MDC-T 'Prayers' and the shambolic podiums of desperation

By Bernard Bwoni

Morgan Tsvangirai sharing a podium with former ruling party ‘debris’ in the form of Temba Mliswa and Jabulani Sibanda for the common cause ‘to force Mugabe’s hand out of power’ was probably one of the most sardonic moments in the political history of Zimbabwe. The event was supposedly meant to be a ‘prayer meeting’ about a Zimbabwean citizen whose whereabouts are unknown and to say the event was hijacked by many elements with different and misleading agendas is an understatement. Many, if not all, were trying to outdo each for individualistic political self-reinvention. It was a mish-mash of former ruling party rejects relishing among the opposition ranks, many political lightweights clamoring for attention, Mr Tsvangirai himself in awe at the prospect of working with discarded former ruling party members. What a palaver! The message from all those who took to the podium was a misguided call urging people of Zimbabwe to rise up against the so-called tyranny of Robert Mugabe. This was a prayer meeting meant to comfort and sooth the soul of the family of the man who allegedly disappeared and not a platform to revive ailing political careers of the many who ‘graced’ the podium. Some of those who took to the podium were until recently profusely punching their fists in the air with unmoving resolve in support of the ruling party, which they were now chastising alongside Mr Tsvangirai. The picture of Mr and Mrs Tsvangirai holding the children of the missing man is a picture that tells a thousand inexactitudes.

The trouble with all those who attended this ‘prayer meeting’ was their inability to be open about the outcomes they expected as a result of them being present. The gathering suffered an infusion of individuals with an inability to stand for any real principle or direction and the result was an ill-conceived chorus of insinuation which appear to urge citizens to use unconstitutional means to whatever end most seemed to be advocating. The former ruling party ‘relics’ who attended spoke with a misleading desperation to enlist recognition within opposition ranks. Jabulani Sibanda made this wretched claim that “when leaders are elected into power, they forget where they came from. They forget that power came from the people”.  He appeared to have been targeting President Mugabe as he went on to say, “For 35 years we never knew we were Zimbabweans”. This is a ridiculous statement build around a forlorn core of defeatism and desperation. The fact of the matter is that for the past 35 years Zimbabweans have in fact got the opportunity to be Zimbabweans and the irony is that many do not even realize it. These futile attempts at jumping on the back of an allegedly missing person to score political points are self-serving in nature and urging any form of unconstitutional usurpation of power is a lost cause.

The way that many political has-beens and novices are trying to hijack this alleged disappearance is opportunistic and totally unrelated to the supposed disappearance itself. Simba Makoni in a disconnected rambling that sought to appeal to and whip up national emotions, claimed categorically that President Mugabe knew where this missing man was. Makoni had this to say “How can he just say Mugabe, as president of this country, is unmoved by the missing of one of his citizens yet he is obliged to protect all citizens living in the country? It shows that the state knows where Dzvamara is hence they would want to act as if it is a forced disappearance which the state had no hand in”. This supposed ‘disappearance’ is being used as a bargaining chip by the equally cheap and dysfunctional opposition in Zimbabwe to prop up lacklustre and uninspiring political careers. So Makoni wants President Mugabe to put everything aside and go in search of this allegedly missing man? In Nkulumane and Emganwini residential areas of Bulawayo, five children recently went missing and the families of these missing children have been going through hell. We have not heard Makoni or Tsvangirai mention the plight of these missing children, yet they hyper-sensationalize the case of one man whose whereabouts remain unknown. This man is a citizen of Zimbabwe and it is important that all citizens of the country are safe and as Charamba puts it, the matter is in the hands of the police. The hope is that he is well and as the police updates to the High Court reveal, something is being done.

If true, the recent report that the French Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Laurent Delahousse proposed a toast to this allegedly missing man, paraded his wife and children at the French National Day celebrations and then called him a ‘symbol and that he would not let him down’, is a worrying statement. How on earth did this man suddenly become a ‘symbol’ and for his family to be paraded at France National Day celebrations?

The claims that this man was allegedly ‘abducted’ in broad daylight in a barbershop, by ‘three’ or ‘five’ armed men in a residential area was because of his criticism of President Mugabe is ludicrous. If that is the case then the likes of Job Sikhala and many others who publicly tear into President Mugabe the person and the politician would have disappeared many moons ago. But they walk freely and talk freely. Something does not add up one bit about this ‘disappearance’ but what is clear is that either way it is never going to end well. If it was indeed a forged disappearance, it is going to be very difficult to bring this man back and definitely sacrifices are going to be made. The question to pose is, what would stop the opposition and their handlers from sacrificing him for their own political survival and better electoral fortunes come 2018? That is totally plausible, unless people come up with hard evidence that the state was behind this man’s ‘supposed disappearance’. The police have done their investigations from the day the matter was reported to them and hence why Makoni’s assertion that President Mugabe is not concerned about this allegedly missing man is part and parcel of a more comprehensive plan to whip up emotions.

This man is not the first person to go missing in Zimbabwe, let alone the world, and he is not the last. The local opposition has created a rallying point to reinvent and reposition itself, and they are using this alleged disappearance for their own political gains. The local opposition and the allegedly abducted are all mere tools in the grand scheme of things. Time however has the stubborn habit of revealing falsehoods and truths that always puts the deceitful to shame. Only time will tell and time is exactly what we have in abundance. The available evidence is pointing to more falsehoods than truths.

bernardbwoni.blogspot.com

Dr Grace Mugabe: a pragmatic First Lady

By Bernard Bwoni

The realm of politics and policy-making, just like any society, is intricate and unpredictable. It has its fair share of those who exist just for the sake of protraction (just to breath air, but make no difference to society) and on the other end of the scale those people who make things happen and make noticeable differences to the lives of others. The latter group possess that cutting edge trademark and those pacesetter attributes that the former group is clearly deprived of. These are the movers and shakers who have the undeniable gift of pragmatic influence and a people-centred genetic make-up. These are the individuals who walk the ground and at the same time listen to the sounds the ground they walk on makes. They hear and feel the grassroots, they get the basics and they speak the dialect of their environment and duet with the soul and systems that surrounds them. They seek no glory or reputation but rather that commitment for the greater good of society. In Zimbabwe, men of mettle and women of weight are among us, those who inspire and constantly remind us of the higher purpose of society. They seek no praise or worship but only to refocus society’s thrust on pertinent issues that affect the grassroots. Dr Grace Mugabe easily falls within the ranks of the non-theoretical craftswoman of action, a charming, confident, charitable and very normal First Lady of meaning.

The First Lady, Dr Grace Mugabe by virtue of being the wife of President Mugabe (an African Icon) has had to blaze trails, suffer trials and tribulations. She has been labelled all manner of despicable names but she has remained true to her core values and beliefs. She has dedicated her life to things that gives meaning and purpose to others, possess attributes strikingly similar to her husband and hence the negative onslaught to stifle her progressive national pursuits. The Zimbabwe First Lady is driven, focused, committed, not easily deterred or distracted just like President Mugabe himself and those are the hallmarks of nation builders. She lays it on the table as it is and that is refreshingly different and endears her even to those opposed to her. The issues she brings to the forefront, most people certainly agree with her, but many are constrained and restricted by their misinformed perception of the woman behind the words. There are heated debates going on Social Media sites on certain issues Dr Mugabe has raised recently and you often hear statements like “I don’t like the woman but I completely agree with what she has said about the girl child and marriage” or “I know I don’t often agree with Grace Mugabe but it is refreshing the way she has exposed corruption”. The fact of the matter is that any statement she makes triggers debate that cut across political divides. You have those in the opposition ranks privately agreeing with her and publicly slaying her for political mileage. The bottom line though is that people do listen when the First Lady speaks and it gets them thinking and hence the many news headlines that follow after every address she makes. It is this sense of meaning and purpose in the First Lady’s presence that intrigues the nation and the world.

Dr Grace Mugabe has never made any claims to perfection and true to fact no one in this world can claim stewardship to such. In one of her addresses Dr Mugabe said this with her usual honesty and refreshing honesty “I am not a person who is afraid to ask, I always ask the President when I am not sure about anything”. People who shape the world have a compassionate heart, and they see and learn to better equip themselves to serve. She has been right down on the ground and taking time to support and care for disadvantaged children. In one of her addresses Dr Mugabe highlighted that she has over 88 children at the children’s home she runs and when you read newspaper news article that paint the picture of self-absorption it just does not make any sense. The Grace Mugabe Foundation does a lot of charity work in Zimbabwe and it is unfortunate that international media sources are awash with falsehoods and misleading narratives about the First Lady. One of the many reasons why the First Lady’s addresses and statements engross the nation is because of the potent content and the fact that they focus on issues that are dear to most people’s hearts. Those are the issues that affect people in their day-to-day lives. She has a practical awareness of the links with the grassroots and how to connect with people right down to the basics of life and living in society. She is not restricted by the pretentions of politics hence why she is not afraid to be who she really is. She is authentic, she holds views that resonate with many and she does not settle for conformity just for the sake of it. The First Lady is passionate about her charity work and about the country, her actions and words are from the heart and there is a level of respect she accords the people of Zimbabwe.

The First Lady, in her addresses, is uniquely blunt to the point of being miles away from all correctness yet she leaves no stone unturned. She does not seek to preserve reputations nor does she seek to garner a reputation but rather displays an unparalleled commitment to ‘serve the people’. If one listens to most of her addresses, her key words are often about the people ahead of all else. In her recent address in Kadoma, she was talking about “the leadership we want, leaders who know they are servants of the people”.

Many speak about ZimAsset the document, but few focus on the actual technicalities of implementation. Dr Mugabe recently pointed out “For ZimAsset to work, we must work, we are the foot soldiers”. The key to the implementation of ZimAsset is to break the programme down to its bare basics and then roll it top down to the people. The economic blueprint is an excellent but complex document that needs to be simplified at the implementation phase. Zimbabwe has an educated population and possibly the best-educated people on the African continent and that is a crucial resource for national development. The First Lady complemented that by stating, “We are educated enough, but we have to deliver, we have to work, we have to grab the opportunities and run-off with these opportunities”.

ZimAsset is not going to miraculously register successes without the collective strength of the people of Zimbabwe that will see the economic blueprint through. The collective strength of a unit is far much stronger than the individualistic spirit that has of recent pervaded our society. As Dr Grace Mugabe rightly put it, “there are elements in the country who are retrogressive, as Zimbabweans we have to be positive, progressive and we have to put emphasis on working”. The number of times the First Lady mentions the word ‘work’ in her addresses clearly shows a woman who is committed to seeing Zimbabwe moving and moving forward. What Zimbabwe is presenting to her citizens are opportunities currently camouflaged by challenges and as Dr Grace Mugabe rightly said, now is the time to seize those opportunities and run away with them.

bernardbwoni.blogspot.com

Protectionism: lets be specific then

By Bernard bwoni

In Africa, if you mention the word ‘protectionism’ you are immediately branded ‘anti-progress’, you will have statements like ‘build up competitiveness’ hurled at you and end of story. Well, the more I look into the history of Africa’s economic development or lack of, the more I am convinced that a period of infant industry protection and promotion is exactly what is required to get to that stage where domestic industry can effectively compete on the global stage. Zimbabwe is my point of focus and when protectionism is used in this article this is not to suggest that the country should seal off all its borders to all foreign imports, but rather adopt strategies for imports and exports that facilitates domestic production to build up capacity. The government has to continue considering protectionist policies in specific sectors where the country has the greatest potential to develop comparative advantage and eventually economies of scale. The key terms are strategic and selective protection and promotion. Our neighbours in South Africa have similar protectionist provisions on their key strategic industries and these industries are heavily protected by the country’s domestic procurement threshold policy. There is absolutely no reason why Zimbabwe should not provide this initial period of systematic protection of domestic industry and allow them time to absorb new technologies, build on capacity and thus be able to compete on the global stage.

The infant industry protection debate in Zimbabwe is often limited to the competitiveness argument without further exploration and in-depth analysis of the many crippling constraints domestic producers and industry face. Zimbabwean industries are currently operating at below 40% capacity utilization and it is unrealistic to expect domestic manufacturing to build capacity amid unrestrained competition from cheap foreign imports in sectors where products could easily be produced locally. This then begs the question, where is the sense in exposing fledgling domestic industries to competition from more established external producers who already benefit from greater economies of scale? A good example is the Zimbabwe tea blenders and packers who have been facing stiff competition from cheap imports, which constitutes 25% of the domestic market share. Tanganda Tea Company and Arda Katiyo Tea produces 15000 tonnes of tea against local consumption of 4000 tonnes and about 3000 tonnes are supplied to the local market whilst the rest is exported. Local tea blenders and packers have however lost 25% of this market share to imported teas that have flooded the market. The irony is that the imported tea, which constitutes this 25%, is originally Zimbabwe, which is, exported as bulk tea. What this basically means is that the country exports raw tea and then imports that very same tea packaged and more expensive. Now here is an opportunity for the country to protect such a specific sector to allow them time to build capacity and competiveness. Zimbabwe currently has no tariffs on imported packaged tea products from South Africa yet the South Africans have a number of heavy duties, local content provisions and government procurement provisions all that makes it very expensive for Zimbabwe to put her tea products on South African shelves. These are concerns that have been repeatedly raised by relevant stakeholders in these sectors and such concerns have to be taken seriously.

The case for strategic, selective and systematic infant industry protection remains very relevant in the context of Zimbabwe. The South African auto assembling industry is heavily protected and industries such as clothing and textiles are also strategically protected and have been designated under the country’s local content protectionist policies. In Zimbabwe the local car assemblers such as Willowvale and Quest do not appear to benefit from the same South African-style protection and promotion strategies, which is unfortunate.  In 2011, President Mugabe gave a clear directive that all government institutions should buy their vehicles locally in order to support the local industry and preserve the country’s limited foreign reserves. The recent case of the State Procurement Board (SPB) awarding the tender for the purchase of 139 pick-up trucks at a cost in excess of US$3 million for the Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (ZETDC) to Croco Motors and Paza Buster (PVT) Ltd certainly goes against infant industry protection. This is a clear case for domestic industry promotion where Willowvale or Quest would have been given the tender to assemble these vehicles and the knock-on effect on employment creation and on GDP would have been significant. The idea of awarding the tender to a car import company at the expense of local assemblers goes directly against infant industry protection.

In 2014 Zimbabwe imported close to US$500 million worth of cars mainly from Japan, South Africa and UK at a time when Willowvale and Quest local assemblers are operating at below 10% capacity utilization. Of that US$500 million, how much goes towards the national GDP and how many jobs are created from that? If strategic protectionist policies are implemented and assemblers such as Willowvale and Quest are cushioned from competition to enable them to increase their capacity utilization the gains in GDP terms and employment creation would be significant. Sometimes policy makers have to bite the bullet to forge ahead with certain policies for society to realize the gains of such policies.

Zimbabwe’s borders are way too wide open to facilitate domestic industry revival and growth. There are a number of key sectors that require strategic protection and promotion to enable them to build their capacity. Protection and promotion will have the long-term effects of increased employment creation in local industry and tariffs can help offset foreign dumping and help industries like the clothing and textiles and car assembly industry. Protection in the right sectors will boost domestic industry rather stifle it as many have argued otherwise.

During the Ministry of Finance’s First Quarter Treasury Bulletin of 2015, exports for January 2015 alone amounted to US$276 million and imports amounted to US$538.1 million creating a trade gap of US$262.1 million. Merchandise imports, excluding fuel and electricity and services account for 60% of the country’s import bill, indicating the country’s over-reliance on imported goods and services that can easily be produced locally. There is a highly unbalanced relationship between the country’s exports and imports hence the huge trade deficit. The First Quarter Treasury Bulletin of 2014 from January to June the country’s total exports stood at US$1.2 billion down from US$1.5 billion in the same period in 2013. During the same quarter of January to June 2014 the total import bill stood at US$3 billion, down from US$3.9 billion during the same period in 2013. The major imports for the period January to June 2014 were fuel, food, machinery and equipment, wood, paper and plastic and motor vehicles. Fuel accounted for 25.2% of total imports, machinery and equipment 16.5%, food and beverages 16%, wood, paper and plastic products 12%, motor vehicles 8.2%, metal products 6%, fertilizers and chemicals 4.6%, other manufactured goods 2.7%, clothing and fabrics 2.4%, building materials 1% and transport equipment 0.3%. The 16% share of food and beverages in total imports for this First Quarter of 2014 clearly indicates that the country is importing items that can be made locally and in so doing promote the revival and growth of domestic industry. This is where the infant industry protection argument continues to be relevant and this is not just about protecting everything but rather gradual and strategic opening of the economy.

The First Quarter Treasury Bulletin from January to March 2015 clearly highlights the issue of constraints that impact on competitiveness of domestic industry and hence the urgent need for strategic infant industry protection and promotion. Domestic manufacturing remains severely depressed due to infrastructure and financial constraints. The period from January to March 2015, exports amounted to US$716 million compared to US$627 million in the same quarter in 2014. The import bill for the quarter January to March 2015 stood at US$1.5 billion and the major imports were fuel, food, clothes and textiles and motor accessories. The export of textiles and clothing from Zimbabwe has remained constant at around US$25 million over the period from 2005-2015. Zimbabwe has exported over 74000 tonnes of cotton lint on average over the last 25 years, which is reflective of a lack of value addition and transformation domestically. Fabric exports from Zimbabwe represented total earnings of US$24.4 million between 2009 and 2013.  In 2013 alone the fabric export value reached about US$4.2 million. The value of import of fabrics into Zimbabwe between 2009 and 2013 was US$221 million. This trade deficit of US$196.6 million is unsustainable and makes a very strong case for infant industry protection and promotion. The export of clothing from Zimbabwe amounted to US$42.6 million between 2009 and 2013 and during the same period imports of clothes amounted to a total value of US$98.5 million.

There are many examples in Zimbabwe where protectionism would facilitate growth if guided by specific indicators and guidelines. Domestic industry protection has to be combined with a robust export strategy. There is however the counter argument against protectionism.

Bernard Bwoni

Protectionism, why not and what makes Africa special?

By Bernard bwoni

There is no denying the fact that we all live in a global village and that we have to integrate with the world economy. This is well recognised on the African continent and across the globe. However our integration has to be selective, gradual and strategic. We have to prioritise and pursue policy autonomy, a state led industrialisation (this we can argue in detail if required), and import-substitution-industrialisation and Zimbabwe’s current policies of indigenisation, empowerment and land reform are the key catalysts of this industrialisation drive and economic transformation that has roots on the ground. All the developed countries of today without exception had to go through the same. There are no short cuts. Free market policies have their place but for our industry to get off the ground they require a period of strategic protection and promotion. Protection sounds like such a dirty word in today’s economic order but the developed world of today cleaned up their act and developed through protectionist policies. I deliberately started by mentioning that we live in a global village and it sounds like a contradiction when I make the case for protectionism, but hear me out. Some will argue that Zimbabwe does not have the industry to protect and that is a valid argument but for Zimbabwe to have an industry to protect, the industry needs to come off the ground first and to do that requires promotion and protection.

The German Economist, Friedrich List (1841) makes very interesting observations about trade liberalisation and the double standards of those who are now the developed countries of today. He makes particular reference to Britain, accusing the British of preaching free trade to developing countries while having achieved economic supremacy through high tariffs and massive subsidies (protectionist policies). List accused the British of ‘kicking away the ladder’ that they climbed to reach the world’s economic summit and pole position in the world economic order. In his 1841 masterpiece, ‘The National System of Political Economy’, List makes a very compelling argument for infant industry protection “It is a very common clever device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him”. Most developing countries today are advised to embrace free market policies by countries that developed strictly on the back of strict protectionist tariffs. South Korea, China, USA, Japan, the UK and other EU developed economies have used infant industry protection strategies in the earlier days of their economic development.

List (1841) goes on to say “Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth”. Today, countries like Zimbabwe are lectured on the economic benefits of free markets and free trade yet these rich developed countries of today do give this advice not to benefit Zimbabwe and other developing countries, but to capture larger shares of these countries’ markets and to stifle the emergence of possible competitors. I am not at all stating that free trade is entirely flawed, but rather it has its place in the history of economic development of any nation.

Free trade in the developed world of today was out of choice and necessity, and in the developing world of today it has been an imposition from outside by the developed countries. These countries stand to gain from offering such advice they did not use when they were at this stage of development. The best performing economies of today are those that opened their economies selectively and gradually and examples include USA, EU developed countries at large, Britain, China, South Korea, Japan and others. Yet in Africa and other developing countries, free market policies are paraded as if they are the panacea of all our economic transformation and industrialisation yet they have in fact hindered economic growth. Ha-Joon Chang (2007) argues that ‘free trade reduces freedom of choice for poor countries and that keeping companies out may be good for them in the long run’. A valid argument in that by allowing big already established companies, you inevitably destroy the capacity of domestic infant industry, but then the counter-argument is that FDI is key to industrial growth. In Zimbabwe, indigenisation, empowerment and land reform are good policies in the long run. There may be losses rather than gains in the first 15 to 20 years but eventually growth will be achieved, the difference is that these are home-grown initiatives of growth. Alexander Hamilton in 1791, also made sound arguments on infant industry protection insisting that American industries were still in their infancy and as such could not be expected to compete against the mature industries in the more advanced economies without an initial period of deliberate government promotion and protection.

The strength of producing wealth is more fundamental than the wealth itself and history has shown that each and every country that reached the heights of being called a developed economy did so on the back of protective tariffs. 

There is no arguing the fact that initially protectionism can make the price of manufactured goods very expensive but with time as a country build its manufacturing capacity the same goods will be produced more cheaply domestically than the price they will be imported. These are the long run economic benefits of protectionism. Without a strong manufacturing base Zimbabwe and the continent at large will remain unprogressive. For them to become complex industrial forces, there is need for that period of infant industry protection. I am aware that some will argue that in the case of Zimbabwe, there is no industry to protect, but then the other argument is that you can never have the industry unless and until you have protected and promoted it first. 

The argument here is not purely anti-free market economy nor is it a case of arguing that protection should stifle healthy competition. The fundamental point is that there is need to build up capacity and to do that you have to go through a period of deliberate infant industry protection. In the case of Zimbabwe it is a rebuilding exercise and to rebuild you have to cushion the collapsed industry and along the way offer them protection until full capacity has been built. At this stage of our economic development, free trade only serves to expose us to the economic supremacy of the developed countries. Protectionism is the only system that has throughout history sustained nations to a stage where eventually free trade has been made possible and not counterproductive. We will talk and talk but bottom line is that period of infant industry protection.

Bernard Bwoni