Neo-Liberal Economic Blueprints versus an Urgent
Pursuit of Contextual Social Democracy
A Presentation to the Media Center
Roundtable Discussion
By Takura Zhangazha*
Tuesday 29 September 2015, Harare.
Cde Chairperson,
Thank you for inviting me to this particular discussion on
the matter of economic blueprints as they have been presented to the people of
Zimbabwe largely through the media. I
specifically mention that they have been presented mainly through the media because
of their technocratic and inorganic origins. This is because they, to all
intents and purposes, have been drafted
in boardrooms and with the general intention at demonstrating knowledge of
global economic trends and serving what would be referred to as the Zimbabwean
‘market’ on a platter to international investors. Sadly that platter is not at all silver.
Perhaps this is understandable given the commandist structure
of our political culture. Things
generally come from the top and by way of instruction or coercion are given to
the masses as concluded frameworks.
The main political party economic blueprints can be outlined
as Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic
Transformation (Zimasset- ruling party Zanu Pf) or the alternative ones Jobs
Upliftment Investment and Capital (Juice,
MDC-T); Holistic Programme for Economic Transformation (Hope, PDP); Access to Resources, Control, Transformation,
Innovation, Organised Institutions, New Technologies and Sustainability
(Action-MDC) and of late Blueprint to Unlock Investment and Leverage for
Development (BUILD-Joice Mujuru).
There is one that was recently announced by the pressure
group Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition referred to as Zimbabwe Social Market Agenda
for Recovery and Transformation (ZimSmart).
The one common thread in all of these blueprints is their
indubitable praise of the neo-liberal economic template that is commonly
referred to as the ‘free market’. So one
will find common phrases in these documents such as ‘foreign direct
investment’, ‘public-private partnership’, ‘beneficiation’ and ‘property
rights’ and of course ‘the market’.
A peculiar difference between governments Zimasset and the
alternatives proposed is that the former does not specifically laud ‘good governance and democracy’ which appears
to be integral to all the others.
What is however particularly interesting is the fact that
there is general agreement, probably by default, that the way to go with
Zimbabwean economics is to embrace neo-liberalism. For the purposes of clarity,
neo-liberalism refers to the ideological template in which the role of the
state is generally diminished in favor of the free market in all spheres of
economic activity including social service delivery. This is the same philosophy that informed
economic structural adjustment and continues to guide the Word Bank and
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its dealing with not only Zimbabwe but the
world.
Only one manifesto directly mentions its neo-liberal intent,
and that is the BUILD one done by Joice Mujuru.
The others, have varying forms of commitment to neo-liberalism. In the case of government via Zimasset, it
has decided to embark on a state capitalism version of the same. This is where the state functions essentially
as a private business entity. In the
process it creates a new state and ruling party affiliated elite businesses and
investments accompanied by political control and in most case direct repression
of dissenting voices. For an example of
such a system, one need look no further than Angola.
The other variation which has been in vogue for some time now
and is largely a revisionist ‘third way’ approach that is facing resistance in parts
of Europe and north America. It is
referred to in some of the alternatives under scrutiny at this meeting as the
‘democratic developmental state’. This
concept as referred to in some of the manifestos that are being proffered as
alternatives refers to a state in which there is the embrace of democratic
values as a functional pretext for free market economics.
A key component of such a state in Africa’s
context is that of public private partnerships and foreign direct investment
for infrastructure building and agricultural development. Transparency and accountability are touted as
key components of this model but in the final analysis it falls squarely into
the fold of neo-liberal economics that respond more to capital than the needs
of the people. It essentially ends up as centralist and as repressive as is the
current case in Ethiopia.
Essentially therefore the blueprints that are fully or partly
in the public domain and stemming from political parties and components of
liberal civil society speak more to established notions of free market
epistemology as a panacea to Zimbabwe’s economic crisis.
My own view however is that these propositions are as
opportunistic as they are primed to fit into a de-contextualised global
economic progress narrative.
They miss the historicity of our economic challenges in
relation to the fact that we are still under the aegis of the structural
settler economy where it concerns distribution of goods, services and
jobs.
What we essentially require is a contextualized social
democratic economic template that understands that if we are to have a fair,
equitable and just society, everyone must be given a fair, equitable
start. I specifically mention
‘contextual social democracy’ because our liberation struggle was predicated on
the same said values of social and economic justice. And we have not fully explored this social
democratic pretext of our liberation struggle.
We have experimented with commandist socialism, neo-liberalism but have
rarely sought to imbue our national economic policies with a people centered
ethos and framework.
To explain contextual social democracy further, it is necessary
to outline a few points. The fact of our
current economic crisis is that the gap between the rich, politically connected
elite and the majority poor has grown wider.
Not just in monetary terms but also in relation to the basic necessities
of life such as access to health, education, public transport and basic
employment.
So we need to re-establish common baselines to our collective
economic livelihoods. And this is what
contextual social democracy would entail.
The state must have a direct role in
the provision of health, public transport, education, water, shelter and
electricity. Such a role would steer
clear of public private partnerships in order to ensure that these services are
not subject to the profit motives of companies.
This basic contextual social democracy will require organic
accountability from the state to its citizens.
It is from such a pretext that we can have a broader understanding of our
national economy and negotiate much better with global capital and in the
interests of the majority. All in the
interests of functioning not only in the immediate but particularly for
posterity.
ENDS//
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment