in its right place in terms of the governance architecture.
The right to political participation should not be under-utilised, especially in Zimbabwe where upward of 70% of the people are in the informal economy. The informal economy is largely not healthy for the country because of informal businesses are neither registered, recognised, protected nor regulated under labour legislation. Essentially, informality does not come with any social protection and often thrives in disarticulated economies. When businesses are not registered the country loses out on the collection of taxes. Those in the informal economy can enjoy social protection or security through voting and advocating for the regularisation of their businesses. Informality generates an unbanked economy. An unbanked economy does not create any employment opportunities for citizens because a government thrives on taxes that are largely realised out of a formal economy. Arguably, when a small population is in employment, revenue collection for the government becomes lean thereby pushing it to the wall in terms of addressing macro-economic fundamentals. For those who pay taxes to the government, it is worth noting that there cannot be any taxation without representation.
When the president of Zimbabwe said that, “The voice of the people, is the voice of God” he was merely reminding Zimbabweans that their participation in the governance of their country is sacrosanct and within that same breath he is also cajoling every Zimbabwean to go and vote, because voting represents the voice of the people. Even the mantra that, “ Nyika inovakwa nevene vayo” that has been popularised by the president of Zimbabwe, is also a reminder to the citizens of Zimbabwe to participate in the affairs of their country. Conversely, “Nyika inogonazve kuputswa nevene vayo” this also implies that those who decide to take a back seat in the affairs of their own country can equally bring down their country. By extension, deciding not to vote translates to destroying one’s country because the collective good of any country is seen through collective participation and completion of efforts of its citizens. Collective participation by people through active broader political participation and voting in particular will send a very clear message to political leaders that the people are watching. Those who choose not vote may do so because it is within their rights to do that, but they should not complain or cry foul when decisions that are at tangent with their expectations are made. Above all the right to political participation and voting came through sweat and blood, therefore it must be enjoyed to the fullest.

Dr. Cyprian Muchemwa- Lecturer : Department of peace and governance at the Bindura University of
Science Education.
Contact : +263 773429935

Dr. Nicholas Aribino : ZIMCARE Trust Country
Director.
Contact : +263715617095

By Shadreck Zangairai

Zimbabwean legislation recognises the right to engage in collective bargaining. This is done at both enterprise level, through works councils, and at industrial level, through the auspices of employment councils. However this right does not apply to the public service employees who are covered by the Public Service Act Chapter 16:04 and the Health Service Act Chapter 15:16. Ideally there is no collective bargaining in the entire public sector but there is only consultation between employee associations and the Public Service Commission. These consultations are recognised through the establishment of a forum called National Joint Negotiating Council (NJNC), and Health Service Bipartite Negotiating Panel (HSBNP). After consultations, the employer is not bound by the decisions reached and can implement what it believes to be fair disregarding the other parties’ view or submissions. Consultations are also provided under section 24(1) of the Public Service Act.
Recently there has been speculations and expectations of wage and salary increment by the Public Service employees. Negotiations scheduled for the 7th of July 2023 were halted due to discrepancies in the increments demanded and offered, hence the negotiating principals wanted time to consult. This was confirmed by the Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Minister who told the Herald of the same date that the National Joint Negotiating Council meeting was paused for further consultations. From the foregoing, it is undeniable that collective bargaining in the public service is quite different from collective bargaining in the private sector, both structurally and conceptually. In fact, it may be argued that there is consultation and not collective bargaining in the public service.
Negotiation in the public service is unique in that the state has dual responsibility of acting as both the employer and the legislative authority. As an employer, the state has to rely on efficient revenue collection so as to offer sound wage increases and at the same time it has to utilise the revenue collected prudently and remains accountable for public expenditure, hence the involvement of the Minister of Finance who has the responsibility to justify expenditure in parliament. In such circumstances, bargaining parties in the public service cannot be said to enjoy an autonomous relationship when it comes to collective bargaining, as it seek to achieve a balance between promoting collective bargaining and living within its own means.
The fragmented nature of the labour legislation in Zimbabwe disadvantages workers in the public sector and takes away their right to actively participate in negotiations. Besides the absence of the right to negotiation, the platform for bargaining is also not there. Members of the negotiating team (from the government) don’t have the mandate to decide on behalf of the government, but will have to collect the employee proposals for consultation with their principals. This reinforces the fact that negotiations in the public service are merely consultations. These consultations may take longer thereby keeping workers in waiting.
Unlike in the private sector where the Labour Act is enforced, the Public Service Act provides the legislative framework in the sector. According to SI 141/97, the National Joint Negotiating Council is more of a consultative forum rather than a negotiating forum, as decisions or conclusions made by the Joint Negotiating Council are subject to considerations by the Minister for approval or rejection. This therefore delay negotiations and employees are vulnerable because their employer is also the legislative authority. Therefore one can conclude that there are no negotiations but mere consultations as the representatives of the employer present at the negotiating table do not have the mandate to agree or disagree with the position tabled by the employee representatives. The Minister therefore has the power to make unilateral ‘take or leave’ decisions on the salaries, allowances and conditions of service in the Public Service.
Again, to some extent, government interventions can also cause delays in reaching agreements in the public sector. The Finance Ministry has on many occasions delayed the negotiation process through announcing a wage freeze for all civil servants. This is one of the challenges causing delays in reaching settlements. Other challenges causing delays include, lack of good faith between parties especially government, lack of conducive political, economic and social environment and the repressive and unsupportive legislation. This is because the public service regulations recognise consultations, with the employer having final say in the consultations. On the other hand, collective bargaining without the full right to strike tend to tilt the bargaining power to employers. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention on freedom of association embodies the right to strike in collective bargaining.
As a suggestion, the legal framework for negotiation in the public sector needs to change. Thus there is need to push for the harmonisation of the labour laws in the country. This will mean that the public sector will also be accorded the full right to collective bargaining thereby empowering unions. In addition, collective bargaining without the full right to strike tend to give more bargaining power to the employer. Zimbabwe legislation needs to be reformed in this area and afford a balance to negotiating parties. There is also need for the establishment of an effective Employment Council to create a platform for meaningful social dialogue. Furthermore, there is also need to repeal relevant provisions of the Public Service Act, Public Service Regulations, Health Service Act and the Health Service Regulations which grant excessive powers affecting social dialogue such as setting of conditions of service and dispute resolution.

Disclaimer; Shadreck Zangairai is the Principal Human Resources Officer at Masvingo Provincial Hospital. He writes in his personal Capacity
(shadreckzanga@gmail.com)