ANALYSIS: We are our own worst enemy

15 Feb, 2015 - 00:02 0 Views
ANALYSIS: We are our own worst enemy

The Sunday Mail

1402-1-1-DIAMOND1BY Rangu Nyamurundira

Are we facing the reality now that President Mugabe has been so far ahead in envisioning Zimbabwe’s economic independence while the Government he has appointed to administer and make certain such vision become reality has not fully comprehended the task at hand?

It is almost two years since the people of Zimbabwe emphatically endorsed the indigenisation and socio-economic transformation vision framed in Zanu-PF’s 2013 election manifesto.

Why then do questions still linger about whether or not indigenisation is good for the economy?

Indeed, Zanu-PF’s 6th National People’s Congress of December 2014 said it was “disturbed by the loss of both momentum and initiative in the implementation of the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Framework, which was the lynch-pin of the Party’s 2013 Election manifesto”.

Congress also called upon Government “to create an enabling environment to attract foreign direct investment”.

Congress resolutions do not at all give leeway to our Zanu-PF Government to compromise or dispose of indigenisation in the name of seeking FDI.

Rather Government is called upon to undertake a balancing act: to “reinvigorate the implementation of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act” while attracting FDI.

Why then have some Zanu-PF appointees to Government been at the forefront of condemning indigenisation as chasing away investors?

Indigenisation is, by its very nature, a political programme founded upon a political ideology and objective, and thus its implementation is susceptible to political will or lack thereof.

Quite frankly, in our post-July 2013 Government, indigenisation has struggled to find a consistent political advocate beyond the principled voice of President Mugabe himself.

On the eve of July 31, 2013 the passionate drive of its then administering minister, Cde Saviour Kasukuwere, had conditioned otherwise unwilling businesses and investors to accept indigenisation as a living reality.

In fact, their only hope had been Zanu-PF losing the elections, failing which they were anxious to appease with immediate engagement and compliance.

Point is, indigenisation was alive and kicking.

But then what happened?

A full-blooded Zanu-PF Government revealed symptoms of conflict and inconsistency within its indigenisation ideology and framework.

Indigenisation was being infected by the preferences and agendas of individual party and Government representatives, very much in conflict with the party’s ideology and its objective in Government.

Meanwhile, foreign economic interests always opposed to indigenisation for their own profit motives, have closely watched for weakness and conflict within, even sowing doubt in the programme.

The critical question is if indigenisation has caused lack of FDI, or if it has instead been Government’s own lack of commitment, clarity and consistency in advocating the programme and implementing it.

Our President has scaled international political heights to sit at the helm of the African Union as a Chair unanimously elected by his peers.

It is an expression of confidence and an endorsement of his values and unwavering belief in the economic sovereignty of not only Zimbabwe but of all of Africa.

Indeed, immediately upon being elected, President Mugabe reminded his peers of “the palpable collective resolve” of the AU’s forbears when founding the OAU in 1963.

Their resolve then was to unite and free Africa from “the twin scourge of colonialism and poverty”.

Indeed, at the heart of Africa’s present-day woes, its conflicts, instabilities and impoverishment has been the continued looting of its natural resources by former colonisers.

President Mugabe reassured Africa that “African resources should belong to Africa and to no one else, except to those we invite as friends. Friends we shall have, yes, but imperialists and colonialists no more”.

He implored Africa to sing the melody of economic renaissance.

AU Staff Association President Salah Siddiq stated: “You, Your Excellency, declared in your acceptance statement that you will dedicate this year to promote the lives of Africans and we as the staff of the African Union as a whole, we are behind you to support you in that commitment.”

But has our Government, appointed by President Mugabe, been true to this mandate?

All our representatives in Government must take a moment to reflect on why foreign investors have kept away for so long only to now be celebrated by the same Government as beginning to re-engage a Zimbabwe, which, the last time I checked, remained fixated with its indigenisation ideology and its 51/49 system.

Has Government itself not caused foreign investors to lose their appetite for Zimbabwe?

Has FDI not stayed away for so long because it found an implementation framework in a nervous condition, uncertain and conflicted?

It should be no surprise then that the West has for so long maintained sanctions in an attempt to have an unsure and insecure indigenisation programme capitulate.

And yet a little cleansing within the party and whipping in line of Government to reinforce ideology and the national indigenous cause is causing the West to reconsider its strategy and begin to engage, despite indigenisation.

They have noted a regrouping political will and objective within Zanu-PF, realigning to its ideology and objectives and will not wait it out any longer, more so as Russia and China engage as friendly guests given their adequate share at Zimbabwe’s sovereign economic table.

Thus, US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Bruce Wharton will now be comfortable to tell us that America was never opposed to indigenisation in principle, but that its “businesspeople need to have predictable, transparent policies”.

His statement flies in the face of those peddling the notion that “indigenisation scares away FDI”.

Wharton underlined America’s “pragmatic” economic interest ready to invest in Zimbabwe as long as Zimbabwe provides “policy consistency and clarity, particularly as regards the indigenisation law”.

And there is the vindication of President Mugabe’s principled consistency, that foreign investors must engage as “friends” who will respect Zimbabwe’s policies and interest in any partnership.

Sadly, our President’s handicap has been a Government failing to effectively interpret and administer his vision.

It falls back to us, as it always has.

So, what exactly is our Zanu-PF Government doing to ensure clarity, consistency and boldness in implementing indigenisation?

Sadly, Government allows more confusion.

Take, for example, the formulation of this new “line ministry” framework which failed to engage the very Ministry of Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment, which had been implementing the indigenisation programme since inception.

The “line ministry” implementation framework may now be the preferred strategy, but how effective will it be when the process of its framing isolates and leaves in the dark the very ministry meant to undertake any smooth handover/takeover to ensure re-engaging FDI hits the ground running?

Does such an approach to the “line ministry” strategy not defeat its argument for making it easy for FDI to engage Zimbabwe?

In fact, the new provisions enabling the “line ministry” framework allow businesses that have already complied and had their plans approved by the Ministry of Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment to apply to the “line ministry” to consider the reversal of such approved plans.

Are we not undermining the credibility of the indigenisation programme, its gains so far? Are we serious?

In fact, the “line ministry” approach and its intention for efficiency across economic sectors is nothing new to indigenisation implementation.

As early as 2010, the Cabinet Committee on Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment approved the setting up of sector-specific committees by the ministry responsible for indigenisation, to be administered under the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board.

The committees were to outline challenges facing indigenisation across sectors of the economy and recommend sector-specific indigenisation and empowerment strategies.

Contrary to the oversung charge of a “one-size-fits-all” implementation, the committees conducted economy-wide research on the peculiarities and needs of the 14 economic sectors within which indigenisation would be implemented.

The weakness in Government’s implementation of indigenisation has been its failure to clearly interpret our own legal framework to foreign investors.

Has Government assessed and acknowledged how the programme has fared, accounted for its strengths and weaknesses, to ensure Zanu-PF’s call for reinvigoration is realisable?

In formulating the “line ministry” approach, did Government take note of sector-specific implementation efforts that sought to factor concerns and input of line ministries, but while maintaining an efficient centralised compliance and monitoring framework?

Instead, we would want to maintain a free-for-all approach across Government to interpret indigenisation as each thinks fit and according to his or her perceptions and prejudices.

Since when is a revolutionary endeavour allowed to be so fragmented?

Rangu Nyamurundira is the acting legal and corporate secretary at the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board and sits on the Zimbabwe Youth Council Board. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect or represent the views of any institution with which he is associated.

Share This:

Survey


We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds