Every year that Zimbabwe celebrates Independence, there is a particularly interesting observation to note.
It seems many younger white people are hesitant to overtly wish their nation a happy Independence Day.
This is not due to any ill-intent or longing that Zimbabwe’s actuality of independence was otherwise; rather, the hesitance more closely reflects a sentiment of uncertainty as to whether or not younger white people can claim to be part of this nation.
It is important to clarify that by younger white people, there is a loose emphasis towards individuals born after 1980 or those who would typically be classified as youth in conventional “indigenous” reference.
The rhetoric on which our ideology of empowerment and socio-economic transformation has been carried over the past two decades has often lacked any context on which to reflect on the identity of a white minority in Zimbabwe; especially its youth demographic.
Indeed, by overlooking such a contextualisation, we have left our ideology vulnerable to interpretations that it is one of exclusion, in effect making it a baneful ideology through reverse marginalisation of minorities.
It is always incumbent on the pursuer of an ideology to construct and protect its understanding.
So, by omitting any relation of minorities to our ideology, we are culpable for any festering misconceptions that may grow around it.
Based on an astute differentiation made by Insead Professor Petriglieri, Zimbabwe’s ideology is one of a civilisation and not tribe.
A civilisation is inclusive of a diverse citizenship that abides to a chosen way of life that is guided by progressive ideology.
A tribe is exclusive.
What Zimbabwe must exude is a confidence that our pursuit of empowerment and socio-economic transformation is meant to be achieved through mechanisms of inclusion, not exclusion or removal.
By empowering a once marginalised and disadvantaged black majority, we are not intending to disempower minorities.
By socio-economic transformation, we do not mean the removal or expropriation of a minority from economic activity and ownership.
We mean transforming the racial representation in both economic activity and ownership.
Because we have strayed from deliberating on this sort of definitive interpretation of our ideology’s intent, we have suffered accordingly in structuring the mechanisms of execution.
It is not feasible to achieve our desired outcomes for the once oppressed majority whilst overlooking any consequence to minorities.
Just as important as it is to assess progress made for the black majority, regular cognisance must be given to the socio-economic effects towards a white minority. Otherwise we would be falling victim to a naïve imagination that an economy can prosper as a zero sum game.
That is never the case!
As such, it would be ill-informed to also perceive this topic as merely an ethical search for a higher morality when, in fact, it is much more about the prosperous continuity of our economy.
I will highlight a few instances where we can benefit from finding a context for white minorities.
Firstly, both our governance and business agents highlight the need for more FDI inflows into the country.
We emphasise a non-discriminatory approach to attracting investment.
However, on the understanding that we are not solely seeking black capital, our inviting gestures do not appear sincere and credible when we cannot offer clarity on where white people fit into our own socio-economic aspirations.
If Zimbabwe was a creditor country looking to invest in another nation, would we not be hesitant to put our money in a country where we are uncertain as to whether or not black people have a role to play in its socio-economic ideals, let alone are given a cherished identity in that country?
While foreign investors will not overtly offer us such veracity, significant hesitation by foreigners to invest in Zimbabwe is due to lacking clarity on the identity and role of our white minorities.
This point goes beyond political perception but simple social comfort for investors.
Secondly, there remains plenty of space for multi-racial economic discussion if we are to achieve a better economic circumstance.
It was unfortunate that earlier on this year in South Africa, when a white economist at a leading investment bank aired a few suggestions on racial economic contribution, the immediate response was to shut him out of public discourse and reprimand him for what were perceived as intolerant views.
Granted, an audience interprets content to varying degrees, I worry that by excluding white people from difficult economic conversations only serves to distance an economy from the kind of responsible discourse that leads to potent solutions.
In our case, it would be desirable to have regular white views on how we can advance our socio-economic ideals from multi-racial perspectives.
This moderation is necessary because very important sectors in Zimbabwe today are still held back by covert conduct of racial preference and mistrust.
There is voluntary segregation in certain sectors.
As a result, these sectors have distorted markets and inefficient value chains due to a lack of coherence by economic agents of different race and ethnicity.
However, while I’d like space for greater racial diversity, white contributors must accept our chosen ideology and act as proponents for its fair and equal distribution — without leveraging on our stumbles to advance regressive intentions motivated by nostalgic sentiments.
A bonus consideration is that a white minority will always remain relevant, and the need to create an identity for it within our ideology will be a recurring concern in the distant future.
This is a matter we cannot neglect.
For instance, there is already a significant legislative quandary as the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act generalises the definition of previously-disadvantaged.
A growing aspect of IMF’s Staff Monitored Programme will be compensation to white former farmers.
As globalisation continues and Zimbabwe hopes to be an open economy, the contribution, or lack thereof, from minorities will either be an advantage or a weakness.
To face these queries, Zimbabwe must take responsibility and own the discourse of minority identity within our ideology!
If such an existence is to ever seem tolerable and justified in any manner, we would have succumbed to demagoguery exploitation of our primal insecurities, and in such a case, we would only be a fraction of who we are as a nation.