For some reason political alarm bells are not ringing as many indicators are now showing that the Government of National Unity is indirectly extending its term by not having Presidential Elections in 2011. In many ways all the principals of the Government of National Unity have agreed at one time that the global political agreement was a marriage of convenience. However this marriage now looks like it was conducted to gain entry and long term residency in government.
There is compelling evidence that all the principals of the Government of National Unity are instrumental rational actors seeking to maximise utility. Typically two of the trusted principals have violated their party constitutions to maintain leadership. Against this background this article will argue that political principles should be applied consistently. It thereby characterises the principals of the Government of National Unity as shape shifters. In so doing it draws upon the action of the principals under four categories:
• Denial,
• Dilution,
• Deflection and
• Delay
Denial “If they can't swallow facts, let them eat fiction”
There is no doubt that self interest is now at the heart of the Government of National Unity. The principals would natural feel obliged to deny it and argue that national interest is still at the forefront. It is obvious that something is wrong when talk does not mirror actions and when agreements become informally void. To be more specific the importance of the 2 year benchmark is being downplayed by insinuations that the agreement has not been fully implemented. Having said that let me expose two denials; namely failure and principle.
The reality is that the Government of National Unity has failed to meet the 2 year benchmark. It is important to note that politicians have never been good at acknowledging failure. Instead they opt for the blame card and pleading for more time. Indeed this is true with the principals of the GNU who are now denying their failure to deliver and are campaigning for more time.
It’s now known that the parties involved in the Government of National Unity are not principled as they claim to be, they have violated the constitutions of their political parties. While the argument for constitutional reform and institutional engineering is worth it, what’s the point of it if it’s going to be violated? Moreover the political problems of Zimbabwe are so serious that getting the basics right is difficult because of the lack of principled and credible leaders. Having said that, the decline of Zimbabwe was not a constitutional or an institutional issue but it was about a bad leadership which manipulated the constitution and institutions. There is no doubt that the current developments and political direction suggests a déjà vu.
Dilution “Talk is cheap”
Many people welcomed the Government of National Unity because it was seen as providing an adversarial system and therefore leading to greater transparency and accountability. What’s more was the expectation of collaborative advantage by working together than operating independently. However evidence now shows that some transformation has somehow taken place in the Government of National Unity in the form of the two new political parties conforming to the practices their old rival. This can be seen in the adoption of corrupt practices and worshiping their rival.
The conforming two parties have evidently deployed tactics which exhibit authoritarian characteristics in that they are making sure in every way that have to maintain leadership. In some instances they have refused to take orders from the parties they represent with the backing of their old rival. What’s more is that individuals who are political threats to the leadership are now being weeded out through political nomination exclusion tactics. In so doing the political capacity is diluted.
The two transformed principals have expressed their affection for their rival by showering him with huge praises. The momentum of praises is not decelerating as the media recently uncovered another love Letter by a young opposition minister showering the old rival with praises just as his older colleagues. This gives the public a glimpse of the private discussions which contradict public discourse and this prompts the question whether the opposition is really the opposition?
Deflection “Running away will never set you free”
The Government of National Unity had five priorities to deal with namely: the economy, human rights violations, poverty, international relations and preparing for elections. There is no doubt that all the priorities are important but some are obviously more important and urgent than the others because they impact on the foundation of democracy and good governance. These priorities involve dealing with the economy, poverty and more importantly human rights violations. Sadly these have been deflected in two ways by telling half the story and pretending.
We have been told the good story about dollarisation and the falling down of inflation. However the use of dollar in Zimbabwe has tremendous disadvantages for the economy because it is a heavy currency which is less competitive against other lower currencies used by other countries. Indeed indicators tell us a lot when they show that the country’s economy is being boosted by tourism when Zimbabwe has second largest platinum reserves in the world. Agricultural exports which were the backbone of the economy have not yet bounced back and manufacturing companies continue to close down and struggle to pay workers.
There has been lack of honesty around addressing the human rights violations in Zimbabwe, specifically the 1980s Atrocities and 2008 election violence. It was obvious and it is still obvious that this was supposed to be the first step towards democracy and good governance. A national healing organ was put in place to deal with the issue of human rights violations. However it’s shocking to learn that the organ itself does not clearly understand its mandate and what’s more is that its custodians have now become victims.
Delay “Delay is the deadliest form of denial”
It’s now becoming clearer that elections are not going to be held in 2011.Indeeed we have been furnished with the reasons why they should not be held. However politicians are not spelling out how they will benefit from this. What’s more the development contradicts the positions of the principals of the Government of National Unity in two ways; the first being the lack of consistency and gauging public mood.
From the outset of the negotiations the older rival wanted a full term but the idea was shot down by the second older rival who argued that the Government of National Unity should mainly prepare the ground for elections. The third principal of the Government of National Unity was even suggesting that they should be no time limit. At many different times one of the principals threatened to pull out and call for a snap election. However the emergence of the diplomatic cables through wickileaks turned the tide against him. With this in mind let’s turn to gauging the public mood.
Some of the diplomatic cables heavily damaged the credibility of the rival who wanted to opt out the GNU and they vindicated the old rival to a certain extent. This also changed the public mood and the position of rival with the damaged credibility. The rival started to calibrate his call for elections by limiting it to Presidential elections then eventually he applied the brake gently on the elections by arguing that the Global Political Agreement was not yet fully implemented. On the contrary the old rival gauging the public mood after the wickileaks cables saw an opportunity to do away with his colleagues through a snap election.
In conclusion however the current developments are played in different sources of media the reality is, it is a positive sum game (a win win) for the Government of National Unity principals. Indeed one principal will have to wait for the public mood to cool down without losing and the other two can enjoy their full term as they wanted. The developments are also a strong warning to the public that they should care less about what politicians say but carefully watch their actions and judge them by their fidelity to political principles. More importantly the GNU seems to have provided Zimbabwe with three principals with similar characteristics. The difference may be that the other two are trainees or apprentices who are yet to graduate as evidence shows that first its two years, then three, four, five and before we start complaining it would be thirty years.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Politicking or Celebrating: How low can we go on Independence Day?
As the 18th of April 2011 draws closer Zimbabwe’s Independence Day is already in the forefront of politics and tabloids. The statements being bended around question whether Independence Day should be about celebrating or politics. Some have even made insinuations that Zimbabwe is not independent and for that reason they do not celebrate Independence Day.
In many ways Zimbabweans have short comings when it comes to National identity. Natives of other African Countries can be identified through national apparel or attire and other visible attributes. While the natives of Zimbabwe have this identity crisis the country itself has its own distinct identity which it draws from the Liberation struggle.
It is important to note that politics does not operate in isolation of strategic opportunities meaning that it will always ride on the momentum of advantageous circumstances. Indeed the Independence Day is a strategic and unique opportunity across the Zimbabwean political spectrum. With this background in mind let’s turn to the competitive advantages and penetrative advantages of Independence Day to political parties.
Two political parties, more specifically the oldest parties in Zimbabwe cannot be detangled from drawing competitive advantage from Independence Day. The two can be viewed as one depending on one’s political position. They draw competitive advantage on the grounds of their contributions in the Liberation struggle which led to the independence of Zimbabwe. The competitive advantage resonates in the value, rarity, inimitability and non-substitutability of Independence of Zimbabwe.
The value obviously comes from the freedom which people used to be denied of and more importantly the birth of a new state with a new name Zimbabwe. This marked a social paradigm shift and political dichotomy. What’s more is that Zimbabwe’s independence contains elements of rarity compared to other countries; consequently this adds value to the Independence Day.
Independence is inimitable meaning no one is able to rewind the clock and do it again. Even religious philosophies and hypnotherapy practices cannot reverse and get a rebirth of Zimbabwe. Furthermore it is non substitutable in that it is a nationally recognised day. Regardless of future developments in the political arena independence will still be sustainable.
Emerging and newly established political parties, movements and pressure groups challenge the dominance of the older political group/s. More specifically they point out that the older political group/s use/s the celebrations of the Independence Day as a platform for political Leverage. Indeed it is has become the norm that a sharp political message is part of the diet on Independence Day. Although it is common sense to reflect on the birth of Zimbabwe, emerging and newly established political groups argue that it is deliberately over done and too political.
While there is case against politicking, it is important to note that emerging and newly established political groups are seeking to lower the competitive advantage of their rivals through penetrative strategies. The penetrative strategies draw their strength from their value. Their value is in that they appeal to a wider apolitical audience, supporters of emerging and newly established political parties, movements and pressure groups. The non inflammatory and low political tone penetrates the hearts and souls of those who just want to celebrate Independence Day and because it sounds responsible and less exclusionary.
The penetrative strategies used by emerging and newly established political groups lack rarity, inimitability and non substitutability meaning they cannot monopolise the political arena. Although this is a weakness that works in favour of apolitical natives it is still political. It is political in that post independence political movements cannot claim participation in the liberation struggle so they sell this weakness to the public by arguing for depoliticisation but that very act itself is politics. Whether by accident or design the Independence Day is political and any insinuation which claims to be apolitical about this day is political……….
In many ways Zimbabweans have short comings when it comes to National identity. Natives of other African Countries can be identified through national apparel or attire and other visible attributes. While the natives of Zimbabwe have this identity crisis the country itself has its own distinct identity which it draws from the Liberation struggle.
It is important to note that politics does not operate in isolation of strategic opportunities meaning that it will always ride on the momentum of advantageous circumstances. Indeed the Independence Day is a strategic and unique opportunity across the Zimbabwean political spectrum. With this background in mind let’s turn to the competitive advantages and penetrative advantages of Independence Day to political parties.
Two political parties, more specifically the oldest parties in Zimbabwe cannot be detangled from drawing competitive advantage from Independence Day. The two can be viewed as one depending on one’s political position. They draw competitive advantage on the grounds of their contributions in the Liberation struggle which led to the independence of Zimbabwe. The competitive advantage resonates in the value, rarity, inimitability and non-substitutability of Independence of Zimbabwe.
The value obviously comes from the freedom which people used to be denied of and more importantly the birth of a new state with a new name Zimbabwe. This marked a social paradigm shift and political dichotomy. What’s more is that Zimbabwe’s independence contains elements of rarity compared to other countries; consequently this adds value to the Independence Day.
Independence is inimitable meaning no one is able to rewind the clock and do it again. Even religious philosophies and hypnotherapy practices cannot reverse and get a rebirth of Zimbabwe. Furthermore it is non substitutable in that it is a nationally recognised day. Regardless of future developments in the political arena independence will still be sustainable.
Emerging and newly established political parties, movements and pressure groups challenge the dominance of the older political group/s. More specifically they point out that the older political group/s use/s the celebrations of the Independence Day as a platform for political Leverage. Indeed it is has become the norm that a sharp political message is part of the diet on Independence Day. Although it is common sense to reflect on the birth of Zimbabwe, emerging and newly established political groups argue that it is deliberately over done and too political.
While there is case against politicking, it is important to note that emerging and newly established political groups are seeking to lower the competitive advantage of their rivals through penetrative strategies. The penetrative strategies draw their strength from their value. Their value is in that they appeal to a wider apolitical audience, supporters of emerging and newly established political parties, movements and pressure groups. The non inflammatory and low political tone penetrates the hearts and souls of those who just want to celebrate Independence Day and because it sounds responsible and less exclusionary.
The penetrative strategies used by emerging and newly established political groups lack rarity, inimitability and non substitutability meaning they cannot monopolise the political arena. Although this is a weakness that works in favour of apolitical natives it is still political. It is political in that post independence political movements cannot claim participation in the liberation struggle so they sell this weakness to the public by arguing for depoliticisation but that very act itself is politics. Whether by accident or design the Independence Day is political and any insinuation which claims to be apolitical about this day is political……….
Tribalism, metaphor and Catachresis
Zimbabwean tribalism is a very slippery subject which is difficult to pin down and in some circles it is broadly perceived to be a closet discussion. I must congratulate Ngwenya and Ndlovu for sharing their views on tribalism and its justifications.
Debating about such issues and demystifying myths should be viewed positively; it is a step in the right direction. To be honest, it is fair to say one debate was too emotional and the other more scholastic. Against this background this article challenges these thoughts. It thereby draws attention to realism and basic ethical principles.
Having been born in Bulawayo, educated in Bulawayo then Plumtree and worked in Harare then Bulawayo my view on this subject is a realist one, meaning that it is a practical understanding and an appreciation of the nature of my surroundings, rather sexed up and idealised views. What’s more is that reality exists independently of our thoughts or beliefs. In the case of the justifications for tribalism they are false regardless of the complicated explanations.
Both articles made sound academic definitions of the term tribalism which I would summarise as the organisation by tribe or strong attitude, behaviour, belief to one’s tribe. Despite the accuracy of these definitions, their relevance to Zimbabwean tribalism is debatable. When Zimbabweans talk about tribalism, do they refer to these sharp emotional and academic explanations? My answer is no.
When Zimbabweans talk about tribalism they broadly refer to the biased violations of ethical principles which are supposed to be enjoyed nationally. This can be summarised by the golden saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The other extreme is the discriminate tribal hatred and accusations by the1980s victims and pseudo victims. With this in mind let’s turn to the rhetorical re-description and catachresis shown in the misplaced discourse of tribalism and politics.
In many ways the response by the government of Zimbabwe to address and redress the 1980s suppression can be broadly viewed as appalling. Moreover the unbalanced economic development and opportunities across Zimbabwe adds fuel to the question of equality. This failure of Zimbabwe’s governance structures to provide a democratic, fair and equal society has resulted in desperate and reckless responses from opportunistic individuals.
In light of recent developments, there is need to dislodge three misconceptions underpinning tribalism. Firstly the argument of blaming and totalising the responsibility of the dreadful 1980s atrocities to a particular tribe is false; secondly the idea of planting extreme separatist ideologies is a train smash recipe and lastly it is misleading to assume that if one belongs to a particular tribe he/she automatically affiliates with a particular political party.
The 1980s atrocities happened under the watch of a Zimbabwean Government which means the decision makers of that Government should held accountable. It is not rocket science to find out from those responsible then, who did what and who gave what order. Getting to the bottom of this is a victory for Zimbabweans not a particular tribe. Falling for false divisive arguments only makes the perpetrators get away with it because energies are devoted to fighting and blaming each other.
After the Great Father Zimbabwe, we have not seen any politician from the southern part of Zimbabwe of such high calibre with a great charisma. The good news is that there is going to be one. How do I know? Because change is the only constant in life, politics has been controlled for a long time in the North. However the emergence of the separatist movement seems to go against what is going to organically happen.
The assumption that if one belongs to a particular tribe he/she is obliged to support a particular party is also false. Political parties should not be confused with tribes because not everyone from a particular tribe has political appetite. Lastly the values of political parties should not be confused with tribal values, the two are very different.
To conclude tribalism and its justifications in Zimbabwe are personal misconceptions normally inherited from tribalistic families. What’s more is that tribalism is on its death bed and of course those who believe in it are seriously trying to resuscitate it by seeking public endorsement. However Intermarriages, tolerance, appreciation, respect, modernity and new attitudes from the young are the final nails to its coffin. To tribalists the mask is slipping and it is all downhill..........
Debating about such issues and demystifying myths should be viewed positively; it is a step in the right direction. To be honest, it is fair to say one debate was too emotional and the other more scholastic. Against this background this article challenges these thoughts. It thereby draws attention to realism and basic ethical principles.
Having been born in Bulawayo, educated in Bulawayo then Plumtree and worked in Harare then Bulawayo my view on this subject is a realist one, meaning that it is a practical understanding and an appreciation of the nature of my surroundings, rather sexed up and idealised views. What’s more is that reality exists independently of our thoughts or beliefs. In the case of the justifications for tribalism they are false regardless of the complicated explanations.
Both articles made sound academic definitions of the term tribalism which I would summarise as the organisation by tribe or strong attitude, behaviour, belief to one’s tribe. Despite the accuracy of these definitions, their relevance to Zimbabwean tribalism is debatable. When Zimbabweans talk about tribalism, do they refer to these sharp emotional and academic explanations? My answer is no.
When Zimbabweans talk about tribalism they broadly refer to the biased violations of ethical principles which are supposed to be enjoyed nationally. This can be summarised by the golden saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The other extreme is the discriminate tribal hatred and accusations by the1980s victims and pseudo victims. With this in mind let’s turn to the rhetorical re-description and catachresis shown in the misplaced discourse of tribalism and politics.
In many ways the response by the government of Zimbabwe to address and redress the 1980s suppression can be broadly viewed as appalling. Moreover the unbalanced economic development and opportunities across Zimbabwe adds fuel to the question of equality. This failure of Zimbabwe’s governance structures to provide a democratic, fair and equal society has resulted in desperate and reckless responses from opportunistic individuals.
In light of recent developments, there is need to dislodge three misconceptions underpinning tribalism. Firstly the argument of blaming and totalising the responsibility of the dreadful 1980s atrocities to a particular tribe is false; secondly the idea of planting extreme separatist ideologies is a train smash recipe and lastly it is misleading to assume that if one belongs to a particular tribe he/she automatically affiliates with a particular political party.
The 1980s atrocities happened under the watch of a Zimbabwean Government which means the decision makers of that Government should held accountable. It is not rocket science to find out from those responsible then, who did what and who gave what order. Getting to the bottom of this is a victory for Zimbabweans not a particular tribe. Falling for false divisive arguments only makes the perpetrators get away with it because energies are devoted to fighting and blaming each other.
After the Great Father Zimbabwe, we have not seen any politician from the southern part of Zimbabwe of such high calibre with a great charisma. The good news is that there is going to be one. How do I know? Because change is the only constant in life, politics has been controlled for a long time in the North. However the emergence of the separatist movement seems to go against what is going to organically happen.
The assumption that if one belongs to a particular tribe he/she is obliged to support a particular party is also false. Political parties should not be confused with tribes because not everyone from a particular tribe has political appetite. Lastly the values of political parties should not be confused with tribal values, the two are very different.
To conclude tribalism and its justifications in Zimbabwe are personal misconceptions normally inherited from tribalistic families. What’s more is that tribalism is on its death bed and of course those who believe in it are seriously trying to resuscitate it by seeking public endorsement. However Intermarriages, tolerance, appreciation, respect, modernity and new attitudes from the young are the final nails to its coffin. To tribalists the mask is slipping and it is all downhill..........
Indigenisation is Privatisation: A Botched Policy
Indigenisation and empowerment in Zimbabwe has become the political hot potato. Moves towards elitism and Eastern dominated trade deals have challenged and continue to challenge the authenticity of Indigenisation and empowerment.
Against this background, this article responds to these developments. More specifically it argues that without state holder-ship policies and sound public sector structures Zimbabwe is moving towards a greatest pillage ever. It thereby demonstrates that, personal agendas and politics are at the heart of indigenisation.
The idea that indigenisation empowers Zimbabweans is so flawed, to put it bluntly it’s regressive. Firstly let’s deal with what the writer calls empowering Zimbabweans so that we can discern facts from deception. Zimbabwe being a rich and spacious country should use its resources to benefit and better off its natives as whole.
Firstly Zimbabwe could subdise health, education and provide financial assistance (welfare) to its people through the money from its resources such as platinum, diamonds, gold, coal and many more. Secondly Zimbabwe being a spacious country, Land should a birth right of every Zimbabwean meaning no Zimbabwean should suffer from the problem of squalor or be a squatter. Having said that let’s dig around some implicit facts.
What should be Happening
Education and health should be free in Zimbabwe. Educational and health institutions should be financed by the money provided by the government. This could done through the government directly setting up companies that sell these precious resources abroad and then plough back the money into the educational and health institutions.
On the contrary some will attempt to level the argument of pooling bigger companies for technology reasons. The government could still tax those companies responsibly and plough back the money from taxes into the educational and health institutions. The other option is that a Zimbabwean public company could team up with a foreign company to pool in technology and this should not be confused with indigenisation because public companies are accountable to the public.
The government should also deal the problem of settling people. Not everyone in Zimbabwe wants land for farming. Some people just land to live a descent peasant life and some just want descent housing. The government can do this by channelling in money into housing and by having a clear and transparent land strategy. The money channelled into housing will either be drawn back from the public through rents and selling the housing then it is re-ploughed to build and provide more housing.
In short Zimbabweans will be empowered because;
• Education and Health Inequalities will be reduced,
• Poverty will be reduced,
• Ownership of resources stays with the Zimbabwean natives,
• Zimbabweans will be benefiting from their natural birth rights,
• Zimbabweans will be educated and employed by their resources.
Before moving on to moving on to discuss what is actually happening, let’s start by understanding the underpinnings of the so called Indigenisation policy. The policy is based on an Eastern based policy mainly used by China and India on joint ventures, alliances and partnerships with foreign companies. What this highlights is that this policy will favour companies or those with companies, to be more precise indigenisation benefits Some Zimbabweans not Zimbabweans. With this mind let’s turn to what is actually happening.
What is actually happening
Those occupying higher positions in the social hierarchy have the capacity of making the most out of indigenisation. Some will benefit through making deals and some approving deals. Company owners both local and international ones involved in joint ventures, alliances and partnerships will have uncontrolled access to the precious resources of Zimbabwe. What’s more is that they will be accountable to only a few government officials and to their shareholders. The money made from the precious resources will go in the pockets of the private individuals and to those who helped secure those deals. To simplify things the process disempowers Zimbabweans through accumulation by dispossession meaning that the rich accumulate wealth by dispossessing the people (Zimbabweans).
In short Zimbabweans are being disempowered because;
• Indigenisation takes away their public rights on national resources and gives them to a few private individuals,
• Money from the resources goes into the pockets of a few private individuals,
• Zimbabweans don’t get to benefit from their national resources,
• Joint ventures, alliances and partnerships are not open to public scrutiny and
• The gap between the poor and rich in health, education, housing and poverty will increase.
Doing the right thing the wrong way for the wrong reasons
Let me digress briefly to highlight some short comings and deceptions by recapping on the Land Issue. Remember the Land issue where people acknowledged that the right thing was done the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, precisely for maintaining a grip on power. If the government of Zimbabwe is transparent enough it would be interesting to learn who benefitted most out this and who has the best farms and many farms today. There is nothing wrong with empowering Zimbabweans but if the so called empowerment is meant to benefit a few elite by ripping Zimbabwe’s national resources through legal pillage, then it’s not worth it.
It’s not a secret who will benefit from Indigenisation; you can tell from those defending it. I think there is need to question how and why things are being done. When people do the right things the wrong way, it means we will spend most of our time trying to fix the short comings. It does not matter whether your house has 50 rooms when the foundation is crooked. What is evident in Zimbabwe is that they are deliberate and wrong moves in the name Zimbabweans. May be the crooks and cronies are sensing an end game and they are going for the biggest appropriation.
In conclusion it’s all about politics; the people making decisions for Zimbabweans make wrong decisions then wrong solutions to try to deal with their mess. Furthermore the government seems to be out of depth. All these controversial policies exhibit a lack of initiative because they are all based on policy transfer and they are not tailored or fine tuned to fit Zimbabwe. Some people question whether there is an option or not? The answer is Yes there is; the government should go for a state-holder ship approach. By so doing it would own the majority of shares instead of individuals. This will then enable it to subsidise education, health, housing and the welfare of people through public services and reduce inequalities.
Against this background, this article responds to these developments. More specifically it argues that without state holder-ship policies and sound public sector structures Zimbabwe is moving towards a greatest pillage ever. It thereby demonstrates that, personal agendas and politics are at the heart of indigenisation.
The idea that indigenisation empowers Zimbabweans is so flawed, to put it bluntly it’s regressive. Firstly let’s deal with what the writer calls empowering Zimbabweans so that we can discern facts from deception. Zimbabwe being a rich and spacious country should use its resources to benefit and better off its natives as whole.
Firstly Zimbabwe could subdise health, education and provide financial assistance (welfare) to its people through the money from its resources such as platinum, diamonds, gold, coal and many more. Secondly Zimbabwe being a spacious country, Land should a birth right of every Zimbabwean meaning no Zimbabwean should suffer from the problem of squalor or be a squatter. Having said that let’s dig around some implicit facts.
What should be Happening
Education and health should be free in Zimbabwe. Educational and health institutions should be financed by the money provided by the government. This could done through the government directly setting up companies that sell these precious resources abroad and then plough back the money into the educational and health institutions.
On the contrary some will attempt to level the argument of pooling bigger companies for technology reasons. The government could still tax those companies responsibly and plough back the money from taxes into the educational and health institutions. The other option is that a Zimbabwean public company could team up with a foreign company to pool in technology and this should not be confused with indigenisation because public companies are accountable to the public.
The government should also deal the problem of settling people. Not everyone in Zimbabwe wants land for farming. Some people just land to live a descent peasant life and some just want descent housing. The government can do this by channelling in money into housing and by having a clear and transparent land strategy. The money channelled into housing will either be drawn back from the public through rents and selling the housing then it is re-ploughed to build and provide more housing.
In short Zimbabweans will be empowered because;
• Education and Health Inequalities will be reduced,
• Poverty will be reduced,
• Ownership of resources stays with the Zimbabwean natives,
• Zimbabweans will be benefiting from their natural birth rights,
• Zimbabweans will be educated and employed by their resources.
Before moving on to moving on to discuss what is actually happening, let’s start by understanding the underpinnings of the so called Indigenisation policy. The policy is based on an Eastern based policy mainly used by China and India on joint ventures, alliances and partnerships with foreign companies. What this highlights is that this policy will favour companies or those with companies, to be more precise indigenisation benefits Some Zimbabweans not Zimbabweans. With this mind let’s turn to what is actually happening.
What is actually happening
Those occupying higher positions in the social hierarchy have the capacity of making the most out of indigenisation. Some will benefit through making deals and some approving deals. Company owners both local and international ones involved in joint ventures, alliances and partnerships will have uncontrolled access to the precious resources of Zimbabwe. What’s more is that they will be accountable to only a few government officials and to their shareholders. The money made from the precious resources will go in the pockets of the private individuals and to those who helped secure those deals. To simplify things the process disempowers Zimbabweans through accumulation by dispossession meaning that the rich accumulate wealth by dispossessing the people (Zimbabweans).
In short Zimbabweans are being disempowered because;
• Indigenisation takes away their public rights on national resources and gives them to a few private individuals,
• Money from the resources goes into the pockets of a few private individuals,
• Zimbabweans don’t get to benefit from their national resources,
• Joint ventures, alliances and partnerships are not open to public scrutiny and
• The gap between the poor and rich in health, education, housing and poverty will increase.
