The Sunday Mail
Chris Chenga Open Economy
Liberation parties in Africa are often associated with a certain kind of socialist outlook in their economic management. These socialist notions are attributed to liberation parties’ intentional efforts to include specific demographics into mainstream economies. Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah, Zambia under Kenneth Kaunda and Tanzania under Julius Nyerere often stand-out as representative of post-colonial African socialist systems.
Colonialism presented these liberation party-led governments with dualised economies characterised by disenfranchised indigenous populations, functioning at the periphery of mainstream economic activity.
It is necessary to coin the socialist outlook of liberation parties as a “certain kind” so as to differentiate it from generic socialist definitions.
The definitions simply assume state ownership and paternalist policies of centralised safety nets that provide sustenance and social services to a population.
The latter is found across many other continents, with perhaps Nordic states holding monopoly of familiarity.
What differentiates the post-colonial African socialist outlook is its incumbent expectation to restructure the demographic representation of our economies; a certain kind of socialism of intended inclusion of the black indigenous demographic.
In Zimbabwe, policies such as land reforms and indigenisation are traits of this kind of socialist outlook. These inclusive policies are of similar ideology to our peers who in the past and present pursue the empowerment of a black majority.
However, African post-colonial socialism has found it difficult to sustain traction in an increasingly integrated and ferociously competitive capitalist global economy.
Admittedly, black economic empowerment policies in South African have had some success in assimilating indigenous demographics into the center of mainstream economy.
But, just like Zimbabwe’s land reform which has placed hundreds of thousands of indigenous people in position of resource ownership, black empowerment policies across our continent have fallen short in meeting the pressing demands of a competitive capitalist global economy.
Capitalism is a system of productivity competition, and while African socialist policies have succeeded in their inclusive agenda, they have often resulted in dire implications on the productivity competitiveness of our economies.
As a result, economic sectors that mostly reflect socialist inclusion become uncompetitive productivity laggards that drag down the macro-economic state of our economies.
Thus, five decades into post-colonial Africa, the question should be asked on whether or not the ideology of black empowerment can be achieved through socialist policies of inclusion?
The capitalist global economy is largely leveraged on the idea of free market forces that place little reverence to the notion of intentional inclusion.
Yet, free market forces have proven to be the essential drivers of productivity.
How then do Africa political parties that stand for black empowerment fulfil the expectation of black inclusion, at the same time capturing the productivity potential of free market forces need to keep our economies competitive?
Indeed one cannot proffer incontestable solutions; however, one can suggest points of national pondering.
Firstly, there must be a cultural education of Africans to appreciate, if not accept, that demands of a global capitalist system.
To possess competitive economies of our own, our people must be educated on the desirable impulses and competencies of productivity.
Indeed that means that each citizen must be economically groomed to earn their keep by contributing to national productivity.
There is conflicting evidence in Zimbabwe as to how far that education has been fostered. Consider the very notion that our economy has an ever growing informal sector meaning that even though human capital is excluded from formalised value chains, people are still working for their own empowerment.
The majority of citizens are pulling their weight to earn ownership of resources or create opportunities for quality livelihoods.
This is in sharp contrast to other economies where excluded labour sits idle in expectation of being presented value chains, or simply sits to demand welfare from “socialist” governments.
Governments must spot this potential in people, and further nurture this self-dependent spirit in people.
There is concerning contrast in that the large share of demographics that benefited from policies of inclusion, particularly land reform, still retain undesirable impulses and lack relevant competencies to enhance productivity in the sector that they were positioned.
For instance, many resettled farmers have not weaned themselves from a culture of expectation for Government assistance.
Government has not made the effort to shift this relationship with resettled farmers, instead continuing to play a paternalist role to what should be self-dependent economic agents in a key sector.
Resettled on commercial land, many farmers still do not perceive their inclusion into the agricultural sector as a productivity point which the macro-economy depends on.
This is a similar case in instances of indigenisation, as many companies that found indigenous demographics assimilated into ownership have not paid dividends in terms of stimulated productivity.
Indeed those assimilated into ownership were not educated into the contributory expectations of their inclusion into ownership.
Thought must therefore be given on whether or not we have engrained a cultural education that black inclusion, through land reform or indigenisation, must be further implemented with continuous productivity contribution?
Secondly, there must be time horizons for policies of inclusion to show productivity returns.
For instance, empowerment interest groups such as the AAG and other youth initiatives may push for industrial protection in sectors of desired black inclusion; however, the state must then affirm time horizons that place productivity expectations on these included demographics.
Likewise, the emotive sentiment of land reform is almost overdue, and land must begin to be perceived as a national asset that demands productivity.
For policies of inclusion to work in a capitalist global economy, time horizons must be set for them to show productivity returns.
Lastly, we require structural reforms that reward the indigenous economic agents who exemplify desirable impulses and competencies demanded by market forces.
Government must put in place structural reforms that incentivise empowered demographics to prosper. Business must be good friends with Government.
Unfortunately in Zimbabwe, Government has often befriended poor business to extents that stifle the best capitalist potential amongst us.
For instance, patronage, corruption, and rent seeking have had the negative effect of deterring the sustained emergence of desired industrialists who often then succumb to bottlenecks due to these structural inequities.
We cannot compete globally when we retain inefficiency locally.
It is astute to place these thoughts within a broad African context as the ideology of black empowerment has struggled across the continent.
Zimbabwe’s challenges are not unique.
Lessons abound in history and other countries have chosen to pursue similar in different ways.
African socialism is benevolent – however, it must be pragmatic.
