LAST week saw President Robert Mugabe opening the last session of parliament before the 2008 elections. As expected, the agenda for this last session will include the 18th constitutional amendment as well as the enactment of an indigenisation and empowerment legislation.
If anything, President Mugabe made it clear in his speech to parliament that no external party or power’s intervention will be welcome in deciding any constitutional question that confronts Zimbabwe after 27 years of independence.
While many may have expected that MDC and Zanu PF will, through the SADC initiative, have an opportunity to discuss in camera the necessary constitutional and electoral reforms, it is clear that the position of President Mugabe has not shifted and, therefore, any misplaced hope that President Thabo Mbeki’s mediation would assist in advancing the cause of a regime change has been dashed.
Any rational mind informed by President Mugabe’s consistent thinking on issues of sovereignty would not have even included constitutional questions on the agenda of President Mbeki’s mediation initiative. Rightly or wrongly President Mugabe is yet to be convinced that the last 17 amendments to the Lancaster Constitution were not in the national interest and equally that the Constitutional Referendum provided a vehicle for Zimbabweans to directly express themselves on constitutional reforms if this was the burning issue.
What is striking is that there seems to be consensus between President Mugabe and the MDC/NCA that constitutional changes must be people driven. However, there is no consensus on who should drive the process and to what end.
To the extent that the two formations of the MDC plus Professor Jonathan Moyo are represented in Parliament, the argument advanced by President Mugabe and apparently accepted by SADC is that there is no other legitimate body to discuss any constitutional changes than a duly elected Parliament of Zimbabwe.
While some may argue that President Mugabe was not legitimately elected, it has been difficult to advance the argument that only representatives of MDC in parliament were legitimately elected and all Zanu PF representatives are not legitimate. If the Parliament of Zimbabwe is not a legitimate body then it is argued that MDC representatives should walk the talk by resigning than seek the assistance of external powers to do what they can’t do using constitutional means in Zimbabwe.
After 27 years of independence it is ironic, notwithstanding the acute economic crisis confronting Zimbabwe, that the debate about the future of the country seems to centre only on political issues. I have often advanced the argument that even if the constitution was changed in line with what the opposition and NCA is agitating for, it is unlikely that the economic crisis will end. Equally even if sanctions, however defined, were to be lifted, it is also unlikely that Zimbabwe will get out of the woods.
I presented a paper last week at a meeting organised by the Friends of Zimbabwe Coalition (“FOZC”) whose theme was: “The root cause of the Zimbabwean crisis” and I left the meeting convinced that unless there is a determined and focused attention on understanding this defining question, the prospect of resolving the crisis is doomed.
It emerged at the heated meeting that no consensus exists on when Zimbabwe went off track and what were the root causes. There are as many opinions as the people discussing the Zimbabwean problem at any one time to make the issues digestible and a way forward developed. Any friend of Zimbabwe will come to the conclusion that Zimbabweans are not yet ready to do what any rational person would consider obvious.
What was interesting was that the room was equally divided among those who support President Mugabe and the proposition that Zimbabwe is a victim of unjust sanctions and the current policies of the government are in the national interest. In fact, President Mugabe’s anti-market posture resonates well with many academics and some sections of not only Zimbabweans but even South Africans.
Some passionate arguments were presented in support of the government of Zimbabwe and some went further to suggest that there is nothing unique about the price freeze and the threat of nationalisation against companies deemed to be operating against national interest. In advancing such arguments, a position is made that as long as the economy is not democratised and whites are in control, the end justifies the means.
I came out of the meeting convinced that it is important for any friend of Zimbabwe to speak to these sentiments if their input on the Zimbabwean crisis is to be meaningful and effective.
What is clear today is that Zimbabwe is at the crossroads and urgently needs to make some tough policy choices. We now know that the policies of the last 27 years have not worked and, if anything, they have left Zimbabweans more poor and vulnerable. Many of the able bodied Zimbabweans have elected to externalise their brain power than be exposed to personal risks with no mitigating factors.
Arguments may be advanced on questions of political legitimacy but what Zimbabwe requires today is a fundamental shift from policies that have been universally proved to be ineffective in dealing with poverty and advancing the transformation agenda. Even President Mugabe will agree that change is required in Zimbabwe and the economic thinking that has informed post-colonial programs and initiatives have not worked.
It is important that we locate the Zimbabwean problem in the broader African context. The Africa of today is not a monolithic bloc of one size fits all. We have to recognise that Africa can be divided into two categories of nations i.e. those that are on the growth path and those that are stagnating and failing to meet their own development challenges.
What is clear is that the countries that are registering positive growth in Africa are not pursuing policies that the government of Zimbabwe is pursuing or has pursued since independence. It is also evident that countries that are pursuing market unfriendly policies are not doing well. Some of the growing African nations faced the same challenges that Zimbabwe is currently facing and fortunately they had the courage and maturity to make the hard developmental choices.
While constitutional issues may have been paramount in these countries on defining legitimacy, the developmental agenda took centre stage and politicians that were not willing to change became redundant. In many of these countries, citizens with the support of their external partners were able to decide on the role of the state in a national democratic revolution. What works and does not work was rationally discussed in most cases and the consensus among the winning African nations was that the state cannot be a better citizen that natural citizens. Accordingly, any state that believes that solutions will come from corridors of political power is doomed to fail and in so doing betray the interests of the nameless and voiceless majority.
If Zimbabwe is at the crossroads which direction should it take? I may not be alone in holding the view that the belated policies on indigenisation and economic empowerment, coming 27 after political democracy, are doomed to fail not only because the target beneficiaries have been systematically alienated during the period from the resources required to acquire the potential shareholding but also because the policies appear to be opportunistically conceived.
Why did it take the government 27 years to put the legislation in place? If Tony Blair had accepted to help finance the land reform programme would the indigenisation bill have been on the agenda? If blacks have not benefited in terms of democratising the economy, who has the government been serving for the past 27 years? If targeted sanctions were not imposed, would President Mugabe remember this constituency? Would it not make sense for the government to expose those that have used independence to deny the majority of the fruits of freedom? Can the government be trusted to do what it failed to do for the past 27 years? Can anyone trust the government to select the winners? Is there any country that has succeeded in transforming its economy through legislation or rule by law?
Those who have followed Zimbabwean economic history cannot be mistaken of who President Mugabe’s business friends have been. Many will recall President Mugabe’s close relationship with Tony O’Reilly, former CEO of H.J. Heinz, and now a media mogul and Algy Cluff. President Mugabe has not been known to have black business friends and his attitude to business people has not been positive.
Some will remember that during the first 10 years of independence, Zanu PF had a leadership code whose emphasis was to create a crop of poor leaders presumably with unquestionable loyalty to the great leader. As a result, the party became allergic to wealth creation and individual enterprise. It is not surprising, therefore, that for a party that has been in power for 27 years, it has failed to produce graduates in the economic market with an equivalent track record to that of President Mugabe in politics.
Most of the founding fathers of the Zimbabwean national democratic revolution have been deliberately prevented from benefiting economically from the revolution leaving the status quo ante untouched and assisting in its entrenchment under President Mugabe’s watch. Any regime change or empowerment is unlikely to change the class relationships in Zimbabwe. Should President Mugabe be held accountable for failing to use his leadership to democratise the economy for the last 27 years of his reign?
There are a few examples of Zanu PF office bearers who have an independent economic mind and can claim to have assets of their own. The majority may be classified as parasites of the state system and now rely on Gono to dispense stipend and favours to compliant cadres.
The case of Dr Chris Kuruneri who as expected was acquitted last week after being disabled by a government that he passionately sought to serve because he had made the mistake of investing in a house in Cape Town and holding a Canadian citizenship needs to be understood in its broader context. If President Mugabe was willing to sacrifice a cabinet minister (or rely on suspect intelligence) using trumped up charges, how many of Zanu PF members would be willing to openly engage in business with the prospect of being harassed by their own government?
It is not clear who the intended beneficiaries of the so-called empowerment initiative are when President Mugabe has distinguished himself as the most unfriendly person to the entrepreneurial black business sector. Like ordinary helpless Zimbabweans, they are not expected to have a mind of their own but be converted into patriotic entrepreneurs. It is no wonder that of the 5,000 businessmen arrested; more than 99% are black.
On land reform, the nationalisation of land has unfortunately not led to any meaningful supply response and it is not clear what the belated empowerment drive is meant to achieve other than target perceived enemies of the state.
The importance of meaningful conversations among Zimbabweans and anyone interested in the future of not only Zimbabwe but the rest of the continent cannot be overstated. What we can say is that if the theme chosen by FOZC to locate the root causes of the Zimbabwean crisis becomes the basis of enlightened conversations about this complex problem, the solution will be nearer and Zimbabweans can be assisted to choose the right path than going nowhere slowly.
It is also important that the mediation by President Mbeki be focused on identifying the root causes of the crisis with a view to addressing the fundamental policy questions that can only be resolved by none other than Zimbabweans themselves. All I can say is that where there is will there is a way.
Finally, I cannot help but emphasise that the only power people who do not have power have is the power to organise. Zimbabweans are lacking in this dimension and it will not help Zimbabwe’s cause to focus on the fate of an 83-year-old leader only without focusing on what kind of society Zimbabwe should be and what kind of policies and programs should inform it.
The departure of President Mugabe will not assist in addressing the policy bankruptcy that has characterised the past 27 years. Will Zimbabweans have the maturity and sense of purpose to prove Ian Smith wrong that independence has been a disaster to the poor, or will they allow recycled and failed policies and programs to pollute the future?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Investing in fear: Mugabe's economic revival plan
ON FRIDAY, July 20, 2007, the Minister of Industry and International Trade, Obert Mpofu, who is also the Chairman of the Cabinet Task Force on Price Monitoring and Stabilisation, announced in Bulawayo that the government had set aside Z$30 billion for resuscitating the defunct Zimbabwe State Trading Corporation (ZSTC) and the Zimbabwe Development Corporation (ZDC) as vehicles for acquiring companies that it might want to take over for engaging in economic sabotage.
It is proposed that the ZSTC, originally established in1986 by an Act of Parliament as a post-colonial body corporate, will be reactivated with the sole objective of acquiring trading companies in response to the alleged politically motivated price escalations. It is also proposed that ZDC, a state corporation that was established in 1988 by an Act of Parliament, be the instrument for nationalising private manufacturing assets.
The events that have unfolded in Zimbabwe leading to the wholesale arrests of businesspersons on allegations of unjustified price increases should, therefore, not be seen in isolation of the value set that has dominated the minds of the post-Rhodesia government. While the emergence of Chindia and other newly industrialised countries may have exposed the bankruptcy of a command economy as a nation building instrument, it appears that the government of Zimbabwe is determined to revisit this defining issue.
The ZSTC and ZDC were two of many institutions that were established by the government of Zimbabwe to intervene in the economy on the grounds that the private sector, given its character and colour, could not be trusted to respond to the needs of a development state. These institutions failed to live up to the expectations of not only the government but of the people resulting in the government abandoning them. It now seems politically expedient to resuscitate these institutions.
The politicisation of the economic space is not unique to Zimbabwe but what is striking is the inconsistency of the government’s approach to nation building. In the 1980s, the government under the leadership of none other than President Robert Mugabe set up institutions that even in the assessment of the government were monumental failures and now with the nation mired in an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions, there appears to be no alternative strategies than to revisit failed policies and initiatives.
It appears that the government will never be brought to book for their demonstrated failed policy in as much the same government is very judgmental about alleged market failures. While the government has zero tolerance for purported market failure, it appears that it is not accountable to anyone for its own failures. The attitude of the government is that any failure by the private sector should necessarily lead to the takeover of errand companies while the failure by the government to provide the required leadership should not lead to regime change.
It is important that any rational analysis of the post independence era critically examines the true nature of the construction of the state. I had an interesting encounter last Friday when I met four Zimbabwean gentlemen who have been reading my weekly column on New Zimbabwe.com. They expressed concern about the future of Zimbabwe. We shared our insights into the complex subject but what was striking was that they were all convinced that the remedy to the Zimbabwean problem was the removal of President Mugabe and not any change of values. After the encounter, I began to appreciate the importance of unpacking the role of a leader and the governed in nation building.
Most post-colonial states inherited colonial administrative machinery that was never meant to serve the interests of all the citizens and one of the key features of a colonial system was the investment in ensuring that citizens feared the state and they were kept ignorant of how the state functioned and how to make it accountable to the majority.
It is evident that President Mugabe has consistently positioned himself as a protector of the poor and a custodian of national values without attempting to define the kind of political morality that should underpin a progressive nation. I gave a simple example to the Zimbabwean gentlemen that I met to explain my take on one of the enduring African problems in relation to the role of the state in nation building.
I said that if one assumes a hypothetical country with five citizens who are tasked with creating their own state and how they should be governed, the key issue for such people is to determine their values before even deciding who of them should lead. The construction of a state in a Republican dispensation is that the people are sovereign and a leader should, therefore, emerge among the five citizens on the basis that anyone of the five can be at the top.
Unlike the private sector where business leaders are not elected, political leaders must emerge from the citizens. In this vein, the five citizens would then agree that they should set up a government to handle their affairs and they would finance the government from their own sweat through taxes. Accordingly, one of the five would emerge as a leader while the other four citizens carry on with their activities that they pursue in their own self interest while conscious of their obligations to the collective.
A leader who emerges from such construction is humbled by the fact that his source of legitimacy and power is the surrender by the other four citizens of their power to him to preside over the affairs of the state on their behalf and on none other. Such a leader is not expected to use the state to do the things that citizens can do for themselves.
However, when a leader discovers that all able bodied and potential tax payers would rather sell their productive time to other nations, he will know that he has failed to administer his oath of office. Equally, if the leader ends up constructing a reality where the state ends up displacing citizens in engaging in economic activities, then you know a Tsunami or rather a Tsugabe has occurred.
The reason communist experiments were monumental disasters was that they were premised on a logic that is contrary to the sovereignty principle. No state can create its own legitimacy in a vacuum or in the abstract as many states in Africa have tried to do in the mistaken belief that the state can be more trustworthy than citizens who should inform it. Many of the governments end up pursuing policies and programs that serve to undermine the very financiers (taxpayers) of the state that they need for sustenance. What is interesting is that more blacks have chosen to pay taxes to foreign countries under Mugabe’s watch than under colonialism. Equally, while blacks (Mugabe’s natural constituency) are voting with their feet, whites are not only staying put but are coming back to entrench their interests.
With unemployment at about 80%, it means that only 20% of the working population has to generate enough resources to feed the entire country. Is this sustainable? Any leader who has failed to meet the expectations of the people who surrender their power to him/her should ordinarily resign in the national interest. Imagine the four citizens who trusted one of them to lead them in my imaginary nation end up being afraid of their leader to the extent that they resign into believing that they are not competent to take him out and he is indispensable.
The question that emerges is whether the leader is a victim or a villain. In the case of President Mugabe, there are many including himself who believe that he has been a victim of one or the other forces and really he has not been in control of the ship. After 27 years in power, he has presented himself successfully as a victim (not of failed policies) but of a conspiracy that he should have anticipated as a leader when he took the first oath of office in 1980. The quality of any good general is the ability to fight the battle before exposing his troops to the enemy. If in his mind he can win it, only then should he accept to lead the charge.
If President Mugabe was a general in the fight against poverty, what would citizens have expected him to do over the last 27 years? Has President Mugabe’s government lived up to the expectations of the poor? Are Zimbabweans better off today than they were at independence? In the case of Tanzania, when President Nyerere was faced with the same reality, he chose to step down to allow the country to move forward.
It is now inevitable that President Mugabe will be the candidate for Zanu PF in next year’s elections and as expected he will win and yet among his supporters he remains as infallible as King IL Sung was until death in North Korea. There are many who genuinely believe that President Mugabe should not be held accountable for his actions. What is even scarier is that over the last 27 years, citizens have resigned themselves into accepting that they are also victims of fate.
Notwithstanding failed policies and non delivery, it is evident in President Mugabe’s speeches that he does not believe that his government has made any mistakes. Droughts, IMF/World Bank, white conspiracy, black puppets, criminal businesspersons, George Bush and Tony Blair have come in handy for the President in explaining why the post colonial experience has been a disaster. Accordingly, his supporters argue that the President should remain in situ for as long as God gives him the health.
Is President Mugabe alone in constructing a victim focused reality? We need to interrogate the notion that the state knows better than the citizens who create it. After 27 years of investing in fear, it is apparent that Zimbabweans who are fed up with the status quo have no other choice but to leave. If one were to do a climate analysis of contemporary Zimbabwe tracking fear as a variable, it would be not surprising for the reading to be at its highest. How can people who live in fear be expected to be free and make rational choices?
Having carefully studied my circumstances (nationalisation of my assets in the name of national interest) and that of other black Zimbabweans, the attitude of business in Zimbabwe is that it is in the national interest to swallow losses than challenge misguided, recycled and universally discredited policies.
The people who control Zimbabwean assets (principally foreign and white) in the main are conscious that the fate of the farmers and carefully targeted businesspersons can easily befall them with no protection. Can you imagine that after 27 years in power, Zimbabwe needs an Indigenisation Act? What is ironic is that many intelligent Zimbabweans believe naively that Zimbabwe all along had an indigenisation policy and we were some of the beneficiaries. Who has been in charge? While the government is putting a legal framework for indigenisation, the few blacks who have already ventured into business have been victimised raising a legitimate question of the true intent of such policies
While Zimbabwe implodes, Lonrho is leading the charge to reassert its former colonial status. Last Friday, Lonrho announced that it raised an initial £32.3m ($66.4m, €48m) from shareholders towards a new subsidiary – Lonzim – to buy up assets in Zimbabwe with a “significant opportunity for future growth”.
David Lenigas, Lonrho’s executive chairman, told the Financial Times that he aimed to raise a total of £100m for the company through a share offer to be launched in London soon. He said demand for Lonzim shares was coming from Europe, South Africa and the Middle East. But it had been strongest among institutional investors including pension and hedge funds in the US. He thought this was driven by a broader appetite for African risk.
What does Lenigas know about Zimbabwe that is not being told to the rest of the public? It appears that cynically Mugabe’s policies are of benefit to imperial capital than to citizens. Was this the true intention of independence to run the country down so that non-citizens can pick the cherries while citizens are chased away?
It is proposed that the ZSTC, originally established in1986 by an Act of Parliament as a post-colonial body corporate, will be reactivated with the sole objective of acquiring trading companies in response to the alleged politically motivated price escalations. It is also proposed that ZDC, a state corporation that was established in 1988 by an Act of Parliament, be the instrument for nationalising private manufacturing assets.
The events that have unfolded in Zimbabwe leading to the wholesale arrests of businesspersons on allegations of unjustified price increases should, therefore, not be seen in isolation of the value set that has dominated the minds of the post-Rhodesia government. While the emergence of Chindia and other newly industrialised countries may have exposed the bankruptcy of a command economy as a nation building instrument, it appears that the government of Zimbabwe is determined to revisit this defining issue.
The ZSTC and ZDC were two of many institutions that were established by the government of Zimbabwe to intervene in the economy on the grounds that the private sector, given its character and colour, could not be trusted to respond to the needs of a development state. These institutions failed to live up to the expectations of not only the government but of the people resulting in the government abandoning them. It now seems politically expedient to resuscitate these institutions.
The politicisation of the economic space is not unique to Zimbabwe but what is striking is the inconsistency of the government’s approach to nation building. In the 1980s, the government under the leadership of none other than President Robert Mugabe set up institutions that even in the assessment of the government were monumental failures and now with the nation mired in an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions, there appears to be no alternative strategies than to revisit failed policies and initiatives.
It appears that the government will never be brought to book for their demonstrated failed policy in as much the same government is very judgmental about alleged market failures. While the government has zero tolerance for purported market failure, it appears that it is not accountable to anyone for its own failures. The attitude of the government is that any failure by the private sector should necessarily lead to the takeover of errand companies while the failure by the government to provide the required leadership should not lead to regime change.
It is important that any rational analysis of the post independence era critically examines the true nature of the construction of the state. I had an interesting encounter last Friday when I met four Zimbabwean gentlemen who have been reading my weekly column on New Zimbabwe.com. They expressed concern about the future of Zimbabwe. We shared our insights into the complex subject but what was striking was that they were all convinced that the remedy to the Zimbabwean problem was the removal of President Mugabe and not any change of values. After the encounter, I began to appreciate the importance of unpacking the role of a leader and the governed in nation building.
Most post-colonial states inherited colonial administrative machinery that was never meant to serve the interests of all the citizens and one of the key features of a colonial system was the investment in ensuring that citizens feared the state and they were kept ignorant of how the state functioned and how to make it accountable to the majority.
It is evident that President Mugabe has consistently positioned himself as a protector of the poor and a custodian of national values without attempting to define the kind of political morality that should underpin a progressive nation. I gave a simple example to the Zimbabwean gentlemen that I met to explain my take on one of the enduring African problems in relation to the role of the state in nation building.
I said that if one assumes a hypothetical country with five citizens who are tasked with creating their own state and how they should be governed, the key issue for such people is to determine their values before even deciding who of them should lead. The construction of a state in a Republican dispensation is that the people are sovereign and a leader should, therefore, emerge among the five citizens on the basis that anyone of the five can be at the top.
Unlike the private sector where business leaders are not elected, political leaders must emerge from the citizens. In this vein, the five citizens would then agree that they should set up a government to handle their affairs and they would finance the government from their own sweat through taxes. Accordingly, one of the five would emerge as a leader while the other four citizens carry on with their activities that they pursue in their own self interest while conscious of their obligations to the collective.
A leader who emerges from such construction is humbled by the fact that his source of legitimacy and power is the surrender by the other four citizens of their power to him to preside over the affairs of the state on their behalf and on none other. Such a leader is not expected to use the state to do the things that citizens can do for themselves.
However, when a leader discovers that all able bodied and potential tax payers would rather sell their productive time to other nations, he will know that he has failed to administer his oath of office. Equally, if the leader ends up constructing a reality where the state ends up displacing citizens in engaging in economic activities, then you know a Tsunami or rather a Tsugabe has occurred.
The reason communist experiments were monumental disasters was that they were premised on a logic that is contrary to the sovereignty principle. No state can create its own legitimacy in a vacuum or in the abstract as many states in Africa have tried to do in the mistaken belief that the state can be more trustworthy than citizens who should inform it. Many of the governments end up pursuing policies and programs that serve to undermine the very financiers (taxpayers) of the state that they need for sustenance. What is interesting is that more blacks have chosen to pay taxes to foreign countries under Mugabe’s watch than under colonialism. Equally, while blacks (Mugabe’s natural constituency) are voting with their feet, whites are not only staying put but are coming back to entrench their interests.
With unemployment at about 80%, it means that only 20% of the working population has to generate enough resources to feed the entire country. Is this sustainable? Any leader who has failed to meet the expectations of the people who surrender their power to him/her should ordinarily resign in the national interest. Imagine the four citizens who trusted one of them to lead them in my imaginary nation end up being afraid of their leader to the extent that they resign into believing that they are not competent to take him out and he is indispensable.
The question that emerges is whether the leader is a victim or a villain. In the case of President Mugabe, there are many including himself who believe that he has been a victim of one or the other forces and really he has not been in control of the ship. After 27 years in power, he has presented himself successfully as a victim (not of failed policies) but of a conspiracy that he should have anticipated as a leader when he took the first oath of office in 1980. The quality of any good general is the ability to fight the battle before exposing his troops to the enemy. If in his mind he can win it, only then should he accept to lead the charge.
If President Mugabe was a general in the fight against poverty, what would citizens have expected him to do over the last 27 years? Has President Mugabe’s government lived up to the expectations of the poor? Are Zimbabweans better off today than they were at independence? In the case of Tanzania, when President Nyerere was faced with the same reality, he chose to step down to allow the country to move forward.
It is now inevitable that President Mugabe will be the candidate for Zanu PF in next year’s elections and as expected he will win and yet among his supporters he remains as infallible as King IL Sung was until death in North Korea. There are many who genuinely believe that President Mugabe should not be held accountable for his actions. What is even scarier is that over the last 27 years, citizens have resigned themselves into accepting that they are also victims of fate.
Notwithstanding failed policies and non delivery, it is evident in President Mugabe’s speeches that he does not believe that his government has made any mistakes. Droughts, IMF/World Bank, white conspiracy, black puppets, criminal businesspersons, George Bush and Tony Blair have come in handy for the President in explaining why the post colonial experience has been a disaster. Accordingly, his supporters argue that the President should remain in situ for as long as God gives him the health.
Is President Mugabe alone in constructing a victim focused reality? We need to interrogate the notion that the state knows better than the citizens who create it. After 27 years of investing in fear, it is apparent that Zimbabweans who are fed up with the status quo have no other choice but to leave. If one were to do a climate analysis of contemporary Zimbabwe tracking fear as a variable, it would be not surprising for the reading to be at its highest. How can people who live in fear be expected to be free and make rational choices?
Having carefully studied my circumstances (nationalisation of my assets in the name of national interest) and that of other black Zimbabweans, the attitude of business in Zimbabwe is that it is in the national interest to swallow losses than challenge misguided, recycled and universally discredited policies.
The people who control Zimbabwean assets (principally foreign and white) in the main are conscious that the fate of the farmers and carefully targeted businesspersons can easily befall them with no protection. Can you imagine that after 27 years in power, Zimbabwe needs an Indigenisation Act? What is ironic is that many intelligent Zimbabweans believe naively that Zimbabwe all along had an indigenisation policy and we were some of the beneficiaries. Who has been in charge? While the government is putting a legal framework for indigenisation, the few blacks who have already ventured into business have been victimised raising a legitimate question of the true intent of such policies
While Zimbabwe implodes, Lonrho is leading the charge to reassert its former colonial status. Last Friday, Lonrho announced that it raised an initial £32.3m ($66.4m, €48m) from shareholders towards a new subsidiary – Lonzim – to buy up assets in Zimbabwe with a “significant opportunity for future growth”.
David Lenigas, Lonrho’s executive chairman, told the Financial Times that he aimed to raise a total of £100m for the company through a share offer to be launched in London soon. He said demand for Lonzim shares was coming from Europe, South Africa and the Middle East. But it had been strongest among institutional investors including pension and hedge funds in the US. He thought this was driven by a broader appetite for African risk.
What does Lenigas know about Zimbabwe that is not being told to the rest of the public? It appears that cynically Mugabe’s policies are of benefit to imperial capital than to citizens. Was this the true intention of independence to run the country down so that non-citizens can pick the cherries while citizens are chased away?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Mugabe takes over as leader of the opposition
THE nature and context of the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe has changed in a cynically predictable manner.
The contestation for power since independence has been principally between the labour-dominated opposition and custodians of the national democratic revolution.
The labour movement in its current formation is a direct consequence and creation of the post-colonial state.
In fact, President Robert Mugabe can rightly claim to be the father of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) because under the colonial settler regime, such consolidation of labour power was illegal.
If one accepts that the ascendancy to power of Zanu in 1980 was a triumph of the working class and the marginalised majority, then the focus of the post-colonial state necessarily had to be about the poor.
To the extent that the national democratic revolution was meant to restore sovereignty to the people, the expression of such power had to be through a government created by the citizens.
For the first seven years of Zimbabwe’s independence, the address of sovereignty was the Parliament of Zimbabwe. After the Unity Accord, the address changed to the State House and Mugabe became the Supreme Leader.
It is clear that there is no consensus as to the origins of the Zimbabwean crisis. Some argue that the crisis began at Lancaster House particularly in respect of how the land issue was to be handled and financed. They argue that the fact that there was a delay in tackling the problem should not detract from the core challenges of democratising an entrenched legacy of colonially engineered inequities.
Accordingly, the economic crisis in Zimbabwe is seen as predictable in that any attempt to convert the civil rights gains of the national democratic revolution into economic rights is bound to generate problems.
In prosecuting the national democratic revolution, it is argued that it would be unreasonable to expect the assistance of the bourgeoisie class particularly the white settler class. Naturally, one would expect that the labour movement, whose members were exploited historically in the creation of an artificially developed colonial state, to come to the assistance of the ruling elite.
In fact, the creation of a federation of the working class was meant to entrench an alliance of the oppressed and the ruling elite in the pursuit of a common objective to eradicate poverty. The role of the state was seen by both labour and the bureaucrats as central to the execution of the people’s mandate.
Notwithstanding the expectations, Mugabe’s experiment backfired on him and 27 years later he now finds himself head on with an unexpected alliance between the working class (his own creation), white settler class and the domestic and foreign capital class.
What is ironic is that there may not be any fundamental policy differences between the labour movement and Zanu PF in as much as the differences between ZANU and ZAPU were patched up to the benefit of the leadership of both parties.
It is not clear in terms of the tactics and strategies of the labour movement what kind of Zimbabwe they want i.e. a socialist construction with the state in control of the commanding heights of the economy or a capitalist system in which the market determines the allocation of resources.
If there is any lesson to be drawn from the just ended ANC Policy Conference and last week’s South African Communist Party (SACP) party congress, it is that the labour movement is determined to institutionalise the same policies that Mugabe is being criticised for by the labour movement in Zimbabwe.
If Mugabe were a South African, there is no doubt that he would have been elected unopposed as both the leader of the ANC and the SACP. However, COSATU and SACP appear to be opportunistically opposed to Mugabe’s policies.
On the question of asset ownership, Mugabe and the ANC alliance partners believe that the state should control and manage the assets. In fact, the SACP called for the nationalisation of petrochemical firm Sasol and Mittal Steel South Africa to ensure energy security.
The general secretary of the SACP, Blade Nzimande told a party congress on Thursday last week that it was absurd for resource-rich South Africa to be paying high prices for steel and oil produced in the country.
“Why do we have to pay not just import parity prices but as much as a 30% premium when compared to India and China for our own steel? About 40% of our oil comes from Sasol, but we are paying international prices," he said.
He urged delegates to pass a resolution calling on the state to take control of the two companies. It is clear that the difference between the SACP and Zanu PF’s position on asset ownership and pricing policies may be the same and yet the SACP advocates regime change in Zimbabwe.
It is not clear what SACP and COSATU know about the MDC in terms of policy, that would lead them to want Mugabe, their most vocal and eloquent spokesman for the Socialist International, to go and be replaced by a party that would on the face of it (if the solidarity with SACP and COSATU means anything) end up advocating the same policies that Mugabe has failed to implement over the last 27 years. Could the argument between MDC/ZCTU and Zanu PF be over the pace of nationalisation or are there fundamental policy differences?
On the issue of the benefits from the post-colonial state, Mugabe’s position is that the benefits are skewed in favour of criminals masquerading as businessmen and imperialist agents. The position is no different from the one articulated by COSATU secretary general Zwelinzima Vavi at the SACP congress.
Vavi said: “The main beneficiaries of economic transformation are white capitalists who remain the "induna” [chief] while the black middle class holds jobs in human resources. The SACP and COSATU are in the middle of one of the biggest struggles since the 1980s and 1990s and the patience of the working class is wearing thin They remain as oppressed by the white oligarchy as the working class. COSATU and SACP are demanding that the benefits of the sustained economic growth should be shared with the people who created the wealth. We can expect the attacks on all of us to intensify.”
Many have been surprised by Mugabe’s reaction to the Zimbabwean business sector in terms of price increases in the face of a hyper-inflationary environment. However, given that it is unclear what the policies of the labour dominated MDC in the post-Mugabe era are, Mugabe has decided to take-over the role of the opposition in Zimbabwe and no-one can doubt after the actions of last week that he is now opportunistically the undisputed leader of the downtrodden and leaderless opposition.
For the SACP and COSATU, they see in Mugabe a leader that warehoused and baby-seated capitalism for too long. They would want a new leadership in Zimbabwe that would accelerate the destruction of private property and introduce state planning in which they would think for the citizens in the name of national interest.
Given that the raw materials of any successful politician in Africa are the poor rural people and the working class, Mugabe has no choice but to reclaim the leadership of the national democratic revolution by stepping into the ideological vacuum created by the MDC with its alleged questionable alliance with capitalists and white settler farmers.