Doing the right thing the wrong way for the wrong reasons
Let me digress briefly to highlight some short comings and deceptions by recapping on the Land Issue. Remember the Land issue where people acknowledged that the right thing was done the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, precisely for maintaining a grip on power. If the government of Zimbabwe is transparent enough it would be interesting to learn who benefitted most out this and who has the best farms and many farms today. There is nothing wrong with empowering Zimbabweans but if the so called empowerment is meant to benefit a few elite by ripping Zimbabwe’s national resources through legal pillage, then it’s not worth it.
It’s not a secret who will benefit from Indigenisation; you can tell from those defending it. I think there is need to question how and why things are being done. When people do the right things the wrong way, it means we will spend most of our time trying to fix the short comings. It does not matter whether your house has 50 rooms when the foundation is crooked. What is evident in Zimbabwe is that they are deliberate and wrong moves in the name Zimbabweans. May be the crooks and cronies are sensing an end game and they are going for the biggest appropriation.
In conclusion it’s all about politics; the people making decisions for Zimbabweans make wrong decisions then wrong solutions to try to deal with their mess. Furthermore the government seems to be out of depth. All these controversial policies exhibit a lack of initiative because they are all based on policy transfer and they are not tailored or fine tuned to fit Zimbabwe. Some people question whether there is an option or not? The answer is Yes there is; the government should go for a state-holder ship approach. By so doing it would own the majority of shares instead of individuals. This will then enable it to subsidise education, health, housing and the welfare of people through public services and reduce inequalities.
Devolution, Decentralisation and Deconcentration Explained
I was delighted to be invited to a Zimbabwean symposium in Nottingham and I would like to applaud the organisers and speakers for their efforts. It is through talking, debating, pooling synergies and thrashing out differences that Zimbabweans can make headway.
The symposium highlighted complications around political terminology, specifically decentralisation and devolution. Although some understood the terms I thought it was important for everyone to understand them in order discern facts from political rhetoric. I felt there was a need to write a simple article on decentralisation and devolution. In so doing I will explain the two terms, their implications and how politicians mesmerise the public by using political jargon and buzzwords.
Many government documents and political publications use the terms decentralisation and devolution interchangeably. However the context in which the terms are used is very important because one of the terms is broad and the other is specific. Typically decentralisation is a much robust and inclusive term while devolution is a calibrated and specific term. Having said that lets start by lightly defining decentralisation.
What is Decentralisation?
Decentralisation refers to the broad range of ways used in transferring decision making from the centre to lower levels which may be regional or local. The decision making transfer obviously comes with some powers, responsibility and accountability. This transfer of power is done through different forms of decentralisation or a mixture depending on the circumstances and objectives of the process. There are mainly three ways of decentralising decision making namely:
• Deconcentration,
• Delegation and
• Devolution.
Deconcentration: refers to transfer of administrative functions through the relocation of central administrative bodies to different geographical areas.
Delegation: is the transfer of managerial and regulatory functions to other bodies and agencies which maybe local, regional or national such as quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (QUANGOS).
Devolution: is the transfer of powers, rights, assets and Local resources to a local government, communities or lower central government within the national laws.
Why Devolution?
Proponents of devolution argue that Zimbabwe should be divided into five provinces and power should be devolved to those provinces. What’s more is that they want regional governments to be created in those five provinces. More importantly they believe that devolution gives local government autonomy and allows local citizens to participate more in influencing local decisions. It is this very point that has been merged with unequal development of provinces and the failure of resolving the 1980s Atrocities. Devolution proponents have justified their argument by drawing evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. I have deliberately left out South Africa because it uses a hybrid system which is more of decentralisation than just devolution regardless of what they call it.
Challenges for Devolution in Zimbabwe
In many ways Zimbabwe has cross cutting issues on administration, independence of public bodies, human rights, equality and political power dispersal. It is clear that devolution does not address all those issues holistically. Devolution partially addresses the issue of political power but fails to jump the other huddles because the process is done in line with national Laws. This shows that central government will always have the advantage of retaining some real powers in order to control the regional governments.
Devolution may be very difficult in Zimbabwe considering the size of country and the distribution of resources. The idea of devolving power to five central governments with local authorities creates a top down heavy structure which is so expensive and resource draining. What’s more is that resources are not proportionately distributed across Zimbabwe which means some areas will be worse off under devolution. This shows that inequalities could worsen under devolution. Moreover to redress these inequalities central government will have to control the budget which takes the whole process back to a unitary system.
Looking at other countries who implemented devolution from the outside may be misleading because there is lack of practical rationality. What’s more is that longitudinal indicators need to be employed when measuring processes such as devolution. Typically devolution in United Kingdom which was once seen as successful is now showing different results which suggest that it has failed. Devolution in United Kingdom has failed to satisfy Scottish Nationalists who are now pushing for independence. Similarly devolution will be the first step towards fragmenting Zimbabwe in that it will start as devolution then transform to secession.
The idea of justifying devolution in Zimbabwe using the United Kingdom model is now redundant. Indeed some politicians who used to be proponents of devolution have noted these shortcomings and they have shifted to secession and federalism. There are two important lessons that can be drawn from this.
Firstly, policy transfer (importing policy) should be done with special consideration of the political, economical, social and legal context of the country adopting the policy. This means policies and strategies that are successful in other countries may not be compatible with the context of the adopting country. Secondly devolution involves power which explains the instrumental rational behaviour of politicians who support it. This shows that politicians are motivated by political power rather than national interest.
In conclusion devolution has been successfully sold in Zimbabwe because of the unequal development of provinces and the failure of resolving the 1980s Atrocities. Politicians over amplified devolution beyond its purpose, by so doing they managed to hypnotise their party members and some members of the public. However devolution on its own is not capable of dealing with these issues. What’s more is that its negative impact far outweighs its benefits. Decentralisation instead has the hybrid ability of addressing the unequal development of provinces and the 1980s atrocities without breaking the country. The developments in Scotland tell us more about the short comings of devolution and they will even tell us more about secession in a few years to come.
The symposium highlighted complications around political terminology, specifically decentralisation and devolution. Although some understood the terms I thought it was important for everyone to understand them in order discern facts from political rhetoric. I felt there was a need to write a simple article on decentralisation and devolution. In so doing I will explain the two terms, their implications and how politicians mesmerise the public by using political jargon and buzzwords.
Many government documents and political publications use the terms decentralisation and devolution interchangeably. However the context in which the terms are used is very important because one of the terms is broad and the other is specific. Typically decentralisation is a much robust and inclusive term while devolution is a calibrated and specific term. Having said that lets start by lightly defining decentralisation.
