The Sunday Mail
“There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life, is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” In this excerpt from Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar”, Brutus shows a belief that man’s fate is determined by the exercise of free will in moments that opportunity presents itself. He advises man to be canny enough to spot opportunity.
Quite uncommonly, I perceived the imposition of sanctions as opportunity.
We exercised our free will and chose to go ahead in pursuit of an economic revolution regardless of economic consequences imposed by Western states.
Our fate? Well, that is yet to be determined. However, we can do a present-day assessment of some sort.
The revolution is about economic self-determination. An economic pursuit to free ourselves from imperialist influence and extraction.
Empowerment policies like land reform are a core to this revolution. Such policies were bound to be received with hostile attitudes from the West. Illegal sanctions were inevitable. Numerous other countries have faced similar consequences for disagreeing with Western states.
Unquestionably, sanctions are harmful. Their cumulative estimated cost to our economy since 2001 stands at US$42 billion.
Wise revolutionaries, however, would foresee the unavoidable consequences of sanctions. It would be expected then, that an attitude of raised levels of competence in economic factors that are within our control would be instilled into the national psyche.
Unfortunately, I do not think that has been the case.
Our political and economic will to drive towards economic self-determination has not been as strong when it comes to mitigating internal factors that hinder our economic progress. We have not been thorough in pushing comprehensive actions against local occurrences that set us back from our aspirations.
We have allowed systemic decay which exposed us to budgetary misappropriations that have grossly hurt the functions of Government.
Our compromised efficiency in public service delivery has made daily living strenuous and costs exorbitant.
Not enough has been done towards trying to rectify extractive institutions that have contracted the formal sector and pushed labour into informal activities.
Fundamental problems of accountability have left us short on decisive remedies.
We have encouraged undesirable perspectives of social equity. Consequently, we have not allocated resources that position the wider population to be in situations of economic contribution. For instance, youths have not been given a macro conducive environment to thrive under entrepreneurial initiatives.
Likewise, we are spending on providing assets to state institutions while insisting on fiscal measures that suffocate private industry.
Contrary to the perception that detractors of our economic aspirations may try to portray, all of the above are not part of our revolution. Revolutionary principles are not inclusive of such ideals.
We can only be faulted for failing to mitigate such occurrences; and that is enough to say that we have not done our economic revolution justice.
We have not been comprehensively competent in matters we control.
As a result, we have failed to seize an opportunity. Now we do not know where we stand independently as a functioning competent nation without Western interaction.
Sanctions provided that opportunity of introspective discovery.
If we had worked diligently under sanctions, with the political and economic will to deter aforementioned internal obstacles to our revolution, we would know where we stand as an economic entity!
An entity knowing its own capabilities and output potential.
As is the nature of globalisation, it is unsustainable for a country to operate with characteristics of a closed economy.
We are no exception.
Looking East has indeed been fruitful, and those friendlier relations will continue to be beneficial. However, our economic compass cannot simply show East.
Our plans for the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-Asset) require funding for us to have an economic resurgence. If we are to find this funding and attract investment, a more widespread outlook must be adopted.
Hence, we find ourselves in our current quandary.
Zim-Asset financing and indigenisation laws are holding up the economy. We have allowed an over-extended period of uncertainty on indigenisation laws. Zim-Asset is nearly one year in and the nation still awaits full implementation of the blueprint.
What could be the reason for such delayed engagement? Why the hesitance? Could it be because we are unsure from what position we should engage Western states?
If that is the case, then if we had been competent and found a true measure of our potential, today we would decisively engage with self-assurance in what we have to offer.
