Zimbabwe: a short road to Banana Republic

AFRICA is not alone in seeking to challenge the current global architecture in which the powerful seem to have arrogated to themselves the right to define and dictate a value system that ensures no accountability and responsibility to the less powerful.
The language coming out of many developing countries seems to confirm the widely held view that a unipolar world in which the US and its allies have sought to framework their response to the global challenges outside the UN system and only choose to use the multilateral platform for their own ends poses the most significant threat to world peace and security.
However, with few exceptions Africa finds itself at its most vulnerable point in history to have a meaningful voice in the globalization debate. The few countries endowed with natural resources are increasingly flexing their muscle particularly in respect of how their resources are exploited. While the ideological debate appears to be taking shape with the marginalized seeking to organize so that they can challenge the powerful nations there appears to be no compass to inform the basis on which a transformation of countries like Zimbabwe should unfold.
Should Zimbabwe accept the neo-liberal ideology that is premised on a market system as the basis for a post-Mugabe era? What are the development options for Zimbabwe? Are Zimbabweans taking the time to reflect on the global issues while at the same time debating the ideological challenges that they confront? After twenty six years of nation building experience, what lessons can we draw that should guide the debate on the way forward?
It is important that in as much as people may find Robert Mugabe objectionable as a head of state, there are many in the world who admire him for the courage to stand up for what are perceived to be the rights of the marginalized. There are few in the world whose perspectives of life and governance resonate with the world’s poor than Mugabe. There is no doubt that intellectually Mugabe is a giant and yet at the execution level his policies appear not to provide hope and jobs to his natural constituency i.e. the poor. Could it be the case that Mugabe may be the only revolutionary in an environment infested with vultures, mercenaries, cockroaches, parasites etc? Does Mugabe know what is going on? Does he have a clue on what time it is?
While the country has focused its attention on the fate of one individual, I believe that it is equally important to focus on the governed and interrogate the proposition that the health of any nation state can only be as good as the interests that underpin it. Some may argue that any environment that allows an individual to pursue his/her self interest ultimately may prove a sustainable basis on which development can take place. In this construction, it is not the state that should think for the individual rather it is the individual who shapes the destiny of any nation.
However, we should accept that the notion that an individual outside the framework of the many can be the engine of development is a contested issue. In fact, many would argue that there is a significant role for the state to play in shaping the destiny of any nation. Although there are few successful examples of nation states that have materially improved the standard of living of their citizens using a socialist model, Mugabe is not alone in believing that in as much as the market system did not decolonize Africa one should not look to a market system to address issues of poverty and unemployment. Under this framework, one can understand the calls by many leaders in the developing world for a new compact that places natural resources under the control of the state and benefits arising from their exploitation being placed firmly under the control of the state. The question that then arises is who should be in control of the state and the basis on which citizens can choose their leaders on an informed basis.
In the final analysis we may discover that there may be many similarities between Tony Blair, George Bush and Mugabe than meets the eye. In fact, many leaders in the world end up believing that their choices are the only rational and correct ones. Once you understand the common trait in political leadership, it is important that nation states develop institutional mechanisms that would make it difficult if not impossible for a person like Blair monopolizes the political space with his ideas and mistakes.
In the case of Africa, one needs to appreciate the fact that most leaders end up being surrounded by people who become experts at lying to the extent that a leader who overstays in power may end up undermining the values that he purports to stand for without even knowing. The more a person stays in power the wider the power density becomes. It is not inconceivable to imagine that even Fidel Castro may not be able to imagine what Cuba would have been without him and in fact his own subjects often end up believing that no one else can do better.
"The ability of Shiri to swap a farm and get what he wants should the standard upon which every citizen should be treated"
MUTUMWA MAWERE
Given the complexity of the Zimbabwean dilemma, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that we need to break down high sounding words so that people can better conceptualize what they need to do in their own self interest to make a difference not only for Zimbabwe but all people who share the African heritage. I am reminded that the newly industrialized countries have demonstrated that when for example Koreans made the decision that their relationship with poverty must change, that decision elevated the standing of all Koreans to an extent that even risk averse banks can now lend money to an ordinary person of Koreans extraction with the confidence that he/she will honor their obligations.
However, in the case of Africa, we still have a long way to go notwithstanding the fact that some countries are making tremendous strides to live up to the expectations of their citizens it is still a challenge for perception that Africans cannot be trusted with money to change. I have come to accept that I can only be as good as my fellow Africans and unless we pull up together we only serve to undermine our own heritage. It is common cause that good black lawyers, doctors, architects, etc need good black clients. We have a collective responsibility to create our own form of African corporate heritage that will allow us to have our own case studies so that those who wish to be in business can have people to look up to and not the other way round.
For this week, I thought I could share with you an article that was published in the Sunday Mail of 3 September 2006 that is quoted hereunder in its entirety. The articles raises a number of legal, political and governance issues that I thought would help in broadening and deepening the kind of debate that not only Zimbabwe needs but the rest of the continent.
The two principal actors in the article are RBZ governor Gideon Gono and Airforce Commander Perence Shiri. In contemporary Zimbabwe, it is important that we locate the basis upon which Gono derives his power base and implications thereof. Unless we understand the power dynamics and the interplay between the powerful forces, it would be difficult to appreciate why the change agenda may appear to be mirage. I have chosen to analyze the article as one way of demonstrating the power of literacy in nation building.
‘THE RBZ will from January next year treat banana farmers like any other farmer and allow them to retain 75 percent of export proceeds to cushion them from ever rising costs of securing chemicals and other farming inputs.
Speaking during a tour of the Commander of the Airforce of Zimbabwe, Air Marshal P. Shiri's Hopedale farm in Bindura, RBZ Governor, Dr Gideon Gono said he would lend support not just to Hopedale Farm but to other deserving farmer to benefit banana farming programmes."
It is important to note that a new policy was announced during a tour presumably because Gono may have been invited for the purpose of lobbying him to accommodate the interests of Shiri. In this case, all banana farmers benefited from Gono’s tour. What this suggests is that if you are not powerful enough to have Gono’s ear, you are doomed in terms of policy. One may ask what would have happened to banana farmers whose predicament is not different from other farmers if Gono had not visited the farm.
"Dr Gono said the purpose of the visit to the farm was to give him an opportunity to see a green field and an innovative farm following an invitation by Air Marshal Shiri."
It is clear that Shiri was smart enough to invite Gono, having established that random-walk-policy-making is now the order of the day. All you need is to convince Gono and the rest is history. For Shiri, I am not sure whether he would support any change from the status quo because the current system does deliver on request. How many people know that policy making has now been reduced to a pedestrian approach? If one assumes that Gono has the same 24 hours that every Zimbabwean has, how many problem areas can he physically visit to make a difference?
"Having gotten the opportunity to get out of the city, I have taken the opening to visit farms in districts and get first hand information on what is on the ground for planning purposes. Many are good at planning, but never get results because they would be out of touch with what they will be planning for," Gono told the Mail.
Is it the appropriate role of the Governor of the RBZ to retail policy making? Should the RBZ operate as a commercial bank that deals with the public and plans accordingly? Would it not make sense for the RBZ to use the existing banking channels to get intelligence about the market environment? Why is it necessary for the Governor to get first hand information? Does he not trust other people to give him the intelligence? To the extent that Shiri is a direct beneficiary of unorthodox policy making, what would his attitude be to the need for good corporate governance practices at the RBZ? Should Shiri not be the one to demand that policies are put in place that responds not only to the interests of the powerful but to even the vulnerable members of the society? If Shiri is now a businessman while at the same time being entrusted with the defence of the country, is there no risk of a conflict of interest? Is there no risk of corruption, where Shiri because of his position in government gets what he wants when other people do not have the same access?
Speaking on the sidelines of the tour, Air Marshal Shiri said he came to Hopedale Farm at the end of April last year from Irene farm in Marondera where he was into tobacco farming.
"I am not a good tobacco grower and it is not my favorite crop. I researched with friends and it dawned upon me that there was an opportunity for me to grow bananas then set on a mission of identifying a piece of land where I could grow the crop. I needed an area with lots of water, hot temperature and frost free and found one in the Pote Valley which offers a conducive climate," he said.
He said he negotiated with a farmer who was at Hopedale and approached Government so that they would swap farms since that farmer was interested in tobacco farming. Air Marshal Shiri said the former owner of the farm grew maize, vegetables and soyabeans. He said he had to go through the process of ripping and deep ploughing the land before he planted 53 hectares of bananas in August last year and started harvesting them after one year and two weeks.
Air Marshal Shiri said his target was to plant bananas on 150 ha of land in September 2007 and has already cleared 40 ha to start the ball rolling. He said he was facing problems securing chemicals, as bananas required special chemicals which were not readily available on the domestic market. The farm employs 120 full time workers and several seasonal workers from Musana communal areas.
Air Marshal Shiri's goal was to enter the export market, but at present sales were confined to the local market. "I would prefer to export on my own unless there are inhibiting factors where I would require a third party. When we start exporting, we will benefit and we appreciate that we have been using foreign currency generated by others to get where we are. We hope to be weaned and help other sectors," he said.
Air Marshal also has 10 ha of potatoes, 50 ha of wheat, a ha of garlic and five ha of sweet potatoes under cultivation.
The ability of Shiri to swap a farm and get what he wants should the standard upon which every citizen should be treated. This interesting part is that articles like these that help educate us all on what is possible and what power can do never become part of the conversations that Zimbabweans have. How can Shiri help other Zimbabweans to push their personal agendas using the state machinery and yet be able to intimidate Gono to see the work in their own eyes and self interest without being accused of corruption? If Shiri chose to hide his interest and exported bananas at a parallel exchange rate would he risk ending up like many who have been accused of externalization? If Shiri can be given a dispensation on the spot why is it that the majority of Zimbabweans cannot access the same privileges? If it is obvious to Shiri that incentives are required to stimulate production why should he not use his influence to ensure that all willing and able Zimbabweans have then same dispensation?
To the extent that land reform program has created new interest groups in Zimbabwe, what is of concern is that manner in which these interests choose to communicate with government. Would it not have made sense for Shiri to locate himself with fellow banana farmers so that they can articulate their positions to government better rather than encourage Gono to undermine the very principles of good corporate governance that he purports to be upholding? If the President is aware of how policies are being formulated, why then would he be vocal about corruption when the system appears to be functioning on different principles? Even the settler white commercial farmers organized themselves into institutions that allowed them to speak with one voice.
Having read the article above, I wondered whether Zimbabwe was not on its road to a banana republic where the rules on the ground may be slippery for the powerless that may have to endure the harassment while those in power have the freedom to chose and swap farms at will. Should we not uphold the principle of common citizenship and equal access to government? What is the risk that Shiri would one day be blackmailed by the same people who appear to have privatized government institutions when the day of reckoning dawns? If the poor became angry at the selective treatment, would Gono go down alone or would he seek to drag Shiri with him? To the extent that Shiri is in the defence force, what is the risk that he may be tempted to protect his personal interests using the state machinery?
All these questions are raised to help expand the envelop of debate so that Zimbabweans can choose for themselves what model they wish to adopt to advance their national interest.