On the pages of The Sunday Mail this week we carry several stories concerning the country’s indigenisation programme with particular emphasis on the March 31 deadline for foreign-owned firms to submit proposals on how they expect to comply with the law.
As a starting point, we report that around 1 000 of 1 200 companies have complied with this stage of implementation of the programme.
We must commend them for moving to work within the laws of the land inasmuch as we must question the other 200 who for whatever reason remain in defiance of a Constitutional Act of Parliament and a standing Statutory Instrument.
We also carry no less than four opinion articles from various contributors making it clear that the law must remain sacrosanct, that Government must not waiver in implementing it, that no one should think themselves about it.
All very true. And we shall continue to call for spirit-and-letter implementation of the law. There can be no sacred cows when it comes to respecting the rule of law.
At the same time, we should all remain cognisant of a simple fact: laws are made for people, people are not made for laws.
It is only Moses and Hammurabi who cast the law in stone. Laws can be and should be changed to suit the economic, social and political aspirations of a society, which is why Southern Rhodesia’s constitution was discarded for the Lancaster document, and that in turn — after some 19 amendments — was also thrown out for the 2013 national charter.
Laws can and should be amended to reflect changing thinking and awareness of new realities. Which is why our Acts of Parliament have been steadily chipping away at outmoded patriarchal constructs that treated grandmothers as minors.
Laws can be refined as a response to the practicalities of implementing them so that they are more progressive and better able to achieve their original objectives.
Which is why the indigenisation regulations have been tweaked before to ensure Zimbabweans derive better value from their resources.
Hence, what we are advocating for here is a refinement.
The Indigenisation law and its regulations were not written by the finger of God on two tablets of stone a la Moses on Mt Sinai. Neither were they etched onto a seven-and-half foot pillar by Babylon’s King Hammurabi.
Are we saying the law and regulations should be changed so that foreign companies continue to live off the fat of our land while our people struggle? Lord forbid!
As we stated on this very same page on March 20, 2016, what we need to do is to indigenise companies — not shut them down.
The spirit of the indigenisation policy is self-evident: it is to create a new economy in which indigenous Zimbabweans, ie those historically marginalised by race-based policies, are the majority drivers of said new economy. How does shutting down a company advance that cause? Are we saying we can merely shrink the cake so that we have a bigger piece of a smaller economy?
That surely cannot reflect the spirit of economic transformation that indigenisation entails.
Zimbabwe cannot have a national economic programme premised on banning, outlawing, demolishing and shutting down.
What we need to see are mechanisms for indigenisation of foreign-owned companies that either fail or refuse to comply with the law and regulations.
Zimbabwe’s policymakers should be seized with structuring innovative and sustainable models that ensure all non-compliant companies are indigenised and continue to provide employment, goods and services.
We cannot create 2,2 million jobs by shutting down companies. We cannot transform the economy by shutting down companies. We cannot grow the tax base by shutting down companies. We cannot attract significant and genuine foreign investment by shutting down companies.
These companies must be indigenised. There has been a suggestion that the directors and owners of companies that refuse to comply with the regulations will be pursued so that their assets are attached and the proceeds go to former workers.
Yes, there should be a consequence for wilful defiance of the law. But after we seize and sell assets and give ex-workers some cash, then what?
Not everyone is an entrepreneur so a lot of this money will simply go to consumption and then run out. These people will still need jobs.
What we need is a broad, far reaching and visionary response to non-compliant companies that ensures jobs are not lost and goods and services continue being provided. We repeat, indigenise these companies, period!
COMMENT: Indigenise, don’t shut down
The Sunday Mail
On the pages of The Sunday Mail this week we carry several stories concerning the country’s indigenisation programme with particular emphasis on the March 31 deadline for foreign-owned firms to submit proposals on how they expect to comply with the law.
As a starting point, we report that around 1 000 of 1 200 companies have complied with this stage of implementation of the programme.
We must commend them for moving to work within the laws of the land inasmuch as we must question the other 200 who for whatever reason remain in defiance of a Constitutional Act of Parliament and a standing Statutory Instrument.
We also carry no less than four opinion articles from various contributors making it clear that the law must remain sacrosanct, that Government must not waiver in implementing it, that no one should think themselves about it.
All very true. And we shall continue to call for spirit-and-letter implementation of the law. There can be no sacred cows when it comes to respecting the rule of law.
At the same time, we should all remain cognisant of a simple fact: laws are made for people, people are not made for laws.
It is only Moses and Hammurabi who cast the law in stone. Laws can be and should be changed to suit the economic, social and political aspirations of a society, which is why Southern Rhodesia’s constitution was discarded for the Lancaster document, and that in turn — after some 19 amendments — was also thrown out for the 2013 national charter.
Laws can and should be amended to reflect changing thinking and awareness of new realities. Which is why our Acts of Parliament have been steadily chipping away at outmoded patriarchal constructs that treated grandmothers as minors.
Laws can be refined as a response to the practicalities of implementing them so that they are more progressive and better able to achieve their original objectives.
Which is why the indigenisation regulations have been tweaked before to ensure Zimbabweans derive better value from their resources.
Hence, what we are advocating for here is a refinement.
The Indigenisation law and its regulations were not written by the finger of God on two tablets of stone a la Moses on Mt Sinai. Neither were they etched onto a seven-and-half foot pillar by Babylon’s King Hammurabi.
Are we saying the law and regulations should be changed so that foreign companies continue to live off the fat of our land while our people struggle? Lord forbid!
As we stated on this very same page on March 20, 2016, what we need to do is to indigenise companies — not shut them down.
The spirit of the indigenisation policy is self-evident: it is to create a new economy in which indigenous Zimbabweans, ie those historically marginalised by race-based policies, are the majority drivers of said new economy. How does shutting down a company advance that cause? Are we saying we can merely shrink the cake so that we have a bigger piece of a smaller economy?
That surely cannot reflect the spirit of economic transformation that indigenisation entails.
Zimbabwe cannot have a national economic programme premised on banning, outlawing, demolishing and shutting down.
What we need to see are mechanisms for indigenisation of foreign-owned companies that either fail or refuse to comply with the law and regulations.
Zimbabwe’s policymakers should be seized with structuring innovative and sustainable models that ensure all non-compliant companies are indigenised and continue to provide employment, goods and services.
We cannot create 2,2 million jobs by shutting down companies. We cannot transform the economy by shutting down companies. We cannot grow the tax base by shutting down companies. We cannot attract significant and genuine foreign investment by shutting down companies.
These companies must be indigenised. There has been a suggestion that the directors and owners of companies that refuse to comply with the regulations will be pursued so that their assets are attached and the proceeds go to former workers.
Yes, there should be a consequence for wilful defiance of the law. But after we seize and sell assets and give ex-workers some cash, then what?
Not everyone is an entrepreneur so a lot of this money will simply go to consumption and then run out. These people will still need jobs.
What we need is a broad, far reaching and visionary response to non-compliant companies that ensures jobs are not lost and goods and services continue being provided. We repeat, indigenise these companies, period!
CARTOON
Share This:
More Stories: