By Takura Zhangazha*
Last week I attended the National Peace Trust conference on Pillars of Peace where the keynote and official opening address was delivered
by vice President Mnangagwa. His speech made a number of assertions around the importance of peaceful
societies with some historical references to his principal's then independence
reconciliation speech.
He also made
further mention of the importance of redistribution of resources via the fast
track land reform programme as having been a key pillar of the establishment of
the peace the country is, in his view, apparently enjoying.
What however struck me the most about his presentation was
when he mentioned, with limited evidence of doubt that Zimbabwe needs to create
an environment in which ‘capital feels at home’. This was a sentiment that was also echoed by
the minister of War Veterans, Chris Mutsvangwa who emphasized as has President Mugabe,
the ‘ease of doing business’.
On the face of it, these assertions are run of the
mill. In fact they also talk to one of
the key pillars of peace as defined by the National Peace Trust as chaired by former
cabinet minister Sekai Holland and also shared by the Institute for Economics and Peace. This pillar is defined as a
‘sound business environment’ which could equate to the equivalent of the issues
raised by the vice president.
What is however missing is a pertinent lack of context to
Zimbabwe’s national economy. This is not
to dispute the easy fact that whatever our ideological pretexts, we are in
desperate need of foreign direct investment (FDI). The only catch is whether we are negotiating
on fair and contextualized grounding?
From the vice presidents statement, one gets a sense that government
believes its ‘radical' nationalist appropriation days are over. Particularly
where it concerns land and negation of property rights.
The courting of FDI is probably predicated on the belief that after the fast
track land reform programme, there is no further need to ruffle the feathers of
foreign capital. Even with indigenization, the assumption remains that local Zimbabweans
can be partners in a new free market economics that creates some sort of
comprador bourgeoisie class and therefore gives the connected elite a slice of
the cake.
The only problem with this is that there is no demonstration
of how it all applies to our context. And that it would appear as though we
have learnt nothing from our historical interaction with capital. Particularly after our experiences with economic
structural adjustment. Instead of protecting our small markets and promoting
local innovation, we opened up to the global capital and hemorrhaged our
economy of not only its material resources but also undermined the legitimacy
of the state as a key player in the provision of services and welfare for its
people.
And the apparent danger is that we are now turning back the
clock full circle with this desperate intention to court capital. We are not asking the right questions concerning
what it actually means for the everyday citizen. For investors, even if they are Chinese, their
primary concern remains profitability.
And they will not undertake corporate social responsibility where they
are not making money. Nor will community share ownership trusts yield the
necessary resources to address key issues of social welfare. For the ordinary citizen what this means is
that their livelihoods will be subjected to severe austerity or state cutbacks
in funding for social services.
What the vice presidents remarks indicate is that Zimbabwe
is now in an era of neo-liberalism and austerity. Not necessarily by consent of the governed, but by insistence of capital and global financial institutions. The state, as led by the ruling Zanu Pf
party, is no longer keen on people centered government development and
livelihood programmes. It is an intention that fits smugly into global
financial and economic institutions narratives of how the free market is the
panacea to all our problems.
The reality of the matter is that this approach has been historically
discredited within the context of Southern Africa. Even its newer version in the form of state
capitalism has the same free market intentions where the state fails to protect
its citizens from the vagaries of profiteering over and above equitable
opportunities and livelihoods.
Indeed, a sound business environment remains a key aspect of
a democratic and peaceful society. It is
however not enough to claim that Zimbabwe must be the ‘home’ of capital without
a contextualized framework that understands that before we become that, the state
must serve its citizens' basic needs. If
the vice president had been willing to take questions from the floor at the
conference, I would have politely disagreed with governments intentions.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capcity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment