By Takura Zhangazha*^
Ever since this year's workers day commemorations on May 1, there has been a lot of
social media debate and attendant dry humour concerning whether Zimbabwe is a nation
of vendors or workers. Not that this
debate was particularly new given a good number of stories in the mainstream
media concerning how the streets of Harare (and other cities) are now dominated by informal
traders that are negatively affecting ‘formal’ ones. The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), not to be
left out, has also announced plans to tax the informal sector more ‘formally’.
This, in addition to the licence fees that
are already paid to the Harare City Council and the skirmishes and fines that the
municipal police regularly occasion on the traders.
There is obviously merit to a debate that looks at the
expansion of this informal trade. The somewhat fashionable argument is to say
that this development is indicative of the collapse of the formal industry and
is evidence of mass unemployment in the country. The government however disputes
unemployment figures or at least tries to describe these activities as a form of
actual and measurable employment.
The reality of the matter is that indeed a lot of people
across the country are finding ways to make ends meet however they can. Calling these activities informal or vending
does not change the fact of their importance to those that undertake them and their
dependents.
What is worrying is that this issue may be used to cloud economic
issues that are more structural and long term than a person who is struggling
to make ends meet as a direct result of a untenable macro economic framework.
The structural question is more to do with the fact that the
causes of this ‘informalisation’ do not begin with either the fast track land reform programme (FTLRP), sanctions, and even liberal definitions of ‘bad
governance’. The causes are historical
in the shift of the state from social democratic economic policy frameworks to
neo-liberal, free market structural economic structural adjustment ones in the late
1980s.
This is a point that is rarely flagged out because in
essence where we have sought to analyse our economic challenges we have sought
more to explain them from global economic knowledge systems that fit more the
narratives given by those that have contributed immensely to our current state
of affairs, namely, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
It is largely the rampant privatisation of the state and
opening up of our local economy to patently unnecessary global market competition
that not only stymied our ability to maintain a vibrant economy but saw
thousands lose their formal sector jobs (public and private).
It also saw the declining of social services provision through private
public partnerships that today are touted as panacea when the
truth of the matter is that they have been failing dismally since ESAP was made government policy.
Indeed the central government is liable and complicit for
this long duree economic decline through not only accepting without contextual
thought economic structural adjustment but also through embarking on what is essentially a ‘socialism of the rich and politically connected’. In our specific national context this is also generally referred to as state capitalism. From obscure concessions to land barons, through to corruption at publicly owned medical aid societies and state parastatals as well as private
banks being let off the hook, our government has been distributing national
resources to the already rich few and not the majority poor.
These circumstances however have a familiar global refrain. In times of national crisis as has been argued
by climate change activist and writer, Naomi Klein, capital colludes with even
the most unpopular governments to ensure that inequality remains in
society. She refers to this as the ‘shock doctrine’. This is where the state seeks
to dismantle its key role in the livelihoods of its citizens and outsource it
to rampant profit driven capital that is in no way democratically accountable.
So the vendors and informal traders are not a problem, let alone the problem. They are citizens of Zimbabwe exercising
their right to not only associate but also to earn a living even though they
still barely manage to make ends meet. And
in this case they are ‘workers’ because they are doing what the state will no
longer do. They are working to send
their children to school, try and get them the best possible healthcare, pay other ancillary bills and at
least make an honest living. It will be
hard to find someone in government or some of the increasingly monopolistic
companies doing the same.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
^'Shock Doctrine' as derived from Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine. the Rise of Disaster Capitalism
^ 'Socialism of the Rich' as derived from Owen Jone's book, 'The Establishment and How they Get Away With It'
No comments:
Post a Comment