Under this construction, it is then argued that there can be no basis of a regime change being driven by the working class when there is no better leader for them than Mugabe and Zanu PF. If ZAPU came to the realisation that it was futile to oppose the national democratic revolution led by ZANU, then it is also argued that MDC will now come to its senses with the realisation that the state can force business to reduce prices by 50% with no visible and tangible opposition.
If Mugabe can bring lower prices to the suffering masses then surely why would any reasonable and patriotic Zimbabwean want him out? Only imperialist forces would want such a leader out of power and leave the vulnerable majority unprotected.
If Mugabe has transformed himself into the leader of the opposition, then what are we to make of Gideon Gono’s antics of leaking confidential papers to the media and trying to confuse the public from targeting him for his own misguided policies and programs?
By the way, who introduced externalisation as a criminal offence in the Zimbabwean vocabulary? Who controlled the exchange rate at artificial rates and then introduced Productive Sector Facilities? Who removed the three zeros from the currency and called them heroes? Who said that devaluation was out of the question? What is the difference between no devaluation and price control? Who introduced unconstitutional and illegal quasi-fiscal activities whose full extent remains shrouded in mystery? Why would Gono want to run away from his shadow? What ever happened to Herbert Murerwa who correctly predicted that the zeros would come back with a vengeance?
It is evident that Mugabe learned from Gono that the police can do a better job in managing political and economic behaviour than good policies. In the final analysis, Zimbabweans and Africans in general must decide what kind of government we want for ourselves.
Notwithstanding the demise of the traditional communist order, there are many who believe that socialism can be a better instrument for eradicating poverty in Africa. There are many who resign in comfort that Mugabe, like other like-minded leaders, is a victim of imperialist forces that are determined to keep Africans from controlling their destinies.
What is tragic is that bad leadership benefits from the ideological confusion that seems to characterise contemporary African opposition politics.
The contestation for power since independence has been principally between the labour-dominated opposition and custodians of the national democratic revolution.
The labour movement in its current formation is a direct consequence and creation of the post-colonial state.
In fact, President Robert Mugabe can rightly claim to be the father of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) because under the colonial settler regime, such consolidation of labour power was illegal.
If one accepts that the ascendancy to power of Zanu in 1980 was a triumph of the working class and the marginalised majority, then the focus of the post-colonial state necessarily had to be about the poor.
To the extent that the national democratic revolution was meant to restore sovereignty to the people, the expression of such power had to be through a government created by the citizens.
For the first seven years of Zimbabwe’s independence, the address of sovereignty was the Parliament of Zimbabwe. After the Unity Accord, the address changed to the State House and Mugabe became the Supreme Leader.
It is clear that there is no consensus as to the origins of the Zimbabwean crisis. Some argue that the crisis began at Lancaster House particularly in respect of how the land issue was to be handled and financed. They argue that the fact that there was a delay in tackling the problem should not detract from the core challenges of democratising an entrenched legacy of colonially engineered inequities.
Accordingly, the economic crisis in Zimbabwe is seen as predictable in that any attempt to convert the civil rights gains of the national democratic revolution into economic rights is bound to generate problems.
In prosecuting the national democratic revolution, it is argued that it would be unreasonable to expect the assistance of the bourgeoisie class particularly the white settler class. Naturally, one would expect that the labour movement, whose members were exploited historically in the creation of an artificially developed colonial state, to come to the assistance of the ruling elite.
In fact, the creation of a federation of the working class was meant to entrench an alliance of the oppressed and the ruling elite in the pursuit of a common objective to eradicate poverty. The role of the state was seen by both labour and the bureaucrats as central to the execution of the people’s mandate.
Notwithstanding the expectations, Mugabe’s experiment backfired on him and 27 years later he now finds himself head on with an unexpected alliance between the working class (his own creation), white settler class and the domestic and foreign capital class.
What is ironic is that there may not be any fundamental policy differences between the labour movement and Zanu PF in as much as the differences between ZANU and ZAPU were patched up to the benefit of the leadership of both parties.
It is not clear in terms of the tactics and strategies of the labour movement what kind of Zimbabwe they want i.e. a socialist construction with the state in control of the commanding heights of the economy or a capitalist system in which the market determines the allocation of resources.
If there is any lesson to be drawn from the just ended ANC Policy Conference and last week’s South African Communist Party (SACP) party congress, it is that the labour movement is determined to institutionalise the same policies that Mugabe is being criticised for by the labour movement in Zimbabwe.
If Mugabe were a South African, there is no doubt that he would have been elected unopposed as both the leader of the ANC and the SACP. However, COSATU and SACP appear to be opportunistically opposed to Mugabe’s policies.
On the question of asset ownership, Mugabe and the ANC alliance partners believe that the state should control and manage the assets. In fact, the SACP called for the nationalisation of petrochemical firm Sasol and Mittal Steel South Africa to ensure energy security.
The general secretary of the SACP, Blade Nzimande told a party congress on Thursday last week that it was absurd for resource-rich South Africa to be paying high prices for steel and oil produced in the country.
“Why do we have to pay not just import parity prices but as much as a 30% premium when compared to India and China for our own steel? About 40% of our oil comes from Sasol, but we are paying international prices," he said.
He urged delegates to pass a resolution calling on the state to take control of the two companies. It is clear that the difference between the SACP and Zanu PF’s position on asset ownership and pricing policies may be the same and yet the SACP advocates regime change in Zimbabwe.
It is not clear what SACP and COSATU know about the MDC in terms of policy, that would lead them to want Mugabe, their most vocal and eloquent spokesman for the Socialist International, to go and be replaced by a party that would on the face of it (if the solidarity with SACP and COSATU means anything) end up advocating the same policies that Mugabe has failed to implement over the last 27 years. Could the argument between MDC/ZCTU and Zanu PF be over the pace of nationalisation or are there fundamental policy differences?
On the issue of the benefits from the post-colonial state, Mugabe’s position is that the benefits are skewed in favour of criminals masquerading as businessmen and imperialist agents. The position is no different from the one articulated by COSATU secretary general Zwelinzima Vavi at the SACP congress.
Vavi said: “The main beneficiaries of economic transformation are white capitalists who remain the "induna” [chief] while the black middle class holds jobs in human resources. The SACP and COSATU are in the middle of one of the biggest struggles since the 1980s and 1990s and the patience of the working class is wearing thin They remain as oppressed by the white oligarchy as the working class. COSATU and SACP are demanding that the benefits of the sustained economic growth should be shared with the people who created the wealth. We can expect the attacks on all of us to intensify.”
Many have been surprised by Mugabe’s reaction to the Zimbabwean business sector in terms of price increases in the face of a hyper-inflationary environment. However, given that it is unclear what the policies of the labour dominated MDC in the post-Mugabe era are, Mugabe has decided to take-over the role of the opposition in Zimbabwe and no-one can doubt after the actions of last week that he is now opportunistically the undisputed leader of the downtrodden and leaderless opposition.
For the SACP and COSATU, they see in Mugabe a leader that warehoused and baby-seated capitalism for too long. They would want a new leadership in Zimbabwe that would accelerate the destruction of private property and introduce state planning in which they would think for the citizens in the name of national interest.
Given that the raw materials of any successful politician in Africa are the poor rural people and the working class, Mugabe has no choice but to reclaim the leadership of the national democratic revolution by stepping into the ideological vacuum created by the MDC with its alleged questionable alliance with capitalists and white settler farmers.
Under this construction, it is then argued that there can be no basis of a regime change being driven by the working class when there is no better leader for them than Mugabe and Zanu PF. If ZAPU came to the realisation that it was futile to oppose the national democratic revolution led by ZANU, then it is also argued that MDC will now come to its senses with the realisation that the state can force business to reduce prices by 50% with no visible and tangible opposition.
If Mugabe can bring lower prices to the suffering masses then surely why would any reasonable and patriotic Zimbabwean want him out? Only imperialist forces would want such a leader out of power and leave the vulnerable majority unprotected.
If Mugabe has transformed himself into the leader of the opposition, then what are we to make of Gideon Gono’s antics of leaking confidential papers to the media and trying to confuse the public from targeting him for his own misguided policies and programs?
By the way, who introduced externalisation as a criminal offence in the Zimbabwean vocabulary? Who controlled the exchange rate at artificial rates and then introduced Productive Sector Facilities? Who removed the three zeros from the currency and called them heroes? Who said that devaluation was out of the question? What is the difference between no devaluation and price control? Who introduced unconstitutional and illegal quasi-fiscal activities whose full extent remains shrouded in mystery? Why would Gono want to run away from his shadow? What ever happened to Herbert Murerwa who correctly predicted that the zeros would come back with a vengeance?
It is evident that Mugabe learned from Gono that the police can do a better job in managing political and economic behaviour than good policies. In the final analysis, Zimbabweans and Africans in general must decide what kind of government we want for ourselves.
Notwithstanding the demise of the traditional communist order, there are many who believe that socialism can be a better instrument for eradicating poverty in Africa. There are many who resign in comfort that Mugabe, like other like-minded leaders, is a victim of imperialist forces that are determined to keep Africans from controlling their destinies.
What is tragic is that bad leadership benefits from the ideological confusion that seems to characterise contemporary African opposition politics.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Mugabe under siege: a failed ideology or conspiracy
THE events of last week in Zimbabwe expose how notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, and of a development state that are all elements which are valued and cherished by all progressive Africans can be rendered irrelevant in the pursuit and sustenance of absolute political power.
Zimbabwe’s judiciary, legal system, bureaucracy and police are all great institutions derived from the colonial state that should have been of service to Zimbabwe but unfortunately they now seem to be privatised and partisan.
After 27 years of independence, one would have expected that the idea of Zimbabwe as enshrined in the Constitution, with its emphasis on the principles of democracy, the rule of law, above all, the equality of all citizens irrespective of social standing, ethnicity and race would by now have had deep roots in the nation’s culture and contemporary civilisation.
It appears that the ideas associated with the age of enlightenment that has visited many former colonial countries (newly industrialised countries) have failed to influence Zimbabwe’s political establishment to see the futility of pursuing misguided policies and programs.
The Zimbabwean constitution should have remained a testimony to the enduring interplay between what is essentially Zimbabwean but is very British in its intellectual heritage. The realisation of Zimbabwe (by no other leader than Mugabe) as an inclusive and plural society at independence should have drawn from the best of both traditions.
It is evident starting from the Matabeleland massacres, the Willowgate scandal, the Executive Presidency, agriculture, and now mining and industry that the experiment of building a democracy within the framework of a mixed economy, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-party society has failed in Zimbabwe. Instead of encouraging Zimbabweans to walk the path of democracy and move to a new dispensation free of poverty, ignorance, intolerance, disease and the threat of state tyranny, Zimbabwe’s founding fathers seem determined to undermine the interests that inform any progressive nation.
The journey that Zimbabwe was supposed to travel under the stewardship of its founding fathers was expected to be an exciting journey full of challenges and opportunities. The restoration of sovereignty to the people of Zimbabwe at independence was surely meant to ensure that citizens would never again be victims of their own creation i.e. the post colonial Republic.
I am sure that many Zimbabweans had no contemplation that exercising their democratic choices would be classified as treasonable acts and anyone advocating regime change would be viewed as less patriotic than incumbents.
At a time when Zimbabwe was expected to teach the world about the new African civilisation based on tolerance, the country has now become an example of how countries should not be governed. In fact, Zimbabwe and the UK were expected to learn from each other and teach the world how former adversaries can mutually cooperate in an increasingly inter-dependent and globalised world that we live in. However, the big picture that is emerging in Zimbabwe is extremely negative and corrosive.
The business climate is negative. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and other events of the late 1980s and early 1990s may have proved to countries like India and Vietnam once and for all that capitalism was a better system than socialism/communism, but it appears that these events did nothing to settle the debate about which model is best suited to Zimbabwe.
At the time of India’s independence, the UK government was socialist and there was widespread belief like in Zimbabwe that the state could bring greater prosperity to the working people and the wider population if it controlled the means of production. We now know that after many attempts around the globe, that governments are not actually good at running anything or protecting the interests of the vulnerable and poor. In the UK, it took about 30 years (or 3 years less than Mugabe’s rule) before the winter of discontent and a realisation that there was a better way of running a country.
In the case of India, the economy only started to grow positively in the early 1990s as it became evident that the communist experiment was a monumental disaster.
It seems that the government of Zimbabwe is determined to arrest the entrepreneurial spirit of Zimbabweans and throw the country into darkness by uprooting the remaining diminishing points of light.
Instead of supporting the private sector, the government of Zimbabwe has now targeted this sector for political expediency and ensuring that the results of the 2008 elections are predetermined. Although the government is busy trying to convince itself that the enemy is from without, it is clear that the current economic meltdown is largely self created.
Bad policies can never be expected to produce positive outcomes. It is easy to blame Blair and Bush but the experience in India and China has shown that progressive nations can leverage their social strengths into economic gains and the dream of a better life for our grandchildren and children can be realised within a lifetime.
Having been the first business victim of the misguided policies of nationalisation based on trumped up allegations of externalisation, I often wondered whether the Zimbabwean business sector was smart enough to know that the day of reckoning was around the corner. It is clear that the government needs someone to blame and any point of light (performing assets) is naturally a target.
While the land reform was justified on the basis of sovereignty and righting a colonial wrong, the nationalisation of economic assets is being justified on the presumed regime change conspiracy. What is being argued by the government of Zimbabwe is that anyone who increases prices is aiding and abetting the imperialist inspired regime change agenda. Based on this logic, it is clear that if Zimbabweans voted for another party in 2008, it is unlikely that Zanu PF will consider that to be their genuine expression.
Zimbabwe needs its government activities at all levels to become known for efficiency, integrity, meritocracy and transparency. This requires new and strong leadership to achieve. For the past 27 years, Zimbabwe has failed to produce such leadership and the scale of the challenge is such that no one in Zanu PF is up to the task. It is now apparent that even Gideon Gono is now running scared and disowning the misguided policies and programs (remember Project Sunrise and the Zero Sum Game).
It is clear that Zanu PF will not accept that at the core of the Zimbabwean problem is policy bankruptcy and lack of leadership. However, from a national perspective it is important that Zimbabweans bite the bullet and have the courage to say: “enough is enough”.
Even if the so-called sanctions were to be lifted, command policies have been discredited and any interventionist strategy is unlikely to deliver the change that Zimbabwe urgently needs.
President Mugabe has the full backing of his party to do the wrong things confirming the deep seated nature of the crisis and injury. Zanu PF believes that the bureaucrats and securocrats are the best custodians of sovereignty without any empirical evidence that such is the case.
To use an old economic example: although there may be a superficial benefit in using one team of bureaucrats to harass businesspeople, it is clearly better if the money being paid to such “policemen” is used to pay people who can make a greater contribution to development.
If the government keeps too many people on its payroll (price inspectors with the active support of war veterans), then the taxes it has to raise to pay them will not be available to the already overstretched consumers and companies to use on their own more productive purchases.
The Zimbabwean economy, like a deck of cards, is crumbling fast and yet the cause of the problem appears to be a contested issue requiring a critical analysis of the record of the post-independence in a holistic manner. Conspiracy theories are normally good raw materials for failed states and can conveniently give life support to terminally sick patients.
Zimbabwe’s judiciary, legal system, bureaucracy and police are all great institutions derived from the colonial state that should have been of service to Zimbabwe but unfortunately they now seem to be privatised and partisan.
After 27 years of independence, one would have expected that the idea of Zimbabwe as enshrined in the Constitution, with its emphasis on the principles of democracy, the rule of law, above all, the equality of all citizens irrespective of social standing, ethnicity and race would by now have had deep roots in the nation’s culture and contemporary civilisation.
It appears that the ideas associated with the age of enlightenment that has visited many former colonial countries (newly industrialised countries) have failed to influence Zimbabwe’s political establishment to see the futility of pursuing misguided policies and programs.
The Zimbabwean constitution should have remained a testimony to the enduring interplay between what is essentially Zimbabwean but is very British in its intellectual heritage. The realisation of Zimbabwe (by no other leader than Mugabe) as an inclusive and plural society at independence should have drawn from the best of both traditions.
It is evident starting from the Matabeleland massacres, the Willowgate scandal, the Executive Presidency, agriculture, and now mining and industry that the experiment of building a democracy within the framework of a mixed economy, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-party society has failed in Zimbabwe. Instead of encouraging Zimbabweans to walk the path of democracy and move to a new dispensation free of poverty, ignorance, intolerance, disease and the threat of state tyranny, Zimbabwe’s founding fathers seem determined to undermine the interests that inform any progressive nation.
The journey that Zimbabwe was supposed to travel under the stewardship of its founding fathers was expected to be an exciting journey full of challenges and opportunities. The restoration of sovereignty to the people of Zimbabwe at independence was surely meant to ensure that citizens would never again be victims of their own creation i.e. the post colonial Republic.
I am sure that many Zimbabweans had no contemplation that exercising their democratic choices would be classified as treasonable acts and anyone advocating regime change would be viewed as less patriotic than incumbents.
At a time when Zimbabwe was expected to teach the world about the new African civilisation based on tolerance, the country has now become an example of how countries should not be governed. In fact, Zimbabwe and the UK were expected to learn from each other and teach the world how former adversaries can mutually cooperate in an increasingly inter-dependent and globalised world that we live in. However, the big picture that is emerging in Zimbabwe is extremely negative and corrosive.
The business climate is negative. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and other events of the late 1980s and early 1990s may have proved to countries like India and Vietnam once and for all that capitalism was a better system than socialism/communism, but it appears that these events did nothing to settle the debate about which model is best suited to Zimbabwe.
At the time of India’s independence, the UK government was socialist and there was widespread belief like in Zimbabwe that the state could bring greater prosperity to the working people and the wider population if it controlled the means of production. We now know that after many attempts around the globe, that governments are not actually good at running anything or protecting the interests of the vulnerable and poor. In the UK, it took about 30 years (or 3 years less than Mugabe’s rule) before the winter of discontent and a realisation that there was a better way of running a country.
In the case of India, the economy only started to grow positively in the early 1990s as it became evident that the communist experiment was a monumental disaster.
It seems that the government of Zimbabwe is determined to arrest the entrepreneurial spirit of Zimbabweans and throw the country into darkness by uprooting the remaining diminishing points of light.
Instead of supporting the private sector, the government of Zimbabwe has now targeted this sector for political expediency and ensuring that the results of the 2008 elections are predetermined. Although the government is busy trying to convince itself that the enemy is from without, it is clear that the current economic meltdown is largely self created.
Bad policies can never be expected to produce positive outcomes. It is easy to blame Blair and Bush but the experience in India and China has shown that progressive nations can leverage their social strengths into economic gains and the dream of a better life for our grandchildren and children can be realised within a lifetime.
Having been the first business victim of the misguided policies of nationalisation based on trumped up allegations of externalisation, I often wondered whether the Zimbabwean business sector was smart enough to know that the day of reckoning was around the corner. It is clear that the government needs someone to blame and any point of light (performing assets) is naturally a target.
While the land reform was justified on the basis of sovereignty and righting a colonial wrong, the nationalisation of economic assets is being justified on the presumed regime change conspiracy. What is being argued by the government of Zimbabwe is that anyone who increases prices is aiding and abetting the imperialist inspired regime change agenda. Based on this logic, it is clear that if Zimbabweans voted for another party in 2008, it is unlikely that Zanu PF will consider that to be their genuine expression.
Zimbabwe needs its government activities at all levels to become known for efficiency, integrity, meritocracy and transparency. This requires new and strong leadership to achieve. For the past 27 years, Zimbabwe has failed to produce such leadership and the scale of the challenge is such that no one in Zanu PF is up to the task. It is now apparent that even Gideon Gono is now running scared and disowning the misguided policies and programs (remember Project Sunrise and the Zero Sum Game).
It is clear that Zanu PF will not accept that at the core of the Zimbabwean problem is policy bankruptcy and lack of leadership. However, from a national perspective it is important that Zimbabweans bite the bullet and have the courage to say: “enough is enough”.
Even if the so-called sanctions were to be lifted, command policies have been discredited and any interventionist strategy is unlikely to deliver the change that Zimbabwe urgently needs.
President Mugabe has the full backing of his party to do the wrong things confirming the deep seated nature of the crisis and injury. Zanu PF believes that the bureaucrats and securocrats are the best custodians of sovereignty without any empirical evidence that such is the case.
To use an old economic example: although there may be a superficial benefit in using one team of bureaucrats to harass businesspeople, it is clearly better if the money being paid to such “policemen” is used to pay people who can make a greater contribution to development.
If the government keeps too many people on its payroll (price inspectors with the active support of war veterans), then the taxes it has to raise to pay them will not be available to the already overstretched consumers and companies to use on their own more productive purchases.
The Zimbabwean economy, like a deck of cards, is crumbling fast and yet the cause of the problem appears to be a contested issue requiring a critical analysis of the record of the post-independence in a holistic manner. Conspiracy theories are normally good raw materials for failed states and can conveniently give life support to terminally sick patients.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Robert Mugabe's fate
AS THE African Union (AU) deliberates the future of the continent’s political and economic architecture, there is no doubt that Zimbabweans are more confused by the fate of one man than what the country has to do to move forward.
Anyone talking about the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis cannot avoid discussing the fate of President Robert Mugabe. While the opposition has laid out a road map for Zimbabwe, it is clear that behind the camouflage of constitutional and electoral changes, the real agenda is to remove Mugabe through whatever means. Mugabe and his party appear not to be blind to the underlying regime change agenda.
The outgoing US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, and Dr Ibbo Mandaza, seem to share the view that Mugabe will bow out of the political scene by the end of the year. While Mandaza’s prediction is based on his understanding of the internal dynamics in Zanu PF, Ambassador Dell’s prediction is based on the unsustainable economic situation that now characterises contemporary Zimbabwe.
Notwithstanding what Mandaza and Dell think, there is nothing on the ground in Zimbabwe to suggest that Mugabe has any intention of quitting let alone that Zanu PF has any alternative candidate than Mugabe. When one looks at the political scene, Zanu PF and Mugabe have not been persuaded that Zimbabwe needs a new constitution as suggested by the MDC-led opposition. On the contrary, they believe that there is no constitutional crisis and the current government is not only capable of conducting free and fair elections but is competent to do so more than many other African states.
What is clear is that Zanu PF has not missed any election since independence and there is no reason to believe that next year’s election will not be held.With respect to constitutional amendments, Zanu PF believes that parliament is competent to pass any amendment and there is nothing undemocratic about this. On the other hand, the opposition believes that the current government is illegitimate and has no mandate to amend the constitution let alone to govern. While the same opposition has no problem being part of the state through its members being representatives in the Parliament, they do believe that issues concerning the constitution should be handled outside the framework of the state.
On constitutional issues, there is no consensus on the way forward and it is unlikely that Zanu PF will be persuaded even through the Thabo Mbeki mediation effort to commit political suicide and agree on any changes that will weaken the party by removing its most potent weapon, Mugabe, from the scene. Even within Zanu PF, the much talked about factions appear to be leaderless and when subjected to even a small test are never there to defend their interests. If there was any lesson from the Tsholotsho debacle, it is that there is no constituency within Zanu PF (with the exception of Jonathan Moyo who may never have understood the psyche than informs the party) to change the great leader.
This brings us to the issue of the economy. While many may argue that Zanu PF policies are the cause of the economic collapse of the country, Mugabe and his followers are convinced that Zimbabwe is a victim of a well orchestrated campaign by imperialists whose real motive is regime change and not the interests of Zimbabwe. They link the economic crisis to the land issue in a manner that is digestible by any rank and file member of the party. While many argue that there is no causal link between the economic crisis and the land issue, no one has been able to explain why the international community would be so angry with Zimbabwe and not with Nigeria, Pakistan or Ivory Coast if democracy was the real concern.
The emergence of Chavez and the redefinition of the post-colonial state as a developmental state by many former colonial countries clearly show that Dell and Mandaza may be misinformed about what is going on in Zimbabwe. If Mugabe’s thinking about the role of the state in post colonial state and the nature of a national democratic revolution and the tactics and strategies required to sustain the gains of the revolution is spreading throughout the developing world, why then should he bow out? It may not be inconceivable that Mugabe received the buy-in from the SADC Heads of State about his understanding of the broader context of the Zimbabwean crisis to the extent that they may all have agreed about the need to defend his legacy.
It is ironic that even at the just ended ANC policy conference, a key consensus among delegates was the need for South Africa to advance as a developmental state, with increased state intervention to drive growth and create employment. The policy thrust of ANC may not be any different from that of Zanu PF. In as much as ANC is not happy with the monopolisation of the economy and the role of the unions, Zanu PF is one party that feels that it has borne the brunt of counter-revolutionary and reactionary onslaught targeted at undermining the role of the state in the transformation of the economy.
It is not surprising that Mugabe remains convinced that the state must lead the defence of the nation against any attempt to reverse the gains of the revolution. In this regard, even selling a car above the state determined price (like the Willowgate scandal); selling foreign exchange above an arbitrarily determined exchange rate, and selling goods and services above prices the state thinks are justified is seen as a sign of treason or as part of some regime change agenda.
Mugabe remains in control of Zanu PF’s agenda and it would be naïve to suggest that he has lost the control of the party. Any right thinking member of Zanu PF knows what Mugabe wants to hear in terms of the party’s ideology and the role of business in transformation. Mugabe still believes that the state can manage businesses better than the private sector and no market system can address the developmental challenges of a post colonial state. I am convinced that within Zanu PF there are many who share his approach to development although in practice they may not subscribe to socialist policies. Last week, Mugabe did not mince his words when he said: "We will seize the mines ... we will nationalise them if they continue with the dirty tricks. All companies, we will take them over if they continue with their dirty game. Take note, we will be equal to the challenge. We are capable of playing that game too.”
It falls to reason that he is surely planning to go nowhere.
The nationalisation threat by Mugabe is not new but is shared by many African governments. In such an environment, any profitable enterprise is easily seen as a negation of the struggle.
On Tuesday last week, Industry and Trade Minister Obert Mpofu said Zimbabwe will transfer control of all companies, including foreign banks and some mining operations, to locals if a planned black empowerment bill is passed by the country's ruling-party dominated parliament. The domestication of enterprises using the state is not unique to Zimbabwe and, therefore, it would be unlikely that Mugabe would choose to resign now when the fun has just begun given the extent of the asset ownership architecture in Zimbabwe after 27 years of independence.
In light of the above, it would be wrong to think that Mugabe is concerned about the status of the Zimbabwean economy and shares the view that he is the problem. In the circumstances, the starting point for people who want to remove him would be to convince Zanu PF that its ideology will not move Zimbabwe forward rather than merely replacing its leader.
Anyone talking about the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis cannot avoid discussing the fate of President Robert Mugabe. While the opposition has laid out a road map for Zimbabwe, it is clear that behind the camouflage of constitutional and electoral changes, the real agenda is to remove Mugabe through whatever means. Mugabe and his party appear not to be blind to the underlying regime change agenda.
The outgoing US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, and Dr Ibbo Mandaza, seem to share the view that Mugabe will bow out of the political scene by the end of the year. While Mandaza’s prediction is based on his understanding of the internal dynamics in Zanu PF, Ambassador Dell’s prediction is based on the unsustainable economic situation that now characterises contemporary Zimbabwe.
Notwithstanding what Mandaza and Dell think, there is nothing on the ground in Zimbabwe to suggest that Mugabe has any intention of quitting let alone that Zanu PF has any alternative candidate than Mugabe. When one looks at the political scene, Zanu PF and Mugabe have not been persuaded that Zimbabwe needs a new constitution as suggested by the MDC-led opposition. On the contrary, they believe that there is no constitutional crisis and the current government is not only capable of conducting free and fair elections but is competent to do so more than many other African states.
What is clear is that Zanu PF has not missed any election since independence and there is no reason to believe that next year’s election will not be held.With respect to constitutional amendments, Zanu PF believes that parliament is competent to pass any amendment and there is nothing undemocratic about this. On the other hand, the opposition believes that the current government is illegitimate and has no mandate to amend the constitution let alone to govern. While the same opposition has no problem being part of the state through its members being representatives in the Parliament, they do believe that issues concerning the constitution should be handled outside the framework of the state.
On constitutional issues, there is no consensus on the way forward and it is unlikely that Zanu PF will be persuaded even through the Thabo Mbeki mediation effort to commit political suicide and agree on any changes that will weaken the party by removing its most potent weapon, Mugabe, from the scene. Even within Zanu PF, the much talked about factions appear to be leaderless and when subjected to even a small test are never there to defend their interests. If there was any lesson from the Tsholotsho debacle, it is that there is no constituency within Zanu PF (with the exception of Jonathan Moyo who may never have understood the psyche than informs the party) to change the great leader.
This brings us to the issue of the economy. While many may argue that Zanu PF policies are the cause of the economic collapse of the country, Mugabe and his followers are convinced that Zimbabwe is a victim of a well orchestrated campaign by imperialists whose real motive is regime change and not the interests of Zimbabwe. They link the economic crisis to the land issue in a manner that is digestible by any rank and file member of the party. While many argue that there is no causal link between the economic crisis and the land issue, no one has been able to explain why the international community would be so angry with Zimbabwe and not with Nigeria, Pakistan or Ivory Coast if democracy was the real concern.
The emergence of Chavez and the redefinition of the post-colonial state as a developmental state by many former colonial countries clearly show that Dell and Mandaza may be misinformed about what is going on in Zimbabwe. If Mugabe’s thinking about the role of the state in post colonial state and the nature of a national democratic revolution and the tactics and strategies required to sustain the gains of the revolution is spreading throughout the developing world, why then should he bow out? It may not be inconceivable that Mugabe received the buy-in from the SADC Heads of State about his understanding of the broader context of the Zimbabwean crisis to the extent that they may all have agreed about the need to defend his legacy.
It is ironic that even at the just ended ANC policy conference, a key consensus among delegates was the need for South Africa to advance as a developmental state, with increased state intervention to drive growth and create employment. The policy thrust of ANC may not be any different from that of Zanu PF. In as much as ANC is not happy with the monopolisation of the economy and the role of the unions, Zanu PF is one party that feels that it has borne the brunt of counter-revolutionary and reactionary onslaught targeted at undermining the role of the state in the transformation of the economy.
It is not surprising that Mugabe remains convinced that the state must lead the defence of the nation against any attempt to reverse the gains of the revolution. In this regard, even selling a car above the state determined price (like the Willowgate scandal); selling foreign exchange above an arbitrarily determined exchange rate, and selling goods and services above prices the state thinks are justified is seen as a sign of treason or as part of some regime change agenda.
Mugabe remains in control of Zanu PF’s agenda and it would be naïve to suggest that he has lost the control of the party. Any right thinking member of Zanu PF knows what Mugabe wants to hear in terms of the party’s ideology and the role of business in transformation. Mugabe still believes that the state can manage businesses better than the private sector and no market system can address the developmental challenges of a post colonial state. I am convinced that within Zanu PF there are many who share his approach to development although in practice they may not subscribe to socialist policies. Last week, Mugabe did not mince his words when he said: "We will seize the mines ... we will nationalise them if they continue with the dirty tricks. All companies, we will take them over if they continue with their dirty game. Take note, we will be equal to the challenge. We are capable of playing that game too.”
It falls to reason that he is surely planning to go nowhere.
The nationalisation threat by Mugabe is not new but is shared by many African governments. In such an environment, any profitable enterprise is easily seen as a negation of the struggle.
On Tuesday last week, Industry and Trade Minister Obert Mpofu said Zimbabwe will transfer control of all companies, including foreign banks and some mining operations, to locals if a planned black empowerment bill is passed by the country's ruling-party dominated parliament. The domestication of enterprises using the state is not unique to Zimbabwe and, therefore, it would be unlikely that Mugabe would choose to resign now when the fun has just begun given the extent of the asset ownership architecture in Zimbabwe after 27 years of independence.
In light of the above, it would be wrong to think that Mugabe is concerned about the status of the Zimbabwean economy and shares the view that he is the problem. In the circumstances, the starting point for people who want to remove him would be to convince Zanu PF that its ideology will not move Zimbabwe forward rather than merely replacing its leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
