I recently came across, via YouTube, a talk delivered in May
2018 by former Greece finance minister Yanis Varoufakis at the Cambridge Forum,
Massachusetts, USA. Its title was ‘Is
Capitalism Devouring Democracy?’ Given
his leftist credentials the main body of the talk was essentially pointing out
valid criticisms of the current global economic system’s neoliberalism and
perpetuation of inequality. Whether via
bailing out global banks or promoting a rampant financialised global economy or
negating the economic regulatory responsibility of the state. He, at the end of
the lecture proposes and international version of Roosevelt’s New Deal and greater solidarity among the oppressed of the world (mainly in the global north).
But that was not the most significant aspect of his talk. Midway through it he mentions his first
meeting as part of the Euro Group ( a meeting of finance ministers from countries
that use the Euro as their main currency).
In the lecture Varoufakis says he told the meeting that he had the democratic
mandate of the people of Greece (as a radical lefty) and therefore was
intending on changing the country’s economic policy from what had already been obtaining. Or that which had brought the country to
where it is, i.e austerity.
He recalls that the then German Finance Minister Wolfgang
Schauble replied in one sentence, ‘Elections cannot be allowed to change
economic policy.’ Varoufakis then says
he replied with irony ( and I am paraphrasing here), ‘In that case, lets ban
elections in bankrupt- or suspend elections for countries that are in the red.’ The key point that he was making here was the
fact that the global economic system or as we generally refer to it these days ‘globalisation’
as currently constituted does not look upon elections or democratic processes
to change economic systems from neoliberalism to being egalitarian or at least fairly
distributive.
I have made elaborate reference to this lecture (you can
check it out on YouTube if you have enough bundles) because in our Zimbabwean
context we are saddled with economic challenges that are a direct result of a
re-energized neoliberal/free market/ ‘ease of doing business’ policy approach from
our government. An approach which is the
preferred one for global private capital (global north and global east). And so
soon after a general election in 2018, which for now, appears to have had little
effect on the democratization of the national political economy.
And the effects are all too apparent in the form of fuel
queues, rising cost of living, high unemployment and the loss of savings. As
begun by Mugabe and now being stubbornly attempted by Mnangagwa without his
predecessor’s radical nationalism.
It is also an approach that is, to my own personal
disappointment, being pursued by the mainstream opposition political parties
including those under the umbrella of the MDC Alliance. Their argument is not one that represents an
ideological counter narrative to neoliberalism.
But one that confirms by claiming that it is only them that can
implement the same neoliberalism better.
As if there can ever be such a ‘progressive’ differentiation. A change of implementers of neoliberalism does
not mean the economic trajectory of the same changes.
But we live in relatively populist and angry times in
Zimbabwe. Where the immediate is more
valued than the long term. Where
individualism and a high level of competitiveness coupled with deep pursuit of
materialism means that to question the economic system outside of the
neoliberal lens is viewed with derision.
Hence a lot of those still in employment want to be paid in foreign
currency. Or big business/local private capital
wants to be allowed to determine the character of the market (and pricing of
goods and services). But all at the same
time screaming at a government that, at least at policy level is already saying
in order for this to happen, there must be pain. A pain that will be transferred to the poor
majority while the well to do are, to use the government’s own phrase are ‘ring-fenced’. Or have their monetary wealth protected.
Or where ruling party and opposition leaders are still
scrambling for recognition from global financialised capital or institutions as
if they do not know that the latter do not serve the democratic public interest
of the people of Zimbabwe.
The economic formula government is trying to use to solve
the country’s economic challenges is not made to fit the context. Even if it has the support of global capital
, the ruling and opposition parties or is being hailed as a success in a few neighboring
or relatively more distant sister African countries.
In our specific context we need to rediscover a more
critical national consciousness that understands our challenges ideological and
in relation to our placement in the global economy. We need to be wary of the culture of
consumerism/materialism and individualism that Mugabe and later on the 2009-13
inclusive government followed through by Mnangagwa are trying to cement in our
polity.
This means examining new
alternatives to our national political economy that can only take the form of
social democracy if we are to prevent putting up ourselves and our country for
sale to global capital and its local rapacious representatives. Be they in government, opposition and in
business. And we also need to take sharp
lessons from the global north as to how not to proceed down the same path.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment