Zimbabwe: Sanctions, the economy and democratic process

Zimbabwe: Sanctions, the economy and democratic process

• Dr Alex Magaisa: Zim's civil society needs to reform

• Khanyisela Moyo: Zimbabwe's civil society vital to democracy

• Dr Alex Magaisa: Zim's civil society, and diminishing political space

• Alex Magaisa: The pitfalls of opposition politics in Zimbabwe

• Alex Magaisa: Constitutional amendment spells doom for economy

• Mugabe's critics demand new constitution

• Zimbabwe senate will last only 5 years

• Moyo fights senate constitutional amendment

Zimbabwe's economy is in sharp decline and the country risks expulsion from the IMF. Various individuals in government and the ruling party have been targets of smart sanctions. Writing today, Dr Magaisa argues that contrary to common belief, smart sanctions in fact have negative impact on the whole country and have played a part in the decline of the economy. Dr Magaisa urges a regular review of the sanctions regime to evaluate whether or not the costs do not exceed the benefits

By Dr Alex T. Magaisa

THE purpose of this article is to explore and draw attention to the implications and impact of the smart sanctions regime on the democratic process in Zimbabwe. This article questions the effectiveness of the current sanctions regime. The principal argument is that contrary to the common belief that sanctions can bring about the desired goals of compelling the government to promote democracy and human rights, they are in fact missing the intended targets. Instead, they are hitting the poor, disempowering civil society and consequently threatening the democratic process. I conclude that it is important to go beyond the basic political assertions and consider comprehensively whether or not the sanctions regime has itself become a threat to human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe.

The question of whether sanctions work has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate over the years. While some studies indicate that there is a general impression that they have worked successfully only in a minority of cases, sanctions nonetheless remain a key foreign policy tool of various states across the world.

The theoretical basis of sanctions is that they compel the government of the target country to change its approach in relation to certain problematic issues. In recent years sanctions have been variously used against a number of states for allegedly violating human rights. It is believed that the pressure of sanctions would compel the government to change its conduct and attitude towards certain issues – that the loss of certain privileges could persuade or force them to change their ways. Alternatively, though this aim is less pronounced, the effect of sanctions might cause the citizens to demand change from their government.
There are a number of types of sanctions – economic, diplomatic, etc. In recent years there has been increasing use of targeted sanctions also known as “smart” sanctions– whereby certain individuals or organisations within a country are specifically targeted using for example, travel bans, asset-freezing, etc.

Theoretically, the idea of smart sanctions is to avoid punishing the general citizens of a country for the wrongs of a few individuals in government. As the articles argues, this distinction between smart sanctions against selected individuals and general sanctions against the country is in effect, very hard to sustain. Either way, it is the general citizens that suffer, while the intended targets escape the effect of the sanctions because they have the power and opportunities to do so.

The sanctions regime in relation to Zimbabwe is characterised by smart sanctions against specific individuals in government and those implicated in human rights violations. The sanctions involve travel bans and freezing of assets of certain specified individuals almost all of whom are connected to the government or the ruling party. The influential European Union, the US, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand have been at the forefront of the smart sanctions policy. The US also passed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which introduces certain conditions for assistance and effectively provides the basis for sanctions. The list of targeted individuals is reviewed and amended from time to time. A question arises as to whether these sanctions actually work as intended, that is, whether they affect only the targeted individuals or the impact extends more generally across the country. In other words, how smart are the smart sanctions?

"The problem is that it is the weak members of the society that are hard hit by the effects of the sanctions. Democracy cannot flourish in poverty. It needs stable economic foundations"

DR ALEX MAGAISA

At some point the EU issued a statement in which it argued that the sanctions were not targeted against Zimbabwe as a country but specific individuals and therefore could not be seen as detrimental to the Zimbabwean economy. The government on the other hand persistently blames sanctions (and drought) for the country’s economic malaise. Now, to be sure it is generally accepted that the primary causes of the crisis in Zimbabwe are internal (both man-made and natural) and it is somewhat an exaggeration to blame the sanctions regime as the exclusive cause for the country’s troubles. Zimbabwe’s economic breakdown did not happen overnight as a result of sanctions. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the exaggeration, we cannot dismiss outright the fact that sanctions have had a negative effect on the economic conditions in Zimbabwe. While they are not the primary cause, there is nonetheless some substance in the view that they have contributed to the demise in recent years. Why is this so, when the smart sanctions specifically target named persons? It is because the so-called smart sanctions in fact have far-reaching impact beyond the targeted persons.

In my view, the effect of targeted sanctions goes beyond the individuals caught in the net. The fact that the leadership of a country is targeted has a ripple effect on the country as a whole. The targeted sanctions have an effect on how others perceive and deal with the country as a whole. Consequently, it is arguable that the image of the country that is led by people who have been targeted by sanctions would also suffer in the court of international public opinion. An analogy is where a company’s directors are banned from doing certain things in the market. It is likely to affect the way the company as a whole is viewed in the market. Who would wish to deal with a company whose directors are banned from certain activities? The line between the company’s leadership and the company is blurred. The shareholders also suffer even though the bans are intended to target the directors. It is a nightmare for shareholders where rules and practices make it hard to remove the directors. Zimbabwean travellers know only to well that even though travel bans to certain countries were imposed against specific individuals, the experience of every other person at the border post of those countries or applying for a VISA is a nightmare. Similarly, companies may also find it extremely hard to get lines of credit where the country cannot access them. So in effect, smart sanctions can be tantamount to sanctions against the country as a whole.

Consequently, the problem is that it is the weak members of the society that are hard hit by the effects of the sanctions. Democracy cannot flourish in poverty. It needs stable economic foundations. It seems to me that a sanctions regime that exacerbates the economic problems for the general citizens is akin to the much-criticised “Operation Murambatsvina”. Like that ill-thought operation it is based on the philosophy of “destroy first and build later”. The imposition of sanctions is meant to tickle the conscience of the targets so that they can take action to prevent suffering of the citizens. What if they do not mind what happens to the citizens? What if they do not care anymore about their international reputation? Where the international pariah status has been accepted, the effect of sanctions would not change the mentality of the targets. At that point sanctions simply become weapons against the common person who has limited, if any, alternatives.

Perhaps the idea is that when people feel the pinch of the sanctions, they might take action to compel the government to change its ways. But the fact is that economic suffering weakens civil society. People retreat from the mainstream and worse, they begin to adjust and adapt to the conditions of hardship. It becomes normal to queue for bread, fuel and to consume rationed meals every day. For all the hardships of economic sanctions in Iraq in the 1990s, Saddam remained in power – Iraqi people simply adjusted. The same applies to Burma, where economic sanctions have been in place for some time, but the repressive regime has remained in power.

In addition, sanctions can have the effect of giving an opportunity for the government to extend and intensify its grip on the citizens. Resources become scarce, creating perfect conditions for manipulation of food as a political weapon. The scarcity of resources gives rise to increased competition as economic vultures prey on the weak. A parallel market arises which enables the few to exploit the majority because they control the available resources. The gap between the rich and the poor is extended leading to worse economic conditions.
Sometimes the government plays victim – arguing to its citizens that it is the victim of powerful Western states that hate the country. The government presents itself as the heroic saviour of the people against imperialists, with the duty to guard jealously the country’s sovereignty. Those who are exposed to other sources of information and therefore able to exercise informed judgement might dismiss the effect of such rhetoric as nonsense. But they also underestimate the effect of such messages on the general population, which is repeatedly bombarded with the same messages, they end up believing it is true. The problem here is that sanctions give credence to the rhetoric that the problem is external – that the fight is about sovereignty. In the process the government can impose mechanisms to increase its grip and avoid the repercussions of further economic decline. Instead of helping to reduce repressive laws, they are intensified and extended purportedly to maintain “public order and security”.

As we have seen, targeted individuals scarcely feel the impact of the sanctions as intended. In this increasingly globalising economy, vast opportunities have been opened in various parts of the world. It is therefore simple for individuals to evade sanctions. In the case of Zimbabwe, besides African countries, China, Malaysia and other Far East countries have provided alternatives to the West. After all, these days the suits, designer clothes and other luxuries are all manufactured in China anyway. Even in the West, the use of corporate vehicles such as companies and trusts enables the targeted individuals to hide their assets from the authorities. Experience has also shown that for certain occasions the travel bans are easily circumvented. Therefore, while building a negative profile for the country, the sanctions have limited effect on the specific individuals.

Civil society is also weakened by emigration fuelled by economic collapse worsened by sanctions. Zimbabwe has experienced mass emigration in the last five years. Some people have left for political reasons but arguably the majority are economic migrants, even though in order to obtain the right to stay in the chosen countries many often use the route of political asylum. As I have stated, the original causes of economic hardships they sought to escape from were largely internal but they have also been worsened by the sanctions regime and this has contributed to the migration.

Most migrants are the economically active who would have been active participants in the political process. Unsurprisingly, it is believed that a large chunk of opposition supporters and sympathisers are outside Zimbabwe but have limited influence on the democratic process since they cannot vote. Many of the Zimbabweans in the Diaspora are also busy attending to their economic needs and coping with survival in foreign lands to have active involvement in civil society activities. In addition, the brain-drain that comes with migration increases the strain on the economy and delivery of social services. To the extent that sanctions have contributed to the economic meltdown and therefore to migration, they have also impacted negatively on civil society and the democratic process.

In conclusion, the purpose of this article is simply to highlight and open ways to scrutinise some of the responses that have been made towards the Zimbabwe crisis. Perhaps, I have underestimated the impact of the sanctions and some might well argue that they are working very well and as intended. However, even those persuaded by the positive effect of sanctions could acknowledge that there is potential that sanctions might actually be counterproductive in some ways. Admittedly, it is important to be critical of the government but I also think that we should also avoid taking in everything without applying critical thought. There are those who believe that cutting down all supply lines to Zimbabwe will push people to eventually do something about the situation. But how different are they then, from the government that they criticise when it bulldozes people’s houses before promising to build new ones in the name of Operation Murambatsvina?

It seems to me that in pursuit of opposition against the ruling party, sometimes there is a tendency to destroy key institutions of the state. Admittedly, there are serious concerns where the ruling party substitutes itself for the state. But that does not mean that in opposition to the ruling party the same approach of running down the state and its institutions must be the primary goal. The destruction of the economy does not necessarily drive ZANU PF out of power. If it did, that party would have relinquished power some time ago given the state of the economy. A party that is sensitive to the concerns of the national and international opinion could be expected to reform and avoid sanctions. But because those in control do not suffer the effects of the sanctions they have not shown the will to change. But the fact that there is a mess does not mean that everyone must wish for the destruction of the economy in order to spite the leadership.

If the village headman abuses power in the community, the villagers do not throw rubbish into the village well at the headman’s homestead in order to spite him when the whole community draws water from the same source. The point here is simply that it is a collective duty, regardless of party allegiances to safeguard that which is national. That is why it would be regrettable if Zimbabwe were to be booted out of the IMF. It would be no cause for celebration, because it is not about ZANU PF but about Zimbabwe, the country. There is very little difference between the government pursuing destructive economic policies and those advocating for complete economic demise in order to force the government out of power.

At the end of the day, even if democracy makes a welcome return, it may be hard to sustain it where the economy has effectively ceased to function. Beyond the political parties vying for power and beyond the democracy that we seek, there is the economy, which we must guard collectively regardless of political affiliations. I do not think that even democracy itself would be worth the fight when there is no economy to talk about. In the zeal to oppose those in power, people ought to avoid the same tendency that they accuse the ruling party of demonstrating – destroying the economy and violating human rights of the masses. In a nutshell, it may be time to seriously discuss the issue of sanctions – before the whole economy is completely eroded. It is bad, but efforts to salvage that which remains must be encouraged, otherwise when it comes democracy will find us in worse conditions and we may never be able to appreciate it.

Dr Magaisa is a lawyer specialising in Economic and Financial Services Law. He is also a columnist for the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper. He cann be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com