The Zimbabwean government recently did the unfathomable, at
least according to social media pundits, some civil society organisations,
unions and influential urbanites. It
arbitrarily and abruptly re-introduced a local currency for all domestic
financial transactions. At least at
law.
As expected there was an immediate outburst of anger on
social media, in press conferences, statements and I am pretty sure in the near
future in anticipated or provisionally announced forms of physical protest.
All of which can be easily pointed out to be as a result of
the general mistrust of the government’s monetary policy and as awkward as it
sounds, the lack of trust in any form of a national currency. The origins of which appear with the massive
inflation that coincided with the global financial crisis in 2007/8 and lasted in
Zimbabwe at least until the introduction of a multi-currency regime just before
the formation of a unity government in 2009.
In this we had relatively liberal use of the United States dollar (USD),
the South African Rand and a host of other not so readily available
currencies.
This led to the stabilization of inflation albeit at great
cost to our ability to retain the global value of the USD in tandem with
developments in the global financial markets.
While I am not aware of any economic books that were written
about this multi-currency monetary , by 2015 it became almost unsustainable to
rely on these multi-currencies (we had begun purchasing them from their respective
central banks). So the government introduced
the relatively unpopular but utilitarian ‘bond coin’ in order to deal with challenges
of transactions by retailers. It was
pegged at 1:1 with the popular USD. The
then government went a step further and decided to introduce bond notes almost
a year later and suspicion were heightened that it was about to re-introduce a
full fledged currency. Again the bond
note like its predecessor, the coin, was pegged at the same value as the
USD. Suspicions were abound but both
forms of currency were utilized widely, especially by poorer Zimbabweans who
did not have regular access to the USD.
In between these ambiguities about currencies and suspicions
about government, a ‘coup that was not a coup’ happened in 2017 and a disputed
but legitimized election occurred in 2018. By the time we got through the heady
disputes over presidential election results, in early 2019, the government introduced
a third form of a version of a local currency called the Real Time Gross
Settlement (RTGS) in early 2019. This essentially
meant we had a surrogate currency, one that would with time set the ground for
the introduction of a somewhat formal one depending on our ability to meet the ‘fiscal
requirements’ of global financialised capital (i.e IMF, World Bank, AfDB).
In no short while the government introduced a ‘rated’ multi-currency
regime. It began officially at least
with the RTGS trading (somehow) at 2.5 to the USD. This was to be the straw that broke the camel’s
back. Again, in no short time, we were
at higher official ‘bank rates’ via the RTGS to the USD. It did not work as politically planned. Instead what we had was a quasi-free market
currency trading system underpinned by state regulation.
Arguments about the capacity of the state to respond to the ‘financial
markets’ quickly abounded.
Acceptable
as these were in a neoliberal sense, the key questions that emerged were around
the sustainability of the same. Either
in relation to imports of goods or just even the ‘extractive political economy’
trying to lure foreign investors.
And now the Zimbabwean government has gone the whole hog
with the introduction of a new currency. The end effect of which is more in
keeping with neoliberal economic policy than it is intended at being
populist. It is a move designed to satisfy
domestic and foreign capital’s requirements to do business at a much lower
cost. All in the now proven vain hope
that there will be a trickle down effect for the creation of jobs as well as
that the ‘free market’ will be able to resolve social and economic challenges
faced by the majority poor. All of this
done under the mantra of a ‘return to normalcy’.
The knee-jerk and for now populist rejection of a local
currency in favour of the USD is however intriguing in two specific respects. The first being the political dimension of a
general mistrust of government with a currency whose (commodity exchange) value
is not, in the view of the public, guaranteed by global capital. This public
mistrust is also being buttressed by the previous hyper inflationary period (2007-2009)
and the ‘stability’ brought in by the introduction of a multicurrency system
thereafter. This essentially means the general mindset of the (urban) Zimbabwean
public is in sync with global capitalism’s expectation of an economy i.e one
that follows its laisses faire rules and despises contextual protectionist economics.
The only difference being that apart from a
currency, global capital understands with great sophistry there are many other
ways to bell the cat beyond a multi-currency system. The latter point being rather ironic because
it is also one that Finance minister Mthuli Ncube and his boss Mnangagwa
understand too well, hence the general approval of their economic policy by the
gatekeepers of global capital, namely the World Bank and the IMF. With the added
approval of most Southern African governments that are implementing similar economic
policies.
The second astounding aspect is that of how Zimbabweans now
view ‘money’ and in particular the USD as a commodity. In classical Marxist terms, we have now come
to view it more like a ‘fetish’ or even a ‘deity’. It has come to mean more than it is in transactional
terms. Its value now transcends what it
actually is in reality. We are quite literally under the spell of 'commodity fetishism' because it has also
become a commodity that has/had become a social arbiter of how we relate to
each other without really acknowledging it.
All of this until now when talk of a local currency from government
became louder and is now a reality. And
even if an economist of repute were to explain to an educated Zimbabwean that
money is really imagined, they will find great resistance to that universally given
notion.
To conclude, it is evident that the introduction of a local
currency does not mean there will be economic abundance for all. But neither did the retention of a
multi-currency regime. It is therefore
imperative that we being to examine the system behind the monetary policies in
whatever form they come. And to do so at
the point of ideology in order to counter it.
In our case, neoliberalism (as an ideology) and austerity (as a
strategy) are informing the current and previous currency exchange systems and
economic malaise we have had to endure. But
then again, where money or the USD becomes a fetish in and of itself, it is a
hard ask to call on cdes to understand the system more than the deity.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
An honest write.
ReplyDeleteGreat read
ReplyDelete