Guro Lauvland Bjorknes.pdf - NMMU

2.2.7 Collapse of Human Rights
In early 2000 the government launched new legislation which would assist them in controlling
Zimbabwe‟s people. The new legislation involved restricting Zimbabweans‟ internationally
recognised rights to “freely associate, assemble, and express themselves” (Amnesty
International, 2003:7). The article Rights Under Siege argues that Zimbabwe failed to preserve
the rights of most of its population even though they were protected according to the Lancaster
House Constitution of 1980 (Ibid, 2003:8). The constitution had been adjusted and the people of
Zimbabwe urged for the referendum in 2000 to alter the constitution but did not succeed.
The Zimbabwean constitution protects peoples‟ rights to freedom of expression, the freedom of
association and assembly (Amnesty International, 2003: 13). However, they do not protect these
in praxis and laws were introduced to help suppress the constitutional rights of the people. The
Broadcasting Services Act (2001), the Public Order and Security Act (2002), the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act (2002), the Private Voluntary Organisations Act
(2002) and the Labour Relations Amendment Act (2003) are all laws that enable the government
to control its opponents as they leave no room for political discussion in the country. Thanks to
totally undemocratic restrictions, the people of Zimbabwe are not able to exert any influence on
the organisation or ruling of their own country (Ibid, 2003:13).
2.2.8 Recent activities in Zimbabwe at a glance
From May to July 2005 the Zimbabwean government decided to get rid of all illegally built
housing that did not have formal plans as an attempt to clean up the cities. The operation was
known as Murambatsvina. Fontein in the journal article Anticipating the Tsunami: Rumours,
Planning and the Arbitrary State in Zimbabwe (2009) recognises the feeling in Zimbabwe after
operation Murambatsvina, as the name when translated from Shona as “reject the rubbish”
carries a message not very different from the Gukurahunndi in the 1980s (Fontein, 2009).
Fontein (2009) identifies various reasons for the operation and one of them was that the people
currently without homes were not regarded as indigenous if they did not have a rural home to go
back to. Another reason might have been the urge to get people back into the rural areas to work
on the redistributed farms. Many people living in the urban areas supported the opposition so the
18