What is Decentralisation?
Decentralisation refers to the broad range of ways used in transferring decision making from the centre to lower levels which may be regional or local. The decision making transfer obviously comes with some powers, responsibility and accountability. This transfer of power is done through different forms of decentralisation or a mixture depending on the circumstances and objectives of the process. There are mainly three ways of decentralising decision making namely:
• Deconcentration,
• Delegation and
• Devolution.
Deconcentration: refers to transfer of administrative functions through the relocation of central administrative bodies to different geographical areas.
Delegation: is the transfer of managerial and regulatory functions to other bodies and agencies which maybe local, regional or national such as quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (QUANGOS).
Devolution: is the transfer of powers, rights, assets and Local resources to a local government, communities or lower central government within the national laws.
Why Devolution?
Proponents of devolution argue that Zimbabwe should be divided into five provinces and power should be devolved to those provinces. What’s more is that they want regional governments to be created in those five provinces. More importantly they believe that devolution gives local government autonomy and allows local citizens to participate more in influencing local decisions. It is this very point that has been merged with unequal development of provinces and the failure of resolving the 1980s Atrocities. Devolution proponents have justified their argument by drawing evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. I have deliberately left out South Africa because it uses a hybrid system which is more of decentralisation than just devolution regardless of what they call it.
Challenges for Devolution in Zimbabwe
In many ways Zimbabwe has cross cutting issues on administration, independence of public bodies, human rights, equality and political power dispersal. It is clear that devolution does not address all those issues holistically. Devolution partially addresses the issue of political power but fails to jump the other huddles because the process is done in line with national Laws. This shows that central government will always have the advantage of retaining some real powers in order to control the regional governments.
Devolution may be very difficult in Zimbabwe considering the size of country and the distribution of resources. The idea of devolving power to five central governments with local authorities creates a top down heavy structure which is so expensive and resource draining. What’s more is that resources are not proportionately distributed across Zimbabwe which means some areas will be worse off under devolution. This shows that inequalities could worsen under devolution. Moreover to redress these inequalities central government will have to control the budget which takes the whole process back to a unitary system.
Looking at other countries who implemented devolution from the outside may be misleading because there is lack of practical rationality. What’s more is that longitudinal indicators need to be employed when measuring processes such as devolution. Typically devolution in United Kingdom which was once seen as successful is now showing different results which suggest that it has failed. Devolution in United Kingdom has failed to satisfy Scottish Nationalists who are now pushing for independence. Similarly devolution will be the first step towards fragmenting Zimbabwe in that it will start as devolution then transform to secession.
The idea of justifying devolution in Zimbabwe using the United Kingdom model is now redundant. Indeed some politicians who used to be proponents of devolution have noted these shortcomings and they have shifted to secession and federalism. There are two important lessons that can be drawn from this.
Firstly, policy transfer (importing policy) should be done with special consideration of the political, economical, social and legal context of the country adopting the policy. This means policies and strategies that are successful in other countries may not be compatible with the context of the adopting country. Secondly devolution involves power which explains the instrumental rational behaviour of politicians who support it. This shows that politicians are motivated by political power rather than national interest.
In conclusion devolution has been successfully sold in Zimbabwe because of the unequal development of provinces and the failure of resolving the 1980s Atrocities. Politicians over amplified devolution beyond its purpose, by so doing they managed to hypnotise their party members and some members of the public. However devolution on its own is not capable of dealing with these issues. What’s more is that its negative impact far outweighs its benefits. Decentralisation instead has the hybrid ability of addressing the unequal development of provinces and the 1980s atrocities without breaking the country. The developments in Scotland tell us more about the short comings of devolution and they will even tell us more about secession in a few years to come.
Alternative Voting Versus First Past The Post: A Simple Explanation
This week and last week I have been engaged in discussions about voting systems, specifically alternative voting and first past the post. These discussions highlighted the confusions and suspicions around the two voting systems. Although I found the differences straight forward I felt there was need to explain the two to the wider public. In this article I will give a simplistic explanation of these systems without being political.
First Past the Post.
Under this voting system Voters choose a candidate they want to vote for and they mainly do so by putting a cross or a tick in the box. The candidate who gets more votes than any others is elected, even if they only get one or two votes more than their rival.
Disadvantages
The main disadvantage of first past the post is that a candidate with less than 50% of the votes or the unpopular candidate can win the election. For example an election with three candidates: Tom, Dick and Harry. If Tom gets 40%, Dick 30% and Tom 30% of the votes, Tom will be declared the winner of the election. However a closer look at the votes shows that 60% of the voters did not want Tom. The example shows that even the majority did not vote for Tom, first past the post will reward him victory.
Another disadvantage of first past the post is that there some constituencies which are regarded as fully secured by certain political parties (Safe seats). Under first past the post voters and political oppositions are less motivated and this impacts on voter turnout and political participation. In the long run this impacts on democracy.
Alternative Voting
Under this system voters rank the candidates in the order of their preference. This is done by placing numbers, for example “1” on the first choice and “2” on the second choice and so on depending on the number of candidates. An important point to note is that voters can vote for one candidate. More importantly a candidate needs an absolute majority to be elected which is over 50% of the votes. Where there is no candidate with more than 50%, the least voted for candidate is eliminated and the votes are then passed on to the next candidate. This continues until there is a winner with more than 50% of the cast votes.
Disadvantages
Constituency literacy is very important when using Alternative Voting. Under the Alternative Voting system people need to be familiar with simple numerical numbers.
Smaller parties may be under represented under the Alternative Voting system because the voters are likely rank candidates whom they don’t know more about low.
Hopefully this has helped explain alternative voting and first past the post.
First Past the Post.
Under this voting system Voters choose a candidate they want to vote for and they mainly do so by putting a cross or a tick in the box. The candidate who gets more votes than any others is elected, even if they only get one or two votes more than their rival.
Disadvantages
The main disadvantage of first past the post is that a candidate with less than 50% of the votes or the unpopular candidate can win the election. For example an election with three candidates: Tom, Dick and Harry. If Tom gets 40%, Dick 30% and Tom 30% of the votes, Tom will be declared the winner of the election. However a closer look at the votes shows that 60% of the voters did not want Tom. The example shows that even the majority did not vote for Tom, first past the post will reward him victory.
Another disadvantage of first past the post is that there some constituencies which are regarded as fully secured by certain political parties (Safe seats). Under first past the post voters and political oppositions are less motivated and this impacts on voter turnout and political participation. In the long run this impacts on democracy.
Alternative Voting
Under this system voters rank the candidates in the order of their preference. This is done by placing numbers, for example “1” on the first choice and “2” on the second choice and so on depending on the number of candidates. An important point to note is that voters can vote for one candidate. More importantly a candidate needs an absolute majority to be elected which is over 50% of the votes. Where there is no candidate with more than 50%, the least voted for candidate is eliminated and the votes are then passed on to the next candidate. This continues until there is a winner with more than 50% of the cast votes.
Disadvantages
Constituency literacy is very important when using Alternative Voting. Under the Alternative Voting system people need to be familiar with simple numerical numbers.
Smaller parties may be under represented under the Alternative Voting system because the voters are likely rank candidates whom they don’t know more about low.
Hopefully this has helped explain alternative voting and first past the post.
Secession or Consolidation: A Phronetic Matabeleland Reflection
The itchy and stinging debate about Matabeleland secession and sometimes devolution keeps coming back. I must applaud those who have written about the subject and those who have maturely contributed to the debate in various ways.
It is through these debates that we can thrash out issues and demystify myths. Having read most of the debates, it is fair to say that most of the writers sleep walked into ethnographic discourse dilemmas by attempting to address the subject through in-depth historical accounts.
In order to have a factual debate the scope of ethnographic discourse should be calibrated. What’s more is that some historical sources, social and cultural interpretations have their shortcomings which challenge and continue to challenge some historical accounts.
Against this background this article focuses on the real facts and misconceptions underpinning the Matabeleland disgruntlement. It there thereby deploys a phronetic approach. The article concludes by briefly discussing secession or devolution. The author uses the term “the people in/of Matabeleland” to describe all the people living and originating from the discussed locality. In short it is an inclusionary term. With this in mind let’s start by dealing with the factual concerns and misconceptions of the people in Matabeleland. These have been summarised into four broad categories:
• 1980s Atrocities,
• Political Tokenism,
• Regional underdevelopment and
• Opportunities.
1980s Atrocities
It is right and responsible for the people of Matabeleland to pile pressure on the government about the 1980s atrocities. It not only right for the people in Matabeleland but it is also good for the whole country (Zimbabwe). Evidence of the 1980s atrocities shows that it was a deliberate and systematic process; to be precise it was genocide. What’s more is that it should not be compared with recent political violence in Zimbabwe. However one might argue that there is an affinity on the grounds that the masters of the 1980s atrocities may be part of the current administration.
However alongside the need to address the 1980s atrocities a misconception or conspiracy theory has been developed on tribal lines. The misconception attempts to totalise the responsibility of the dreadful 1980s atrocities tribally. The atrocities happened under the watch of a Zimbabwean government which means the decision makers of that administration should held responsible. It is not difficult to find out from those responsible then, who did what and who gave what order.
Political Tokenism
The position of Deputy President after the unity accord offered a balance to the two political parties which merged (ZANU PF and ZAPU). It is important to note that this position was based on the merit of political party membership. However with Joshua Nkomo as the Deputy President there was a bonus of regional representation.
Informally the position became a strategic one in that people assumed that it would rebalance regional inequalities. After the death of Joshua Nkomo people automatically assumed that someone from Matabeleland would fill the post for regional representation purposes. However the political decision based on party membership replaced Joshua Nkomo with Joseph Msika from Chiweshe.
This further developed into another theory that Matabeleland lacks political clout because it’s not represented. Where represented its representatives are given tokenistic positions and are diluted in all sorts of ways behind the scenes. In some way this seems to stake up because one would struggle to point at someone from Matabeleland holding the real levers of power. On the other hand we have not seen any politician of high calibre with a great charisma from Matebeleland like Joshua Nkomo.
Regional underdevelopment
Regional development is one area which should be easy to measure provided the figures for indicators of development are available. Some of the indicators include micro economics, life expectancies, educational standards, standard of living and disposable income. Zimbabwe is one country which is either bad or deliberately discreet on micro development figures. Although national figures are available they paint a standard picture. Without these figures, development is open to all sorts of interpretations.
Some have used the visibility of flashy and tall buildings as development indicators while the exodus of companies to the Capital City and the failure of projects such as Matebeleland Zambezi Water Project as underdevelopment indicators .Dealing with the first misconception is absolutely difficulty but what might have been seen as the exodus of companies to the capital is probably the contraction or downsizing of operations during the economic down turn. Having worked in Bulawayo and Harare it’s fair to say most companies were headquartered in the Capital, so they are bound to retract their operations to their headquarters. As for the Matabeleland Zambezi Water Project it’s political, less transparent, ambitious and unique.
Opportunities
One way of describing opportunities in Matabeleland is by saying “it’s about who you know, what you want and how much you are willing to pay”. Employment and educational institutions in Matabeleland were infected by corruption a long time ago. The full blown symptoms and impact were evident in the early 1990s on wards. People who finished their secondary education and “A” Levels during this period would testify to this but they are always exceptions. However those who have benefited from the employment and educational institutions and those who luckily made it would naturally defend the indefensible to protect the image of their institutions and the credibility of their statuses.
There is real concern on how Matabeleland Colleges and Universities conduct their intakes. Priority and Merit are obviously not married because evidence shows that Matabeleland institutions are being flooded by people from other regions. Some would try and level the filimsy argument of grades but it does not stake up because there is compelling evidence that it is all about pulling strings and oiling wheels. Furthermore there are students from Matabeleland with equally the same grades as those outsiders who don’t make it because they don’t have inside tracking. The same is true with employment.
While these concerns are real there is a tribal misconception that one tribe is losing. The reality is that the people of Matabeleland are losing as a whole; however I have to acknowledge that the context of those parachuting into Matabeleland Colleges and Universities has been dominated by people from a certain region.
Secession or devolution
My assumption is that the proponents of secession and devolution know what they are advocating for. However for the benefit of everyone let’s untangle the two by lightly defining them.
Secession simply means the withdrawal from the main unit or union (where there are states) to form an independent town, state, city and even a country. Good examples can be drawn from the United States, Soviet Union and the Republic of the Congo.
Devolution is the granting of statutory powers and the transfer assets and resources from the centre to sub national/local government within the boundaries of national law. Good examples are Scotland and Wales in United Kingdom.
The argument for Matabeleland secession and devolution does not stake up for four reasons;
1) What they seek to achieve through secession and devolution can be achieved by the current unitary system through decentralisation and good governance,
2) Size matters (Zimbabwe is a small country) and the distribution of resources is disproportionate,
3) Its expensive to start setting up new governance structures and laws,
4) It creates top down heavy structures.
In conclusion misconceptions about Matabeleland are deliberate and based on manipulating facts. However It is evident that the minds of many are using the powers to reason and conception in pursuing justice. Indeed the people of Matabeleland have handled the 1980s Atrocities correctly by pursuing justice through non violent channels. This broadly reflects a strong national identity as it is known that Zimbabweans are non violent and peace loving people. The emergence of extreme political groups calling for division and hatred not only tarnishes the patience and fortitude of the people of Matabeleland but it also trivialises their efforts. What’s more is that it distorts the important message for the younger ones, future generations and generations of generations that justice can be achieved peacefully. In many ways there are indications that justice is now around the corner but those who lack vision still find it easy and comforting to believe in the violent misconceptions that have been preached to them a million times in private. The painful truth is violence only destroys what it claims to achieve...............
