By Takura Zhangazha*
A colleague asked if I had an opinion on Zimbabwe’s recently
appointed cabinet. It’s a debate that I had been deliberately avoiding because
there are a lot of more important and controversial opinions on the matter.
These range from outright praise of President Mugabe’s choices to downright
dismissal of the same. All of these initial assessments have largely stemmed
from partisan standpoints. Some of them self righteous in victory, others bitter
in defeat.
The reasons given by President Mugabe for his appointments
have also had the effect of allowing him latitude to outline what he expects
from his cabinet. This, with the caveat
that if he feels any of the ministers are underperforming, he will dismiss them.
How the President will measure under-performance is not publicly known. Suffice
to say, cabinet ministers are rarely fired. Instead, they tend to have their ministerial
portfolios changed.
So if there is any particular certainty about what will
happen to the new or re-appointed ministers, it is that they may most likely not
serve in the same capacity for the duration of the five year mandate of this
government.
It is however necessary to try and glean some political meaning
of both the expectations as well as the capacity of cabinet to undertake work
that makes Zimbabwe’s politics either more democratic or makes the economy responsive
to the people’s needs.
For all the private and public assessments of the capacity
of specific ministers to be able to offer the aforementioned improvements in
their specific portfolios, there is one thing that stands out for scrutiny.
This being that before cabinet is disaggregated into individual
characters, it should essentially be judged on the functional principle of
collective responsibility.
This means
before we seek to analyse this single party executive arm of government on the basis
of the personal characters of the persons in it, we must not only look at its
shared agenda (party manifesto) but also its ability to function as a collective.
Both in relation to its ability to shoulder an organic responsibility for the successes
or failures of its policies.
Given the manner in which it was appointed, it is least
likely the cabinet will function any differently from previous ones. True to
fashion, this new cabinet will tend more to function fully on the basis of the individual
ministers awareness that they are in it solely on the basis of the benevolence
of the President. And therefore before they achieve anything else as part of a
collective, they are most likely to function and work in order to retain their individual
positions as opposed to maintaining a semblance of collective responsibility.
Even in the aftermath of an inclusive government.
So with the passage of time, it will be individual ministers
who will be measured as being either good or bad, and not the entirety of
cabinet. Any transgressions or failures
to deliver will unfortunately not be measured on the basis of a collective government
programme of action. Instead the judgment calls will be on which minister is
savvy enough or fits a particular civil society stakeholder lexicon.
This is why
for example, the comparisons of Ministers Kasukuwere and Nhema have centered more
on their assumed personal characters than the policies that they, on behalf of
the cabinet, pursued in their previous capacities.
An added consideration when analyzing our new cabinet is
what has inadvertently been cited by some analysts as its ‘revolving door’
framework (though not in those words). There are not many persons who are new
to cabinet in President Mugabe’s team in the executive. Most of its members, save
for at least five, have previously served in cabinet in one capacity or the
other.
This means that there is most likely a sense of entitlement to cabinet
posts wither by virtue of proximity to the presidency, experience or particular
roles played during the July 31 2013 campaign period. This less in terms of
what is intended to be deliberately and conscientiously achieved and more in
relation to what gives the appointed ministers a modicum of justification for
their appointment.
It is therefore more likely that their performance will be more
in keeping with the default tradition of previous cabinets. This is a tradition which generally emphasizes
marking and keeping one’s turf without stepping on the toes of the President. While
on the other hand the Zimbabwean public will also carry on with its own tradition
of creating sarcasm and humour over and about cabinet ministers performances or
roles (a tendency which has already been evidenced by the dry humor about Minister
of State, Josiah Hungwe’s portfolio)
As I stated at the beginning of this article, the new cabinet
was a matter I was willing to leave to others to debate and analyse. The colleague
who requested an opinion from me on the same matter perhaps views these matters
differently. I am however of the firm view that the cabinet will not differ spectacularly
from previous ones (inclusive or otherwise). The more important task for
Zimbabweans is to bring this cabinet to account. Not only in terms of the
ruling party’s manifesto but more significantly on the basis of social democratic
values and principles.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity. If
you decide to use this article elsewhere please acknowledge that you got it from
takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment