ED's Business Dance, Masiyiwa's Compliance

By Takura Zhangazha*

President Mnangagwa recently held a consultative meeting with Zimbabwe’s business sector.  This, against the backdrop of a national economic crisis largely caused by a new monetary policy that sent commodity prices and informal exchange rates on a wild spin.  Reports on the outcomes of the meeting have not had much detail.  It however turns out that government and business came to some sort of mutual agreement about keeping commodity prices at what they would consider to be realistic levels. And also agreeing on business being more circumspect when requesting foreign currency from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. 

The latter policy pointing to a government that is potentially acting to bail out business by distributing foreign currency  in the vain hope that private capital will eventually have a modicum of ethics to not profiteer from the assistance. We would all be well advised to learn from the 2008 global
financial crisis and the bailing out of big banks by governments/reserve banks in the global north and wince at how that has turned out in reality. 

In the same week, the majority shareholder of Econet Wireless Zimbabwe, Strive Masiyiwa gave his strongest approval yet of the economic policies of Mnangagwa’s  government.  Insisting that he is of the view that the government should be given a chance, he also to the surprise of some opposition activists, called for sanctions on Zimbabwe to be removed. 

In both examples cited, government and business are clearly intent on becoming good bedfellows.  And they agree on certain fundamentals that should be adhered to in relation to economic reform.  With the key agreement being that free market economics are supreme beyond dispute.  And that whatever government does, even if temporary, should be with the clear intention at allowing the ‘ease of doing business.’ Or alternatively, prioritizing the needs of private capital (both domestic and global). 

And for both government and private capital this means only one thing: austerity. The latter basically being a term that refers to the cutting of government expenditure and allowing the free market and private capital to be the primary factors of economic policy.  Never mind the fact that most governments in the global north who have implemented this type of economic policy are increasing skeptical of it (for example the United Kingdom's prime minister Theresa May recently pledged to end austerity, while Labour opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn is popularly calling for the return of the welfare state and reigning in of private capital).

But this appears not to be a cautionary tale for Mnangagwa or private business.  Instead they appear to be firmly persuaded that the neo-liberal mantra of ‘no pain, no gain’ is the only course of action they can take to gain the favor of the ‘market’. 

Of course they will not readily explain to whose pain they are referring to.  For the avoidance of doubt, it is most certainly not their own pain. Physically or emotionally.  From our own domestic experience of the early 1990s version of ‘austerity’ that we came to know as the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP). And for all the pain we suffered, we still remained jobless and lacked access to basic social services.  Even if we blamed the politics of Mugabe’s long duree rule, the fundamentals were very clear around the fact that Zimbabwe was no longer anywhere near being the welfare state that it was in the first ten years of independence. And those who benefitted the most were the ones with links to private local and global capital as well as the ruling party.  (Remember all those celebrity businessmen who were part of indigenisation outfits, buying fancy cars, paying workers in shoes? Some of them are now very rich politicians and football administrators).

But even if government claims that this is a different path, the framework speaks a different language. It's  Transitional Stabilisation Program (TSP)  to be fortified when the 2019 national budget is presented to Parliament later on this month, is framed as private sector led economic growth.  That means private capital and its intentions are governments number one priority.  With the hope that trickle down benefits (for example, cheaper labour) will suffice to retain a modicum of political stability. 

The new marriage of business and government is therefore a state-private capital contract made for the elite.  And Mnangagwa probably knows this only too well. His primary guarantee to capital is that he will provide the necessary political cover for capital's profit motivated forays.  This cover will include suppressing unionism and direct popular opposition to his economic policies by social movements. (He is rather lucky that the opposition agrees with his economic template.  In fact it occasionally claims it as its own.)  Mnangagwa intends to try and reinvent the Zimbabwean state.  Almost as a private corporation that houses other private corporations for a profit.  In return, capital simply needs to do what it does.  That is to worship at the altar of the free market and neo-liberalism no matter the economic rights concerns of a poor majority in the country.   The only catch is that capital, like global international politics, only knows permanent interests and has no permanent friends. A matter that Masiyiwa is also probably all too familiar with. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

Religion Has Limits in the Secular World, Mr. Magaya (and Others)

By Takura Zhangazha*

One would be forgiven for thinking that Zimbabwe is caught up in some sort of national religious frenzy.  Pastors, prophets, politicians-come-pastors-messiahs, business people are regularly making reference to God or Jesus in relation to what should essentially be secular spheres of our national social life.  It should have all reached its fever pitch by the time we held elections that had two religion motivated campaign themes. Namely ‘Voice of the People is the Voice of God’ (Zanu Pf) and ‘Gods in it’ (MDC Alliance). 

It turns out that a good number of clergy persons were thinking beyond the electoral period and looking at consolidating their stay on the national stage.  And commenting on what are secular issues.  Or issues that are fundamentally beyond their religious purview. 

Two recent incidents come to mind.  Firstly some pastors have been commenting on the state of the economy and what they perceive to be political or economic solutions  to current problems come to mind.  Apart from again calling for a transitional authority or government of national unity (whose calls were rejected by the incumbent government), through to other relatively abstract comments about how the government must move to cushion the poor.  This is all well and good.  And their opinion is to be respected.  So long it does not appear to be an attempt at messianic tendencies via articles of faith over what are essentially structural aspects of our country’s political economy.  With or Without Gods intervention (I will come back to this point later).

The second and perhaps most astounding attempt by the clergy into the realm of the secular was this weekends unsubstantiated claim by Mr. Walter Magaya (also referred to as a prophet) that he has discovered/found the cure for HIV/Aids.  And by doing so challenged any doubters to come and do the relevant scientific tests after the event/announcement. 

We now all know that these clergy men have a similar template across the continent (via TV’s and congregations with ‘overflows’’) to try and combine mysticism and dramatic public performances (almost like secular magicians) to persuade those that are desperate as a result of poverty or a wanton desire for the material that they indeed are ‘prophets’ of sorts. 

This recent statement on HIV/Aids and a cure is one too many.  Such attempts by religious and in some cases political leaders to claim such powers for cures have ended in national health disasters and the needless loss of life. Anyone remember former Gambian president Yaya Jammeh and his ridiculous but more significantly tragic attempt at the same. Closer to home there was one Burombo who also claimed the same.   

Prophets and clergy men who make such claims to their thousands of supporters must be brought to public account.  And they must be told of the limits to which they can go with claiming the superstitious as being superior to contemporary modern science.  Even if the latter has challenges of access, affordability for a majority poor of our country’s citizens in this age of neoliberalism.

Bu there are other more important factors to consider about the role of religion in contemporary Zimbabwean (and African) societies.  Knowing full well that any attempt to reign in pastors and their followers will lead to them claiming persecution, it is important that secular Zimbabwean society begins to be much more apparent in everyday national consciousness.

Not in order to act as direct rivals or new ‘cultist’ movements to those that are obtaining and retaining a hold on the national political, social and economic psyche, limited but expanding as it is among young Zimbabweans.  And some of these issues are now being dealt with in courts of law especially where they concern expected returns on ‘tithes’ or ‘seeding’.

The secular simply has to hold fort against these alarming levels of superstition and religiosity in our country.  Not that there is any need for anyone to undermine the right of all Zimbabweans to assemble as well as their freedom to worship, but there are such things as shouting fire in a crowded hall that may lead to a tragic stampede.  Or as was the case in the recent past, members of some apostolic churches refusing their children early medical treatment in the name of one god, prophet or the other.

Zimbabwe may generally be described as a highly religious country, at least by a majority’s adherence to Christianity in one form or the other.  And churches in their variegated denominations are powerful institutions of social cohesion and stability.  But they must remember that while they, like the rest of civil society can influence state policies, they should not over reach their mark by claiming all and sundry as theirs.  Or originating from their prophecies and other superstitious claims.  It is the Zimbabwean state that has a social contract with all the people of Zimbabwe for their health and safety. God's or religious interventions via their 'representatives' prophetic or otherwise should be reminded that the secular world, for now, best serves the democratic public interest.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

Media for Profit vs Its Democratic Value in Zimbabwe

 By Takura Zhangazha*

Three things occurred in Zimbabwe’s mainstream media environment that are directly related but will help us understand the sector much better.  From how it views and values itself, its own understanding of how the public should receive/respect it and how those that own the media view their roles vis-à-vis their profit motive.  

The first occurrence was the doubling of the prices of newspapers under the Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) stable. This was in the midst of the phenomenal currency exchange rate wherein the country was undergoing public panic commodity buying and hoarding the same ostensibly to retain some value to their earnings. 

The increase in the AMH stable newspaper prices was quite bold in media terms.  They were the only media house to immediately do so (I am sure the other major stables shall follow suit at some point).  It was an inadvertent statement of self-value and a probable confidence that their readers would understand the decision and still fork out at least two dollars (in bond notes).  

Either because their journalistic work is worth every cent/dollar or because their reading public would empathize with them in difficult economic circumstances.  Or, which is more likely, the owners of AMH view their entity in strict market terms wherein whatever prices are on the market they need to ensure they recover the costs of their production and retain their profit margins.  Whatever their actual reason, it is likely that as a private company they were and are entitled to do so.

It should however have ended there.  The new deputy minister of  information, publicity and broadcasting services (IPBS) Energy Mutodi however took umbrage at the decision to increase the copy price by AMH.  Using Twitter, he ‘instructed’ AMH to revert back to the previous prices for its newspapers.  The chairman of AMH, Trevor Ncube responded in the negative and went on to imply that the burning of his newspapers soon after their twitter tirade could possibly be linked to the deputy minister. 

The social media fallout between the two was to get slightly more dramatic if not altogether awkward.  The two held a meeting at the IPBS offices under the watch of Minister Monica Mutsvangwa.  And it is now reported that they have buried the hatchet. Add to this the minister’s statement that Zimbabwe is ‘open for media business’ and we all have an idea why they have done the proverbial burial.

What these dramatic incidents point to is a precarious positioning of the media under Mnangagwa’s government.  This is in at least two respects.  Firstly that for the government its ‘image’ appears to be everything and the media (private or state owned/controlled) is a key cog in helping do public relations for it.  Hence the general outcry and immediate action by the ministry over the spat between the two newfound brothers on twitter.  And that in itself may not be a bad thing on the face of it.  But it runs the serious risk of bringing the private media closer to the ruling establishment in the name of not only choreographed conviviality but also under the problematic ease of doing business mantra.  And this becomes a framework where the public might not quite know what now motivates editorial policies or the actions of media proprietors. That is whether it is the profit motive or an independent and democratic pursuit of the public interest. 

Secondly, where we have such a rapport between media owners and government, we need to cautiously examine the overall democratic importance of the media in our country.  This rapport as it turns out is predicated on ensuring the licensing of already existent media houses (which were largely print and radio) into what would be considered media oligarchies (Rupert Murdoch and Australia anyone?)  across various platforms (television, print, radio and online broadcasting).  While at the same time not paying attention to the necessity of diverse media ownership as an important element of greater freedom of expression and access to information in the democratic public interest. 

But this appears to be more a moot point given the newfound camaraderie of Mutodi, Ncube and associates. What obtains in reality is the likelihood that the media and its owners may no longer be as keen on free expression in it true public interest role.  Instead,for them, profit may in the final analysis, not only be king but a god.   It appears that the media and it's owners cannot surpass the opportunity to be somewhat embedded within the state and its neo-liberal narrative in return for potential favours that come with being controversial but not true to the democratic role of the fourth estate.  But then again, who really cares? The standards have been set a bit too low to warrant democratic query.  Much to the detriment of free expression and access to information by the many. Not the privileged (and rotating) few.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com) 

Economic Dystopia in Zim, From Two Opposite Ends

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The key word to describe Zimbabwe’s current national attitude or mood is ‘dystopian’.  That is a predisposition to expecting the worst possible scenarios for society because of recent government monetary and economic policies.  All based on memories of a hyperinflationary period of the yeas 2007-2009 as well as a general mistrust of the ruling Zanu Pf party's approach to national economic policy. 

So assumptions of a pending economic ‘Armageddon’ become fortified by political default.  All with the assistance of social media laced with partisan political and in some cases religious discourse that can only serve to stoke the fires of a pending ‘dystopia’. 

Inferences of ‘no pain, no gain’ or that we must all suffer first in order for things to get better as recently alluded to by President Mnangagwa point to a, for now, determined free market/neo-liberal government.  And this determination or what Mnangagwa refered to as ‘decisiveness’ is for the free market as well as to protect private capital’s profit interests.  With the vainglorious hope that the latter will sort itself out and in the process create a trickle down effect to the majority poor.

By so doing, Mnangagwa’s government hopes that global capital will give them the thumbs up and proceed to help/invest with them out of Zimbabwe’s long standing economic isolation.  Just like the November 2017 coup-not-a-coup, they are taking a huge gamble that they probably feel will not raise international ire.  Instead they expect endorsement from international financial institutions (IFIs) and governments that believe completely in free market/neoliberal economics.  It is therefore not surprising that the minister of finance Mthuli Ncube announced these new measures prior to his trip to Bali, Indonesia for the World Bank, International Monetary Fund meet up.  (Yes the meeting is going ahead despite the devastating earthquake in another part of that country).

This given determination on the part of government to pursue neoliberalism on drugs ironically also anticipates some sort of dystopia, albeit temporarily.  In keeping with Chicago School versions of free market economics it intends to ‘shock’ the economic system and the general public into accepting the lack of an option.  Even if violently so.  Hence already there is talk of speeding up processes of privatizing state owned/controlled enterprises and cutting government expenditure. 

All with limited talk of the negative social impact this may have on peoples’ livelihoods.  The government anticipates that the people will suffer but private capital will be comfortable enough to eventually be benevolent. 

So the Zimbabwean public anticipates dystopia for reasons that are evidently different from those of their government.  Theirs are based on a real fear on loss of livelihoods that related to their ability to access or trade in the US$ and its now devalued local bond note version and the introduction of an electronic version of a currency that is now realized via RTGS. The governments are based on worshipping at the altar of free market/neoliberal economics and politics (fortifying the nexus between private capital and political leaders).

A key counter-narrative to both dystopian perspectives (public/popular and government) is to take a holistic/systemic analysis to the economic situation that Zimbabwe finds itself in.  This being that our placement in a neo-liberal global political economy requires that we actively seek new ways of setting up people centered economic frameworks that do not bow down to the undemocratic demands of undemocratic capital.  

The viable option that is required to be on the table is a new democratic socialism that is people centered, focused on civil, social and economic human rights and that clearly sets up the democratic state as the guarantor of people’s livelihoods.  Not the market and how private capital manipulates it primarily for a profit.  Where the government talks of win-win situations in the name of profit, the alternative outlines a win-win where the state retains the primary function of guaranteeing everyone a better livelihood through efficient, transparent, non –corrupt public services and public goods.

 

Countering the government’s neo-liberal economic trajectory and ‘shock treatment’ of the country’s citizens is not going to be easy.  Not least because the measures announced have the support of business and global capital/financial institutions.  

The Mnangagwa government appears to be very determined to ensure it pushes through with the reforms regardless of protests and dissent which they may decide to clamp down on as is historically the case with governments that embrace neo-liberalism in the global south. Especially if the dissent is organic, ideological and people centered. But where it is knee jerk, non-systemic and not informed of the rising global resistance to neo-liberalism (and lessons of its push back strategies) this dystopian outlook of many Zimbabweans will move from being only about anger/emotions to being a permanent state of helplessness and vainly suffering in order for things to get better.  Somehow, someday. And that is dangerous for democracy.  

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

RBZ’s Monetary Policy for the Haves-not-the-Havenots’

By Takura Zhangazha*

In Zimbabwean writer Shimmer Chinodya’s Harvest of Thorns novel, there is a description of the main character’s father, Mr. Tichafa, as probably having been the best minister of finance that Rhodesia probably never had.  This was because he (the father) was running the family on a minimum wage budget with what his son considered amazing resourcefulness. 

Some years after high school we would laugh in conversation about comparing contemporary and even past finance ministers with Mr. Tichafa.  Even if from a point of ignorance of how national and global capitalism operates.  Or how hapless most actual minsters of finance would be.  Even if they were trying hard.

I thought of this as I read the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s (RBZ) new monetary policy this week.  It was a policy geared to fit into the overall government’s free market economic policy (open for business).  Also now referred known as neo-liberalism.  Hence emphasis as expected was on ‘ring-fencing’ or guaranteeing (nostro) foreign currency accounts (FCAs) protection from what it eventually turns out is our own version of a currency, the bond note.  Or the Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS). 

There were other announcements concerning taxes and other requirement’s of banks and their users.

 But that on FCAs and RTGS is perhaps the most significant in so far as they both affect a greater majority of Zimbabweans.  This is because the quest for the US$ is a national pre-occupation.  

And it is deemed to give the greatest net value to transactions or property by many Zimbabweans.  Not least because of a lack of trust in any local currency introduced by this or any other government.  In fact, political parties have generally avoided promising to remove the US$ as the currency of exchange. 

So the move was going to cause anxiety and panic. Especially in urban areas of the country that have had a thriving parallel currency exchange market. And also because of a patent lack of trust in the government and the Reserve Bank to retain the value of money in its bond note or RTGS form. 

But the Reserve Bank has taken the risk on the backdrop of not public trust but more confidence that the ‘market’ will set itself right.  Or at least with a reliance that Mnangagwa’s government’s policies are enough to revive investor confidence and loans/guarantees of support from global financial institutions (IMF, AfDB, World Bank).  As long as there is a strong guarantee of the protection of investments,  and private property or actual FCAs.

This is therefore a monetary policy for the haves not the have-nots.  With the assumption of a trickle down effect to those that are already poor.  And as is, the cost of living will invariably rise for those that cannot access the US$. Or it will at least have a (informal for now) multi-tier commodity costing system (i.e a price in US$, bond/RTGS/other).  A development that will point to the fact that the majority of people who do not have access to the US$ will be living more expensive lives in relation to costs.  Or they will simply not be able to afford basic commodities due to their serious disadvantages over the ‘rating’ processes which at any given point are ‘fickle’. 

But as is the tradition of neoliberalism, it will bring out its intellectual and practitioner guns to defend the move as being the only rational way forward.  True to fashion they will pretend free market economics never created this problem and offer the same neoliberalism as the only means to solve it. 

What is clearer now is that this government is well aware of the desperation of many Zimbabweans for want of some sort of economic normalcy.  And it has decided to sun a people centered approach to economic policy in favour of private international capital.  A process that will mean if push comes to shove it may decide to ensure it gets its way through greater political control of dissent in order to achieve its stated objectives. 

Others may ask what the alternatives are and the answer can only be that stable societies are democratic in relation to both their politics as well as their economic policies.  That is, they guarantee not just political rights but also socio-economic justice and fairness for the majority of their citizens.  With or without the United States dollar. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)