It is through these debates that we can thrash out issues and demystify myths. Having read most of the debates, it is fair to say that most of the writers sleep walked into ethnographic discourse dilemmas by attempting to address the subject through in-depth historical accounts.
In order to have a factual debate the scope of ethnographic discourse should be calibrated. What’s more is that some historical sources, social and cultural interpretations have their shortcomings which challenge and continue to challenge some historical accounts.
Against this background this article focuses on the real facts and misconceptions underpinning the Matabeleland disgruntlement. It there thereby deploys a phronetic approach. The article concludes by briefly discussing secession or devolution. The author uses the term “the people in/of Matabeleland” to describe all the people living and originating from the discussed locality. In short it is an inclusionary term. With this in mind let’s start by dealing with the factual concerns and misconceptions of the people in Matabeleland. These have been summarised into four broad categories:
• 1980s Atrocities,
• Political Tokenism,
• Regional underdevelopment and
• Opportunities.
1980s Atrocities
It is right and responsible for the people of Matabeleland to pile pressure on the government about the 1980s atrocities. It not only right for the people in Matabeleland but it is also good for the whole country (Zimbabwe). Evidence of the 1980s atrocities shows that it was a deliberate and systematic process; to be precise it was genocide. What’s more is that it should not be compared with recent political violence in Zimbabwe. However one might argue that there is an affinity on the grounds that the masters of the 1980s atrocities may be part of the current administration.
However alongside the need to address the 1980s atrocities a misconception or conspiracy theory has been developed on tribal lines. The misconception attempts to totalise the responsibility of the dreadful 1980s atrocities tribally. The atrocities happened under the watch of a Zimbabwean government which means the decision makers of that administration should held responsible. It is not difficult to find out from those responsible then, who did what and who gave what order.
Political Tokenism
The position of Deputy President after the unity accord offered a balance to the two political parties which merged (ZANU PF and ZAPU). It is important to note that this position was based on the merit of political party membership. However with Joshua Nkomo as the Deputy President there was a bonus of regional representation.
Informally the position became a strategic one in that people assumed that it would rebalance regional inequalities. After the death of Joshua Nkomo people automatically assumed that someone from Matabeleland would fill the post for regional representation purposes. However the political decision based on party membership replaced Joshua Nkomo with Joseph Msika from Chiweshe.
This further developed into another theory that Matabeleland lacks political clout because it’s not represented. Where represented its representatives are given tokenistic positions and are diluted in all sorts of ways behind the scenes. In some way this seems to stake up because one would struggle to point at someone from Matabeleland holding the real levers of power. On the other hand we have not seen any politician of high calibre with a great charisma from Matebeleland like Joshua Nkomo.
Regional underdevelopment
Regional development is one area which should be easy to measure provided the figures for indicators of development are available. Some of the indicators include micro economics, life expectancies, educational standards, standard of living and disposable income. Zimbabwe is one country which is either bad or deliberately discreet on micro development figures. Although national figures are available they paint a standard picture. Without these figures, development is open to all sorts of interpretations.
Some have used the visibility of flashy and tall buildings as development indicators while the exodus of companies to the Capital City and the failure of projects such as Matebeleland Zambezi Water Project as underdevelopment indicators .Dealing with the first misconception is absolutely difficulty but what might have been seen as the exodus of companies to the capital is probably the contraction or downsizing of operations during the economic down turn. Having worked in Bulawayo and Harare it’s fair to say most companies were headquartered in the Capital, so they are bound to retract their operations to their headquarters. As for the Matabeleland Zambezi Water Project it’s political, less transparent, ambitious and unique.
Opportunities
One way of describing opportunities in Matabeleland is by saying “it’s about who you know, what you want and how much you are willing to pay”. Employment and educational institutions in Matabeleland were infected by corruption a long time ago. The full blown symptoms and impact were evident in the early 1990s on wards. People who finished their secondary education and “A” Levels during this period would testify to this but they are always exceptions. However those who have benefited from the employment and educational institutions and those who luckily made it would naturally defend the indefensible to protect the image of their institutions and the credibility of their statuses.
There is real concern on how Matabeleland Colleges and Universities conduct their intakes. Priority and Merit are obviously not married because evidence shows that Matabeleland institutions are being flooded by people from other regions. Some would try and level the filimsy argument of grades but it does not stake up because there is compelling evidence that it is all about pulling strings and oiling wheels. Furthermore there are students from Matabeleland with equally the same grades as those outsiders who don’t make it because they don’t have inside tracking. The same is true with employment.
While these concerns are real there is a tribal misconception that one tribe is losing. The reality is that the people of Matabeleland are losing as a whole; however I have to acknowledge that the context of those parachuting into Matabeleland Colleges and Universities has been dominated by people from a certain region.
Secession or devolution
My assumption is that the proponents of secession and devolution know what they are advocating for. However for the benefit of everyone let’s untangle the two by lightly defining them.
Secession simply means the withdrawal from the main unit or union (where there are states) to form an independent town, state, city and even a country. Good examples can be drawn from the United States, Soviet Union and the Republic of the Congo.
Devolution is the granting of statutory powers and the transfer assets and resources from the centre to sub national/local government within the boundaries of national law. Good examples are Scotland and Wales in United Kingdom.
The argument for Matabeleland secession and devolution does not stake up for four reasons;
1) What they seek to achieve through secession and devolution can be achieved by the current unitary system through decentralisation and good governance,
2) Size matters (Zimbabwe is a small country) and the distribution of resources is disproportionate,
3) Its expensive to start setting up new governance structures and laws,
4) It creates top down heavy structures.
In conclusion misconceptions about Matabeleland are deliberate and based on manipulating facts. However It is evident that the minds of many are using the powers to reason and conception in pursuing justice. Indeed the people of Matabeleland have handled the 1980s Atrocities correctly by pursuing justice through non violent channels. This broadly reflects a strong national identity as it is known that Zimbabweans are non violent and peace loving people. The emergence of extreme political groups calling for division and hatred not only tarnishes the patience and fortitude of the people of Matabeleland but it also trivialises their efforts. What’s more is that it distorts the important message for the younger ones, future generations and generations of generations that justice can be achieved peacefully. In many ways there are indications that justice is now around the corner but those who lack vision still find it easy and comforting to believe in the violent misconceptions that have been preached to them a million times in private. The painful truth is violence only destroys what it claims to achieve...............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)