The Sunday Mail
Comparable to any other country, including developed nations, ours is now an economy that if structurally designed well enough, can achieve gainful inclusive growth for its citizens. Unfortunately again, there is a shortfall in potential successors whom have shown that they can be trusted to execute this vision.
Nathaniel Manheru has in recent weeks made it a point to encourage debate on the succession issue.
Obviously, this column has never laid claim to political astuteness, let alone any innately keen interest in the faculty altogether.
However, it’d be irresponsible not to appreciate the fact that the topic is extremely imperative for all citizens.
Therefore, albeit from an economic commentator’s point of view, I feel compelled to share my sentiment on the matter, as deficient as I accept that it may be to some who may claim greater political understanding.
The debate on succession has yet to earn any economic clout. In fact, it has yet to find any justification of deserving committed economic audience.
It is extremely difficult to attach any economic narrative around the debate for the simple reason that the political faculty, specifically on the subject of succession, has willingly shied itself away from stepping up to the economy.
Of my own idealistic conception, the politics of national interest find their identity from politicians themselves belabouring to inform the electorate, and citizens at large, on what should be the concerns of that nation.
It is the political candidates that lead consciousness.
It is the political candidates who develop and create a narrative on what should be matters of concern.
This equally applies across all aspects of national interest; liberation, social, gender, race, military and especially economic.
Illustrative reference points would be the first family.
Dr Grace Mugabe did not just find her way atop the hierarchy of Women’s Affairs. She diligently informed women rights and demanded advancement of women’s issues in a demonstrable manner.
Likewise, the President himself did not inherit a crown of empowerment politics.
In a firm and systematic manner, he advanced the notion of empowerment into everyday political consciousness.
Sincere observers, whether supportive or not, will acknowledge that these are politicians one cannot misidentify with their cause.
It follows then that if succession, or any candidate for it, is to make a connection with the people it will have to be of the economic cause.
The economy is the concern of our time.
Without elevated provident care, it may very well become a drag on our progeny too.
In terms of our nation’s maturity, economy is now! In this regard, succession has simply failed to excite.
It has failed to inform on the economic concern, and as such it is vacuous of any noteworthy economic narrative of which to construct a debate around.
There has just been no champion for the economic cause to ignite succession conversation — and I insist that this is a space that should only be created by potential candidates themselves, not writers, interest groups, or any form of agenda pushers.
We cannot expect an honourable future Presidency from a candidate who attains the seat through conniving underhandedness.
In fact, succession has already presented itself as covert contestations of political aspirations stubbornly accompanied by comprised economic interest.
The events and subsequent revelations of the last year have created a realisation that widespread within our political class and bureaucratic representation, national economy is only a pretext for an incumbency much more motivated by financial self-interest and a lust for egoistic power.
Yet and still, quite odd to say, this entire still seems to be the lesser turn-off from entertaining succession.
Perhaps the greater shortcoming of the succession debate thus far is that our political class has not shown sufficient economic understanding to manifest the vision of the current President.
While the President has taken the onus of doing the groundwork, his successor is well-placed to simply flourish through implementation.
As evidenced in the past decade, efforts towards indigenisation and land reform, as well as economic integration, have at the very least positioned Zimbabwe for more than just economic competitiveness.
Comparable to any other country, including developed nations, ours is now an economy that if structurally designed well enough, can achieve gainful inclusive growth for its citizens.
Unfortunately again, there is a shortfall in potential successors whom have shown that they can be trusted to execute this vision.
Very few politicians have shown shrewd policy awareness to implement our economic objectives. Even fewer politicians have shown to have an appreciation for, and extract the best out of our people’s ingenuity.
And for now, none have shown to possess distinguished discipline towards the structural design of our institutions. These are the three essential economic competencies of our time.
They are just as precondition to our economic objectives as rainfall is to a good harvest. If we stayed consistent to this metaphor, political seasons evidently have been very dry.
Uptight observers, and perhaps politicians themselves, may take offense to such a manner of address, but the purpose of tone is twofold.
First, Zimbabweans must not compromise and be apologetic for having great expectations for the highest office in the land. Second, are entitled to feel relaxed in considering succession.
It’d be disingenuous to say that it has been an issue that has been one of ease in our country. It has raised considerable tension and anxiety.
Regrettably, that is a great disservice and hypocrisy to our own national ethos.
How can we be economically empowered, yet feel deprived off overt expression of who we wish to entrust our fate as leader towards that ideal?
How can we claim ownership to our natural resources, yet feel burdened to claim ownership in Presidential selection?
That would make us a nation of hypocrites, traitors to our own virtues and as culpable to our strife as any external force could be. Open expression on this matter is a national ideal on par with any other.
As such, I can be overt in saying that might I choose to entertain any succession debate, or the process altogether, potential successors must make the debate worthy of mention.
Meet me on economy.
