An ambiguous change of gear : Zimbabwe
Budget 2012: .
By
Takura Zhangazha.
Zimbabwe’s proposed national
budget for the year 2012 is now formally before the Parliament of Zimbabwe for
approval. Its functional political premise, according to Finance Minister Biti,
is the promotion of what the inclusive government calls a ‘democratic
developmental state’ (DDS). And this is
the departure point for any analysis of the 2012 budget. The DDS is described
in the Medium Term Plan (MTP) as that characterized by ten definitive points. These
being, good governance, macro-economic stability, a diversified economy, maintenance
of political stability, access to social services accelerated rural development, equal
opportunities for all, development and utilization of modern science and
technology, a vibrant culture, and sustainable natural resource management.
To measure the 2012 budget
against these objectives of the MTP and the intentions of the inclusive
government’s vision of DDS would be well and good
were it not akin to the biblical accusation of ‘healer, heal thyself’. This is because the national budget is not
there to massage the rather grandiose plans of a sitting government. Its primary
purpose and function is to make pragmatic the priority needs of the country, in
real time and for people centered reasons.
The current budget proposal is
the second annual one to be proposed and most likely implemented as is by the inclusive
government. Its fundamental proclamation of seeking to work toward a DDS is not
as obvious as it should be.
In fact the question that arises immediately upon reading
the priorities, is what does the government mean by this? Is it similar to the years of popular economic
programmes such as ‘gutsaruzhinji’ or
‘gore revanhu’ and further still
where did the model of DDS emanate from? If it’s a borrowed concept, it would
be most helpful for the government to inform the public from whence it was
borrowed so we can all have a general idea as to how the national economy and
our livelihoods will look like by 2013.
This will also assist citizens
to understand the extent to which the inclusive government is working on the
budget on the basis of collective responsibility, and not on the basis of political
competition over an expected election.
Regardless, the 2012 budget is
a different one from the previous one. This is in respect to its theme which is
very similar to that espoused by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions in one
of their recent publications, that of a transformative economy. To be specific,
the theme of the 2012 budget is ‘Enhancing a democratic sate anchored by a growing,
and transforming, socially just economy’. Unlike previous budgets under the
inclusive government, this one gives the distinct impression of being left
leaning, but is more firmly within the ambit of general recommendations that
are to be found in nascent World Bank related documents as well as mainstream sustainable
development knowledge systems.
Such themes are usually the
stuff of ‘five year plus’ national plans, and where the inclusive government has
chosen this theme, it has not necessarily indicated how it can achieve these
very broad objectives within 12 months. Moreover, this sort of narrative is
more template than political reality driven. This is to say, while there was
consultation on issues that members of the public would expect in a national
budget, the final version suits more a pre-determined framework than the real expectations
of the public.
It is the latter point that brings
me to the pragmatic nature of the interventions that are proposed by the
inclusive government. In the 2012 budget there are six very significant proposals
to the everyday person. These are a proposed fund for jobs, a proposed fund for
small to medium enterprises, another for vulnerable agricultural households, an
intervention into the livelihoods of ‘rural women’ and a youth fund. The nature
of the distribution of these funds is essentially left to the relevant line
ministry. This in itself is a problem that must be mitigated directly and in
relation to the contested party politics of the inclusive government.
It would have been preferable
that there be a much more evident, independent, well thought out and
transparent distribution agency for these monetary resources. As it is for example,
how the youth fund shall be distributed
is a vague matter. The nature of the ‘creative projects/ideas is also unclear
within the current framework. Unless it becomes clearer as to the standards and
measurement of what sort of business/social/economic ideas the 2012 budget will
fund, there is the risk of creating a seriously patron-client loan acquisition system
between those in the inclusive government and their supporters.
This is also
increasingly evident with the first such fund under the aegis of the inclusive
government, that of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) which at one time
saw some members of parliament prioritizing the wrong matters (such as buying
generators for police stations without Home Affairs sanction) because they had no central guideline as to
how to utilize the resources.
A further point of concern
with the 2012 budget is that of the ambiguity of public-private partnerships
within the context of the delivery of social welfare needs of the country. Where
it comes to health, education (tertiary included) the government is pledging
money in partnerships with either private companies/banks, development banks
and the donor community as to the implementation of these social welfarist
programmes. These are models that have been tried before and depending on the
profitability of the endeavor generally end with the private component of the
partnership pulling out, and doing so rather abruptly. The same can be said for the international
donors who are funding most components of our health services provision, who
when the global recession affects their funding, also scale down their
operations leaving our citizens at their most vulnerable (this is the current
risk with the Global Fund on HIV/AIDS). In order to mitigate these issues, the
state should have at least indicated the minimum standards that it must meet to
ensure key achievables in the provision of health services, education for all
and water provision, wherein the engagement of the private sector or the
international community would be an added benefit.
On the matter of industrial
production, land, manufacturing and trade, the 2012 budget, skirts dealing directly
with the issue of indigenization and its impact on the same. This is probably because
of the disagreement on the policy in the inclusive government, but it must be
noted that the same policy is now a political and economic reality. It is
therefore imperative that the 2012 budget takes this matter directly into
account, after all, some of the public-private partnerships under this policy are
the ones that, by default, are funding the very much competed for Community
Development Trusts.
A penultimate point is that of
the the budget making provision for democratic processes around national
healing, the constitutional referendum and constitutional commissions but not
factoring in the matter of elections. Essentially this points to three possibilities.
Ther first being that perhaps the elections budget is factored into the
allocation is factored into the allocation for the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission
or secondly that the government does not
want to fund its own country’s electoral processes and thirdly that there are
no elections in 2012. It is the third point that is most likely to be true,
mainly due to the political competition in the inclusive government and also
due to a general disdain by government at not wanting to upset the apple cart
that is the inclusive government.
There are many other areas of
the budget that are of importance that this short analysis cannot undertake due
to the limitation of space as well as the reader’s attention span. It is however
imperative that the inclusive government comes up with a clear plan of
implementation of the 2012 budget for all of its ministries and their related
parastatals. Failure to do so will lead to a budget that may be high sounding
on paper but completely vague and politicized in implementation. Simultaneously
civil society organizations must also take into account the fact that where the
budget makes provisions for social welfare and social service delivery, it is
the methodology of implementation that is now most important.
Wow! Thank you for breaking this down....as well-read as I like to think I am - I always shy away from the National Budget matters. I can never quite seem to figure out what the hell they're getting at and frustrated by my lack of comprehension at the ambiguity of the communication - I often opt for nonchalance. But this analysis really debunks several grey areas for me.
ReplyDeleteNow you have whetted my appetite and I wanna get a copy of that National Budget and look through it myself... ignoring of course all the high-sounding rhetoric that inevitably grates at my nerves!
Thanks!
Thanks Takura, you always amaze me with your vorcious appetite for reading big books, now i understand why, for us in the business of writing stories this is very informative please keep on writing.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that the attempt at supporting local manufacturers may initially backfire on the GNU, ie
ReplyDelete1)Bread prices will go up on 1 Jan 2012 as duty will be 5% on wheat imports. Zim imports up to 60% of its wheat requirements. Any prospect of bread riots?
2) New duty on clothing will see the majority going "bareback". Mazitye will be more expensive. Furthermore, the removal of the travellers rebate on clothing is punitive - surely am I having to pay duty on the couple of shirts and pairs of trousers I buy across the border while on a business trip?
3) The duty on vegetables baffles me. If the quality of homegrown produce is good enough or the volumes meet demand, why would supermarkets stock imported veggies. Am I the only one in Jerusalem? We are already protected against cheap GMOs.
4) The duty on iron sections has been removed meaning more imports yet the much vaunted Essar deal should have been fast tracked to allow for local production. Is this a vote of no confidence against the deal?
5) And finally, smoking. Cigarette prices go up on 1 December 2011.
Is this a "left leaning budget" or a "protectionist budget"?
Thank you for the comments Delta, tatamburatimes and Nhaka. Nhaka, thats probably why the broad policy intentions of the budget are 'ambiguous'
ReplyDelete