Please follow and like us:

By Princess Eugene Majuru

Among the most debated design choices in Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution is the use of “progressive realisation” in sociology-economic rights. On paper, it is a sophisticated legal principle aligned with international constitutional practice. In reality, it is also one of the main reasons why constitutional rights often feel delayed, conditional, or unevenly experienced.

At the centre of this framework is Section 75(3), which provides:

“The State must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within the limits of the resources available to it, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right.”

This clause appears frequently across socioeconomic rights, including health (Section 76) and food and water (Section 77). It defines how rights are to be implemented—but also how they can be postponed.

1. What “Progressive Realisation” Means in Practice

In constitutional theory, progressive realisation means:

The State is obligated to work toward full enjoyment of rights over time

Immediate fulfilment is not required in all circumstances

Resource constraints are legally recognised

This is designed to balance ambition with economic reality.

However, in practice, it creates a different effect:

rights become commitments to future improvement rather than immediate guarantees.

2. Why It Was Included in the Constitution

The principle is not unique to Zimbabwe. It is drawn from international human rights law, particularly socio-economic rights frameworks that recognise unequal development conditions across states.

Its intention was to:

Avoid unrealistic legal obligations

Allow gradual expansion of public services

Reflect economic constraints in policy-making

On paper, this makes constitutional sense in a developing economy context.

3. The Structural Problem: Delay Built into the Right

The key issue is not the existence of progressive realisation—it is its open-ended nature.

Section 75(3) ties fulfilment to:

“Reasonable legislative and other measures”

and

“The limits of the resources available”

This creates two layers of flexibility:

what counts as “reasonable”

what qualifies as “available resources”

The result:

There is no fixed constitutional timeline for full implementation.

4. The Risk: Rights Without a Deadline

In practical governance, this produces a structural gap:

Governments can always argue limited resources

Courts often defer to policy discretion

Citizens experience uneven access to services

So while the right exists, its fulfilment is:

continuously deferred rather than strictly enforced

5. The Enforcement Challenge

Unlike civil and political rights (which are often immediately enforceable), socio-economic rights under progressive realisation depend on:

budgetary capacity

administrative planning

institutional prioritisation

This means enforcement is indirect.

Section 85 allows individuals to approach courts, but courts must still interpret what “reasonable measures” mean in context.

6. The Deeper Constitutional Tension

The Constitution is built on a dual promise:

Immediate rights (dignity, equality, liberty)

Gradual rights (education, health, water, food)

This creates a structural hierarchy of urgency:

Civil rights are immediate

Socio-economic rights are conditional in timing

This is not accidental—it reflects a compromise between ambition and feasibility.

7. The Core Critique: When “Progressive” Becomes Permanent Delay

The strongest criticism of progressive realisation is not that it exists, but that it can become:

a permanent justification for postponement

If “progress” is not measured or time-bound, then implementation risks becoming:

indefinite

uneven

politically variable

This is where the constitutional promise weakens in lived reality.

8. Possible Reform Pathways

A constitutional system does not need to remove progressive realisation—but it can strengthen it.

Possible improvements include:

Introducing minimum core obligations (basic enforceable service levels)

Setting clear timelines for essential services expansion

Requiring annual constitutional compliance reporting on socio-economic rights

Strengthening judicial standards for “reasonableness” under Section 75(3)

Conclusion: A Right That Moves, but Slowly

Progressive realisation is not a flaw in intention—it is a design choice meant to balance law and economic reality. But its weakness lies in its elasticity.

It allows the State to commit to rights without always committing to timelines.

In that sense, it creates a constitutional paradox:

rights that are real in principle, but gradual in practice.

The challenge for Zimbabwe’s constitutional future is not whether to keep progressive realisation—but how to ensure that “progressive” does not become another word for “indefinitely postponed.”

Please follow and like us:

Comments

comments