Zimbabwe: actors may change, the plot stays constant

Zimbabwe: actors may change, the plot stays constant

• The world according to Mandela and Mugabe

• Mugabe needs incentives to reform, not sanctions

• The agenda for change post-Sharm El-Sheikh

• What is the meaning of independence?

• Has Mugabe's war bluster won it?

• Imperialism no threat to organised people

• Mugabe using language of xenophobes

• SA's BEE project intersects with xenophobia

• A Rainbow Nation without black

• A post-election conversation with Mugabe

• Doubts aside, Tsvangirai now best bet for a New Zimbabwe

• African mines remain theatres for foreign operators

• Mugabe's self-help constitutional order

• The New Zimbabwe is almost upon us

• Zimbabweans have spoken, and the message is in the detail

• Mugabe's re-election would be disaster for private enterprise

• Zimbabweans at the polls: the great debates

• Change cannot wait for Madhuku's post-election ambitions

• Voting for change in Zimbabwe

• Can an independent win in Zimbabwe? Yes he can!

• Makoni: puppet, Zanu PF agent or national hero?

• Who is behind Makoni? Please count me in!

• Obama v Billary Clinton: lessons for Africa

• If Zuma is corrupt, who isn't?

• Charamba gives civil service a very bad name

• Be the change that you want to see

• The paradox of African liberation and change

• Zimbabwe and the Jacob Zuma factor

• The EU-Africa relationship post-colonialism

• Beyond Lisbon: setting the African agenda

• Implications of Zuma winning ANC presidency

• Africa's enduring economic apartheid

• Does indigenisation threaten law of succession?

• Defining the role of the state in post-colonial Africa

• Mushore's ordeal and the Zimbabwe we want

• Does rule of law pose a threat to Africa?

• Capitalism may challenge the poor, but it gives them hope

By Mutumwa D. Mawere
(www.mmawere.com)

ZIMBABWE’S future is now squarely in the hands of principally two men i.e. the discredited incumbent President Robert Mugabe whose international reputation has been dented by the outcome of the 29 March elections and his long-time political nemesis, Morgan Tsvangirai.

This week marks a defining moment in the history of post-colonial Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that an agreement will be reached between Zimbabwe’s three main parties negotiating a power-sharing arrangement and political accommodation.

The nature, context and content of the Zimbabwean crisis compel all to pause, stop and reflect on what the country requires to move forward.

Notwithstanding the questionable legitimacy of Mugabe, it is evident that the thinking of the current administration on the root causes of the crisis will never change. Both Mugabe and his principal economic advisor, Dr. Gideon Gono, are convinced that the economic crisis is largely externally driven.

On the eve of the resolution of the political stalemate, Mugabe still holds the view that the market system has failed Zimbabwe and who controls the resources of the country is the primary issue that needs to be resolved by the next administration.

A simplistic interpretation of the crisis has been adopted by the administration ignoring the complex interplay of the issues that have combined to systematically reduce Zimbabwe into a basket case.

The stabilisation of the economy ought to be at the centre stage of the negotiations. However, it is important to note that Mugabe’s problems with the multilateral development institutions did not begin with the emergence of the MDC, rather, it was deeply rooted in ideology. It is no secret that Mugabe is highly suspicious of the West and the applicability of neo-liberal economic policies to post colonial development challenges.

His antipathy against the West may explain why he chose to work in Ghana instead of the West when he was young.

It is significant that Mugabe has never used any Western address as a residence in his 84 years of existence but has chosen Africa as his theatre of operation.

Accordingly, it is unlikely that the negotiations will change his world view on how the crisis ought to be resolved. e sees the objective of the negotiations as principally to decouple the MDC-T from the West.

To Mugabe, the negotiations provide an opportunity to test the nationalism and patriotism of the two MDC factions. He has not subscribed to the notion that economic turnaround is a superior objective to the protection of his definition of sovereignty.

The transition from Ian Smith’s suicidal approach to nation building and the use of the state of emergency powers to the post colonial dispensation appears to have been seamless.

The events of the last 10 days expose the fact that in Reserve Bank governor Gono, Mugabe has a reliable thinker; implementer and partner in the enlargement of the state as a player in the economy notwithstanding the disastrous results so far.

In an article entitled: “New cash measures on way: Gono” published by the Sunday Mail on July 26, 2008, it was reported that at a hastily organised press conference, Dr Gono took the opportunity to warn businesses and individuals who were charging for their goods and services in foreign currency. He was reported to have said such people risked getting arrested either by the police or RBZ officials.

In the face of intractable economic challenges, Gono’s worldview is no different from Mugabe’s. It was significant that prior to the announcement of dropping zeros from the hyper-inflated currency, Gono was reported to have said:

"Conducting business in foreign currency is illegal. No rentals or goods should be charged in forex. Dollarisation — that is using the currency of another country — is not a position that we have taken.We are not in that situation yet. Report all such persons, including those who are selling cash (Zimbabwean dollars) to the nearest police station or RBZ officials."

It was not surprising that Gono invited Mugabe to the currency announcement function where he made similar threats confirming the widely held view that notwithstanding the outcome of the negotiations, the thinking of the new administration, whatever character it takes i.e. GNU or transitional authority (TA), will not change. For the first time, Mugabe attended the address by Gono to demonstrate his unreserved support to the currency manipulation gimmicks.

Like Gono, Mugabe threatened to impose a state of emergency if businesses profiteer from the country's economic and political crisis. This is what he had to say: "Entrepreneurs across the board: Don't drive us further. If you drive us even more we will impose emergency measures. The country is under illegal sanctions. These are intended to achieve regime change. We must strengthen our will and resistance so we can go through this time of difficulty."

With this kind of thinking, there is no doubt that no rational development partner will come to the party as expected after the conclusion of the inter-party dialogue.

The failure to attract sustainable international financial support must necessarily, therefore, be located in the framework that has informed Zanu PF and Mugabe’s thinking since taking over power in 1980.

It is increasingly becoming clear that Mugabe is not alone in thinking that the market is evil and anyone who operates in the market framework is also an enemy of post colonial nation building.

The absence of a systematic domestically generated attack on both Gono and Mugabe’s reckless statements highlights the complexity of the crisis and solutions there from.

The government of Zimbabwe stopped paying its commercial, bilateral and multilateral debts a long time ago and it is unlikely that there will be any positive response from such partners without a sound economic plan in place.

Even Gono and Mugabe will agree, albeit in the quietness of their time, that no serious forward thinking policy maker will resort to removing thirteen zeros as a remedy to a crisis that is deeply rooted in tested and wrong economic policies.

Zimbabwe’s economy is already over regulated and the role of the RBZ in the economy ought to be the starting point for any serious negotiation aimed at rebuilding the fractured and helpless Zimbabwean economic model.

The state is omnipresent in the economy even to the level of providing basic goods and yet the crisis has no end in sight. After 28 years of experimenting with the state as an instrument of generating supply response, it is regrettable that a lot of reliance is still placed on the state as the saviour.

Gono’s 56 months at the helm of the RBZ has exposed the bankruptcy of a policy framework premised on fear and intimidation. Former Finance Minister Herbert Murerwa warned, rightly so, that the zeros will come back with a vengeance and it appears that no lessons were learned.

While it is accepted that the resolution of the political crisis should provide a foundation stone for tackling the country’s economic problems, it must now be accepted that any settlement that will leave Mugabe with executive powers will not lift the country up.

Mugabe is too old to change his thinking and with the help of young voodoo economic practitioners like Gono, there may be no incentive for him to change particularly at a time when the global food and energy crises are compelling people to rethink about critical ideological questions regarding the role of the market or the state in addressing and alleviating poverty.

Mutumwa Mawere's weekly column is published on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday. You can contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com