It may sound odd to many but Zimbabwe has ‘big
business’. That is big companies that
make significant profits on a yearly basis.
Even in such an assumedly ‘hostile’ environment. And there are some major companies out there.
Zimplats, Delta Beverages, Econet Wireless, Meikles Limited, Greenfuels,
Innscor and a number of significant others that are listed on Zimbabwe’s Stock Exchange.
Some of their end of year profit figures are pretty high too
though we do not always get the actual figures or know the true goings on in
some companies. Hence the now infamous
and very politicised catchphrase of the ‘missing US$15 billion’ from diamond
mining by private and state controlled companies in eastern Zimbabwe.
This is not to say these companies deliberately seek to hide
information. On the contrary a majority
of them do ensure they follow legal requirements outlined in the Companies Act
of publishing in the press their annual audited financial statements for public
scrutiny. And also to indicate to their shareholders that they are viable and
going concerns.
But beyond the regular or routine aspects to the operations
of big business, there is also that relatively unknown interface between
government and big business. Or between
a ruling party and big private capital.
Especially where it concerns elections and the retention of
power. And there have been a number of
examples of big business or at least their leaders supporting political
parties. Where it concerns the ruling
party it was reported by the media how the Meikles Limited chairman John Moxon
donated a fleet of vehicles to Zanu Pf ahead of the 2013 harmonised
elections.
The same was rumoured but never quite confirmed with regards
how Econet Wireless chairman Strive Masiyiwa was providing some support to the
then united main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) n the early to
late 2000s.
This is however not peculiar to Zimbabwe. In the global north and more startling gin
the Untied State of America, there is evident collusion between private capital/big
business and political parties where it concerns elections. And in part why it usually those with the
most donors or the biggest donors that tend to win the elections.
The fact that it happens in the global north should not make
it acceptable in the global south.
In Zimbabwe we know that big business portrays itself as
obeying the law. But we also know that
there is a culture of collusion and exchanges of patronage between state actors
and those that are large in the private sector.
And not just for elections.
An interesting development in the last year has been the
direct relationship between government and Sakunda Holdings for ‘Command
Agriculture’. The latter company is reported to have funded this government programme to the tune of at least U$199 million according
to media reports. What it gets in return
is not very clear but the fact that it has various other interests in fuel
supply means government may be giving it some forms of tax or other
concessions. This is despite the fact
that the President’s spokesman George Charamba has argued that the proprietors
of this company ‘are committed Zimbabweans bound by the love of their country’.
Whatever the facts of the matter, it would be the right
thing for any also ‘committed’ Zimbabwean to raise eyebrows and seek greater
accountability from government on the quid pro qou of this relationship.
Especially in a year prior to the holding of harmonised elections.
What is however more paramount is the need for Zimbabweans
to understand that their national wealth cannot be the preserve of political parties
and big business. Whether this be by way
of tenders, non-transparent mining or other concessions, or electoral
manipulation through material donations that are clearly a form of either vote
buying or peddling for political influence in a ruling party or one that has potential
to become one.
The challenge therefore goes beyond trying to make ‘big
business’ transparent about its role in elections and the electoral cycle. Instead it becomes how we reign it in
before it contribute to a cartel of key decision makers about who can become a presidential
candidate. For now it appears to be
molly-coddling to the ruling establishment.
But that’s a shoo-in. The closer the relationship between it
and the ruling establishment the more likely it will determine who leads the country
and which party rules or at least whom it will provide with herculean resources
to win an election. There is little
reason to doubt where its current sympathies lie. Especially when the
government and ruling party’s mantra has become the neo-liberal one of ‘ease of
doing business’.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment