Zimbabwe: looking East and looking everywhere

By Bernard Bwoni

“We shouldn’t be running away from China, lets stick together. Whether the headlines, regardless of the challenges we should work together to make the UK China’s best partner in the West”. British Chancellor George Osbourne said this when he was speaking at the Shanghai Stock Exchange in China. He described China as “a phenomenal part of the world economy” and he was absolutely right. Most countries throughout the world include the EU and USA adopted a Look East policy since the economic boom in China started. The British, EU and USA have dispatched several business delegations to China. The thing about the West is that they understand money and hence why they have it. They respect money more than those in the developing world who do not have that money. The West will do what it takes to ensure that they get the business and they bring in the money to maintain their consistent high standards of life. They know how to separate business from ideology and politics. Mr Osbourne said “we raise human rights, but we do it in the context of also talking about issues like economic development. Of course we’re two completely different political systems and we raise human rights issues, but I don’t think that is inconsistent with also wanting to do more business with one-fifth of the world’s population”. They understand business and they follow it where it is and human rights are just words when it comes to business. They follow it in the mud, the desert, the Muslim backyards or any muddle you can just about imagine. Money is just money even if it comes from the mud, you always clean it up and life goes on. On the other hand there are some from Zimbabwe and other African countries busy at each other’s throats about trivia whilst neglecting the things bring in money into their economies. Whilst George Osbourne is busy molly cuddling the Chinese and looking east some in Zimbabwe are busy dismissing the ruling party’s look east policy as a gimmick. This is what separates those who get ahead in this world and those who lag behind. With China pledging to cancel debts to developing countries how can a look east policy be a bad policy surely?

It is interesting that some are urging the government to look west when the west is looking east. That is a redundant argument and hence why Africa always ends up having to play catch up. A more convincing argument would be a look everywhere policy because there is no point in looking to a west that is looking east. Zimbabwe can look east, west, north and south. It does not matter as long as the benefit is going to be mutual. There is nothing wrong with being economically aggressive to get ahead in this world. Zimbabwe’s economy is on the verge of a major economic take-off and the only tone that should be coming from Harare is ‘business coated’ and economic savvy. As long as no aggressor is physically manhandling the country then business tone should remain business tone. The Conservatives in Britain are Zimbabwe’s best hope of mutually respectful engagement. The tone from Tories has remained largely positive and the reciprocity of delegations suggests a major shift towards full engagement. There has been a number business delegations from Zimbabwe have been to London and other EU capitals as part of a move to improve reengagement strides. The Minister of Industry and Commerce Mr Mike Bimha recently led a delegation to London to woe potential investors. Zimbabwe has a cause (historical inequalities) and that has now been addressed. That can now be put in the background and the prevailing tone has to be business and business alone.

The biggest threat to Zimbabwe’s economic revival now is more internal than external. The continued bickering, backstabbing and confusion is bad for business. A tone that does not offend, frustrate or confuse is crucial. It is about striking the right tone; it is about being diplomatic and understanding the country’s audience can mean the difference between off-putting potential business and building important business relationships. It can mean the difference between getting the desired result and being ignored in place of those who speak the right language of business with the right tone. Politics and economics are interlinked and they both have an equal place in any country. However it is always important to separate the two when communicating for business. Osbourne discussed business with the Chinese and at no point did he focus on the alleged human rights abuses. The talk of human rights abuses does not bring money to Britain’s economy. There is a time and place to talk about human rights for it is morally right to do so. It is quite reassuring to note that in Zimbabwe Minister Chinamasa has been talking the language of finance as per his ministry’s remit. The key to constructing business communication is to consider the audience, the purpose and type of information to be disseminated. There is a certain tone that can be uninviting to others and for sure some will sit on the fence instead of engaging fully.

The tone that the country present can easily become a subject or target of international frustration if mismanaged or the bridge that business crosses over if well managed. The tone should aim at establishing and maintaining positive relationships with all business partners from the east to the west, the north to the south. In some countries business tone is in fact incorporated in national culture. Zimbabwe is a hospitable country and all those who come into the country should get that sense. We may disagree on the politics, but we live off the business and as such business tone should be recognised of one of the country’s official languages. Money should transcend political divisions. The Conservatives in Britain through their Chancellor Osbourne are looking beyond the ideological and political differences with China and putting business ahead of that. Zimbabwe does have ideological and political differences with the West and there is nothing wrong with that for that is what makes each country unique. However these differences should not be allowed to be the obstacles to Zimbabwe’s quest to attract new business into the country. People are shaped by an ideology, but they do not ‘eat ideology’ and Mr Osbourne is clearly aware of that hence his call to “make UK China’s best partner in the west”. The tone of business should be cascaded nationally from top to bottom. There is value and relevance in presenting the right business tone as opposed to what is perceived as an aggressive closed-door style. The right tone should be the natural way of communication throughout the country. If George Osbourne can grovel for Chinese business, Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole have to create the most hospitable conditions for those who are likely to bring money or investment into the country.

All investors, domestic and foreign need to be strongly reassured that Zimbabwe is indeed open for business. Zimbabwe has the right policies in place, but those need to be communicated in a manner that reassures those who want to bring money into the country. Policies can easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted and thus the need for clarity beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimbabwe is ready to embrace all business irrespective of country of origin. The ruling party knows that Zimbabwe is open for business and the ruling party is clearly sending the signals that the country is prime for investment. However it is imperative to look at it from outside, the perception and how the country is viewed from the outside and then allay some of the misconceptions in a manner that reassures. The right tone and information would go a long way in doing that.

Zimbabwe like most African countries is rich in mineral and other natural resources. However the country’s capital markets are quite restricted and currently have limited capacity to finance the development, the beneficiation and value addition of the country’s vast resource potential. Foreign investment is essential particularly from the Chinese, the Russians, the EU, Africa, Asia, and the USA. There are potential national threats tacit in some foreign investments and rightly so the need for Zimbabwe to be cautious and vigilant in protecting its national interests. Any investor though, would understand the need for Zimbabwe to protect her national interests but the tone and how this is communicated can be the difference between wooing in and wadding off potential investment.

The challenges to attracting FDI are huge in particular because many developing countries, emerging economies and even the developed countries are all actively seeking to attract the elusive FDI. This is intensifying global competition among governments and this is where it becomes crucial how the country is perceived. Africa as a whole has to buckle up to be able to compete. The propensity to invest in Zimbabwe has been severely affected by internal economic challenges and perceived political risks. This is a distortion that Zimbabwe has to work at correcting. Our tone is important when trying to correct this distortion. Sometimes there is no need to shout, but rather to just provide the right information consistently and at the right time. The effectiveness of the government’s response is key to creating favourable conditions to attract foreign direct investment. The priority should be on improving the environment for investment, the functioning of capital markets and consistencies in business tone and clarity in communicating the terms of legal guarantees for people’s investments. It is one thing to direct them to the Indigenisation and empowerment Act, and it is another thing actually sitting down and allaying their fears. It is the right information presented with the right tone that will allay those fears.

bernardbwoni.blogspot.com

Social media: 2018's electoral battlefront

By Bernard Bwoni

From the indistinct corners of Dotito to Lupane, the Zimbabwe political discourse has increasingly now been condensed into an iPhone or any other smartphone device. The demography of the Zimbabwe electorate is changing with a new shift towards new approaches to information outreach. This is happening fast and political parties in Zimbabwe might have to quickly adapt to this changing reality and be in sync with this trend. Social media has become a crucial platform where anyone and everyone can interact in an unstructured and informal manner. Dialogue on national issues is happening on social media at a pace that even the politicians themselves have to play catch up with what is happening in the country. The Internet is about instant connection and with 2018 just being around the corner this is going to be even more crucial electoral playing field. One Facebook user Sa Muchuwe made an observation on the ruling party official website that “ZANU-PF lives in the past. Their website still has dead people as the VP and fired Joyce Mujuru still in the presidium according to their website”. I checked and he is absolutely right that the site might need updating. It is debatable where he states that ruling party lives in the past because of the potency of its policies meant to empower. The reason why I mention this is that today’s electorate has become more observant, more instant and more critical. I am not a web designer, but I doubt that it takes a lot to update a website. These are the basics that matter and hence why this young Muchuwe observed it and mentioned it and then linked it to a limitation somewhere within the polity. Facebook should not be a platform for the connected to parade fancy cars and sprawling mansions but dialogue on what really matters to the ordinary man and women of Zimbabwe.

Facebook and Twitter are going to be hugely influential and will to a large extent play a decisive role in determining the outcome of the scuffle between the main political parties in the 2018 campaign. Professor Jonathan Moyo is perceptive and his increasing presence on social media is not a taboo but providing potential voters with information and a sound platform where young people can pose questions and discuss national issues. Young people are drawn to social media platforms in which they can engage with politicians and discuss policies at a human level without the pretentions of rehearsed rallies. The young people of today have been exposed to a world that is changing at an alarming pace. The traditional media in Zimbabwe used to mainly be the print media, the radio and TV and this is now being taken over by social media. The numbers of those engaged in Zimbabwe politics online is greater than ever before owing to greater access to Internet.

Technology has taken Zimbabwe by storm and social media is going to become extremely more persuasive than print media in spreading election messages and information. It is unfortunate that most politicians in Zimbabwe are not embracing it and some viewing it as shallow. Social media is an important platform for reaching out to voters. The majority of Zimbabweans now have access mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets and even in the remote rural areas many are beginning to have access. This is in no way meant to suggest that social media is going to determine the outcome of the election, but the fact of the matter it is going to be very important. It is a useful tool for assessing public opinion and also for disseminating information. As we slowly approach 2018, party websites, twitter, Facebook pages and YouTube videos are going to be critical in rallying party supporters, canvassing for the support and spreading party news and messages. Facebook in particular is going to be a fiercely competitive virtual battleground of ideology for the main political parties. Social media is a vital platform for national debate during elections and ignoring it would be short sighted for any political party. It is currently leading the discourse in Zimbabwe politics, it breaks the news as it happens and you do not need to even walk to the shops or wait for the bus from town to get a newspaper. Everything is right there on the smartphone. The social media gives politicians and their parties a stage to engage and lay out their visions. In the case of Zimbabwe social media compliments traditional media sources such as print, radio and television.

Facebook and Twitter in Zimbabwe are vibrant virtual forums for dialogue and discussions. Young people in Zimbabwe as anywhere else in the world are creating the content on social media that is playing an increasingly significant role in the public sphere and for political agenda setting. It is clearly interconnected with the mainstream media. It is providing an opportunity to connect Zimbabwe’s electorate, especially the young. The difficult with social media is always about sifting the wheat from the chaff, the purely propaganda from the candour. Zimbabwe is thrust in a world of social media and it would be disastrous for politicians not to fully embrace this important information platform. Election battles are going to be on social media and less at the big rally fronts. It is those politicians who familiarise themselves with social media, make their presence felt and state engaging positively with the electorate who are going to dominate, inform and get their party message heard.

The trend in Zimbabwe has seen the power of social media in electoral politics and diminishing relevance of traditional media sources who have been playing catch up with online sources. Politicians cannot afford to ignore the power of social media and the Internet as a platform for spreading their party message and convincing the electorate to vote for them. The point by Sa Muchuwe that the ruling party is “living in the past yet we expect them to plan a futuristic economy” can be challenged if the ruling party starts to fully embrace social media to engage these young people. The ruling party has a solid base, has history and sound policies that are meant to empower the youth of Zimbabwe. There is need to present a savvy image on social media to be able to broadly relate to these young people and in so doing present the party vision to them.

Household access and individual usage of the Internet has been on the rise in Zimbabwe. In 2018, those born after 1980 will account a significant chunk of the voters and this group happens to be the main consumers of social media and the Internet. There is need to begin the preparations by recruiting young, savvy and dynamic people to support them better manage their social media engagement. Social media has the potential to be an asset if managed effectively or weapon against if mismanaged. The best way to influence social discussions is not necessarily to provide facts but to provoke. Provocation triggers debate and dialogue. Zimbabwe is in this new media zone that has transformed media space and is going to play pivotal role in transforming elections. There has been a technological transformation of news and information. Today it is a lot easier to just look at your smartphone for the latest news rather than a newspaper or television. This shift is changing the way politicians communicate and reach out to the electorate. It is changing the tone and content of the Zimbabwe political narrative. The electorate is now presented with instant information than before. Social media is going to be the ultimate battlefront in the 2018 election campaign. This is a platform that is going to favour sentiment over logic. That is how the 2018 election campaign going to play.

bernardbwoni.blogspot.com

BUILD: A manifesto on how to (un)BUILD Zimbabwe

By Bernard Bwoni

To build means to shape or to improve something. It entails the formation and development of something. When you build you are assembling or putting something together to come up with a complex creation. Building is an art, it requires skill, it is about learning that building skill and building a structure with those skills learned. To build anything is a revolutionary process and there is need for a strategy, a plan and the right tools for the project. It appears that the BUILD blueprint that is being circulated with the signature of the former VP Joyce Mujuru has ‘tools’ as its drafters and no tools for the actual building task itself. A builder has a plan, has tools, has something tangible to look forward to, involve a skill, it follows a pattern and a logical step-by-step approach. The architects of the BUILD blueprint have been haphazard, elusive, and indecisive and not willing to be publicly associated with the outcome of their efforts in coming up with this document. It is going to be difficult to sell the contents of a blueprint whose architects are refusing to claim ownership. To build requires the ground preparatory work. It is about laying down solid foundations that would be able to withstand anything. Those secretly peddling the document via the media do not have the right 'parts' to assemble anything complex let alone assemble anything. You know something is not right when 8 months after being booted out of the ruling party one then has a damascene moment and decides to put people first. They had over 30 years to put people first, but instead put self ahead of all else and now 8 months in the political wilderness they are 'in it for the people' and making claims to build. How can you build with no builders, no tools and no ground to build from?

There is nothing ground-breaking about an economic blueprint with a disturbing preoccupation with ‘property rights’ and carefully worded statements like ‘all persons who call Zimbabwe “home” shall be entitled to access land and participate in its sustainable utilization’. All of the architects of the BUILD are clearly aware of the contents of the country’s constitution as they were until recently part and parcel of the same system they are now purporting requires rebuilding. It is important to note that Chapter 4, Part 2, section 71 and 72 of the constitution addresses the issue of property rights in Zimbabwe. Section 71, subsection 2, states “subject to section 72, every person has the right, in any part of Zimbabwe, to acquire, hold, occupy, use, transfer, hypothecate, lease or dispose of all forms of property, either individually or in association with others”. Section 72 relates to agricultural land. As per the country's people-driven constitution every Zimbabwean has a right to property and not just “any persons who call Zimbabwe “home”. The constitution recognise the right of all Zimbabweans of all colours, race and they do have a right to property. Section 72 addresses the issue of those who wrongfully entered another's land with force and arms, dispossessed them. Section 72 is a written right to re-enter own land and re-establish this right under the protection of the constitution. It follows the principles of equitable distribution following conquest, displacement and dispossession. Trying to undo the provisions of Section 72 of the constitution is simply a way to un-build what has been built for the previously displaced people of Zimbabwe.

The BUILD document also reads, "We shall enforce, promote and respect property rights and address historical compulsory acquisition through fair and transparent compensation". In the context of Zimbabwe, this property rights contention is now defunct, is not exactly absolute and BUILD brings forward the unimaginative arguments for the free market economics and private property system whilst neglecting the injustices that shaped the property rights narrative that Zimbabwe had to dismantle to get to where the country is today. The issue of property rights has been done and dealt with exhaustively within the provisions of the country’s constitution. Conquest and coercion may have enforced legal rights to property in the early days of colonization but did not create moral rights to land grabbed illegally. The new Zimbabwe constitution addresses the issues of property and property relating to agricultural land sufficiently. Those trying to choke the nation with this property rights sophistry have to realize that most property rights arguments say very little about the injustice of the claims to property, that is the holdings of those who first and forcibly wrestled property (land) from original inhabitants of Zimbabwe. BUILD needs to build on a strong argument on property rights focusing on those displaced and not champion the cause of those who displaced. The property rights narrative needs to be broken down to its bare basics and understood within the context of historical displacement and correct the notion of how rectifying that is being misconstrued as having created another form of displacement.

The document reads, ‘we shall give immediate value to agricultural land by providing transparent land policy framework that attracts investment, creates, promotes and supports security of tenure and bankable leases’. This persistence with property rights and ‘security of tenure’ throughout the whole document is worrying and has the neoliberal marks as prescribed to the MDC-T before BUILD. The question to pose is how are they going to “give immediate value to agricultural land”? The proposals within BUILD will inevitably lead to a reversal of the land reform and those behind this blueprint are aware of it or oblivious to it. There is a risk that with what BUILD proposes as a “land policy framework that attracts investment, creates, promotes and supports security of tenure” most of those who benefited from the land reform might end up selling up and that goes against the provisions of the constitution within Section 72. BUILD aims to un-build what the land reform achieved that is to redress a historical inequality. The likelihood of one selling up to land grabbers if full title is given to land is very high. The likelihood of people borrowing money against the land and using that money purchase Range Rovers, Louis Vuitton, Romanee-Conti Grand Cur and everything else but farming is very high. The idea of the 99 year leases is there for the resettled farmers to establish themselves first, to realise the real value of the land for present and future generations and then only then will this ownership will be meaningful. BUILD intends to disrupt that process in their quest to un-build what the land reform built.

The BUILD document goes on to state ‘we shall facilitate availability of adequate and affordable lines of credit through guarantee of property rights, sanctity of contracts and other investor protection mechanisms’.  The document is offering a lot of ‘guarantees’ and most of these are ‘property rights’ relating to land. What they are arguing for is a transformation approach to property rights. This is in fact a finders-keeper approach and claims by those who want a reversal of the country’s land reform is based on the first occupancy argument. It is important to understand the full property rights argument especially so for Africa because of a history of illegal occupation, property rights in terms of land need to be addressed in the way they have been addressed within the Zimbabwe constitution. BUILD and before them, the MDC-T has been fronting the first occupancy property rights argument, that the first person to transform an unoccupied field into a farm owns the farm. The transformation approach claims that any person who transforms an ‘unowned’ resource owns what he creates, thus owns the transformation. This is an unreasonable argument because merely being the first person to observe something does not give you any right to full private ownership. In the context of the Zimbabwe situation, there were original inhabitants of those lands who were displaced. The original inhabitants have the full right to the land and hence the provisions as set within the country’s constitution that addressed the issue of property rights in two sections, the right to property and the right to property relating to agricultural land.

bernardbwoni.blogspot.com

Zimbabwe- the new economy beckons, Africa's next economic hub

By Bernard Bwoni

Earlier this year I predicted that Zimbabwe was destined to be Sub-Saharan Africa’s second biggest economy after South Africa in the next three years. I was wrong, my apologies and I am going to revise that and categorically state with absolute certainty that in the next two years Zimbabwe is in fact going to be Sub-Saharan Africa’s second largest economy after South Africa. Yes, within the next two years and not three. In this article I am not going to focus on why the country’s economy hit rock bottom, but rather what has happened over the past 15 years and the implications this will have on the type of economic recovery the country is going to experience to land that second spot of economic dominance this side of the continent.

The first step is to urgently move away from the politics of division and discord, refrain from personal attacks and focus on public not personal achievement and away from negatively campaigning against the country but rather, put emphasis on a positive genesis. The next step is to get the economy growing again and the current government has been making the right noises even under the current disabling conditions but still there is more that can be done. The growth of the Zimbabwe economy is inevitable, this is coming and there is no way round that, but the challenge is going to be how to get that growth strong enough such that the country can regain the losses made since the turn of the millennium and maintain that. Once gains are made on the losses, the country will need to achieve an above average growth rate for at least the next 5-10 years uninterrupted to recover from the losses made since 1999, a tough ask but achievable if all the stages of economic recovery are adhered to.

Zimbabwe’s economy is going to bounce back and bounce back big that is. There is work to be done but this growth will happen. It is low productivity, low output and high unemployment that are the economy’s major drawbacks and for the economy to rebound, these are the main areas that will require urgent attention. The difference between output and employment is labour productivity. In Zimbabwe, over the past 15 years, labour productivity growth has grounded to zero. The key to addressing this productivity problem is to bring real wages to move with labour productivity. The country has everything in place and just requires an urgent injection of money into the economy. Investment, domestic or external, is key as it brings in this funding, funding is important in increasing productivity and companies are likely to expand with financing and investment. Money respects money, even so in a bad economy. The investors are coming to Zimbabwe and that is an unavoidable reality. The key is to retain them, to mollycoddle them if we have to and allay any misconceptions they have about the country’s investment laws.

The Zimbabwe economic crisis was created (again I am not writing the article to apportion any blame) but there is a real danger that the power those that created the crisis has over the country may mean the ground lost over the last 15 years may prove a big challenge to tackle. As a country there is need to understand each and every stage of our economic recovery, understand that things have changed and conditions are different compared to the pre-2000 period. There is no point in believing that things are not so bad and that some knight in shining amour is going to come from some far off lands to save us. As a people we have to free ourselves from that apathetic and defeatist attitude where we are busy convincing ourselves that there is nothing that can be done about our current economic predicament. We have to embrace the severity of the economic situation, do away with some old actions that will not work in the current climate.

There is need to prioritise new skills, new abilities, new personnel and new actions in order to move forward. This is what is going to breathe new life into the economy and then and lead to the reinvention and reinvigoration of this economy. It is about taking new actions and getting new results. If old actions are resulting in old outcomes then the idea is to replace them with new ones. These new actions, new skills and new approaches have to start from the top and cascaded downwards. The top has to sell the idea, make the bottom believe and subscribe to that idea of a home grown economic recovery. At the moment there is too much energy being wasted on who is to blame and little being used to find practical ways to produce our way out of the current malaise. It is about correctly estimating the changes, challenges and efforts required to get the economy moving forward again. Our concern as a country should no longer be about who is to blame but rather what needs to be done. The hard reality is that no one is going to bail us out. It is going to require the collective strength of the Zimbabwe people, the collective effort, creativity and persistence to get the country’s economic wheels turning again. It is about developing new skills for we are confronted with a new economy and these are unchartered waters calling for new set of skills. The old skills that aided Zimbabwe’s pre-2000 economy will fall short going forwards with advent and emergence of this new economy. The risks to the country’s economy are multifold, they remain ever present and focus should be primarily on jobs creation and getting the economy growing again. Last year our economy grew at a very slow pace and that is the first major challenge to address, get the economy growing again. At the moment the economy is not growing, and no amount of speculation, economic theories and models are not going to get the economy growing. See how the statement ‘get the economy growing again’ was repeated? That is because there is no economic recovery that is going to happen with an economy that is not growing.

The nation, especially the opposition, has to shift away from the unnecessary repetition about ‘failed policies’ and start a narrative of an economy that can recover. The government is sending the right signals to would be investors and Zimbabwe is poised for a more rapid recovery. The upcoming re-engagement EU trip by a delegation from Zimbabwe including the Industry and Commerce Minister, Infrastructure Minister and other ministry officials are all positive steps towards getting the economy growing again. Investors require certainty and a reduction in investment obstacles. The fundamentals of the Zimbabwe economy are not exactly broken but require fine-tuning. We are well aware that the natural productive streak of the Zimbabwe workers and entrepreneurs is still evident. Zimbabwe is the entrepreneurial hub of Africa and those are the solid foundations of an economy that is set to take off. There are challenges, a dearth of confidence and an abundance of uncertainty in the economy. It appears that those entrusted with the responsibility to make decisions and take actions that would grow the economy appear to lack the confidence to do that. The government has laid the right foundations for this economy to grow and now it is up to all Zimbabweans to play their part in setting that growth in motion. The economy has the potential for growth, and turning that potential into real growth requires the right actions and to take action requires confidence. The country is lacking in confidence because of the uncertainty that is prevailing, uncertainty about the hereafter and uncertainty and hesitancy about key government policies. There are some mixed messages about such fundamental policies as indigenization and empowerment. These are policies that are key to the country’s economic recovery and they need to be addressed consistently. Clarity and consistency reigns in uncertainty. There is always a level of uncertainty in this world, however, there is need to address such uncertainty when it arises and becomes detrimental to economic growth. Potential investors to Zimbabwe are posing genuine questions about what they perceive to be the potential of unfavorable consequences of the country’s policies on their investments. These are issues that need to be addressed with clarity and consistency. Uncertainty has a negative impact on the entire economy.

Those entrusted into positions of policy making have to realize that constant interference in the economy does more harm than good. The sky is the limit to the harm that they can do to the economy in their efforts and genuine hope that they are doing something for the economy. The Zimbabwe economy is in recovery, the endless poking and intervention by the powers that be has only helped slow down growth. The economy needs to heal before we can open the wounds again and perform more economic surgery. The current high unemployment (formal) is not sustainable. There is a real urgent need to keenly focus on what can be done by government to help the economy recover and at the same time recognize the limitations of some policy initiatives. The tone from government is pointing to such. The fact that a policy has limitations does not in any way imply that it is a flawed policy, but rather a challenge that can be addressed. The government of Zimbabwe has been receptive and responsive to all these and the actions they are taking today are the reasons why this economy is poised to be second only to South Africa in the next two years. I state this with confidence and certainty.

bernardbwoni.blogspot.com