Mutumwa Mawere

After 28 years in power, it may be surprising to many observers that the theme for President Mugabe's run off election campaign is "100 Percent Empowerment, Total Independence", not only because one would expect President Mugabe to account for his record as the undisputed leader of a post colonial Zimbabwe but it represents the ultimate hypocrisy by a leader who knows that he has nothing new to offer than dwell on the past while avoiding to talk about his failures.

Having reluctantly accepted that he lost the 29 March election, President Mugabe now wants the country to believe that if he were to be re-elected on 27 June, the country will be in safer and responsible hands and that miraculously he will be able to do what he has failed to do for the last 28 years.

For any leader, 28 years is a long time and Zimbabwean people must be congratulated for being patient with President Mugabe. At independence, President Mugabe knew that the agenda for a post colonial Zimbabwe necessarily called for transformation and growth. He should and must have known that black Zimbabweans were already exposed to poverty and alienation from their natural resources.

Who could have guessed that President Mugabe would 28 years after independence run his campaign on empowerment issues without even attempting to explain why he had allowed so-called colonial and imperialist forces to entrench themselves under his watch.

People are now entitled to ask legitimate questions about President Mugabe's record on empowerment. Even if we accept that the Lancaster House Constitution imposed its own limits on the speed with which the land reform program could be implemented, it is still important to raise the question of how much was done or not done by President Mugabe's administration to transform the land ownership structure before what has been described as a politically manipulated stalemate with former Prime Minister Tony Blair's government.

At independence the white population was no more than 250,000 and today the population could be no more than 50,000. All the whites who elected to stay in post colonial Zimbabwe did so on the understanding that President Mugabe's government was sovereign and was in total control of the instruments of power and at all material times he did not behave as if he we under siege.

However, 28 years later and still in charge, President Mugabe is making the case that in truth and fact he was never in control. This leads any rational person to ask how no more than 5,000 white Zimbabwean farmers under the control of President Mugabe could cause so much grief to a man who has presented himself not only to his people but to the rest of the world as a strong and responsible African leader.

For President Mugabe to now talk about 100% empowerment raises many unanswered questions about his credibility.

The President has made the case that black Zimbabweans need his stewardship to protect the so-called gains of land reform. Some cynics have asked whether in fact there would be a land issue in Zimbabwe if white commercial farmers had not utilized the land into productive economic units.

President Mugabe's election manifesto in so far as he now purports to be the champion of the poor resonates with the views of many naïve Africans. In fact, he may be able to get away with this kind of cheap politics if the hypocrisy is not exposed.

A case has been made that the mere transfer of title to an asset i.e. land, mineral resources, and other economic assets necessarily constitutes empowerment. President Mugabe sees the role of the state as that of any parent who allocates resources to his children as inheritance ignoring empirical facts that demonstrate that inherited wealth does not necessarily mean that the beneficiary will be able to succeed in terms of efficiency and output.

Even in discussing the question of African poverty it would be irresponsible to argue that the mere transfer of land rights to the poor translates itself into economic prosperity. The last 8-9 years have demonstrated that farm output has dismally declined and Zimbabwe is now facing the embarrassment of importing maize from former Zimbabwean farmers who are now operating in Zambia.

Does President Mugabe's understanding of poverty in Zimbabwe and reasons thereof reflect the reality on the ground? To what extent have wrong policies of President Mugabe's administration been responsible for exacerbating black African poverty? Do asset transfer schemes work as poverty alleviation mechanisms? What should the role of the state be in engineering social and economic changes?

At independence, the majority of the poor were black and nothing has changed in Zimbabwe. What is the possibility that change will be attainable if President Mugabe were to be re-elected? Does President Mugabe know what the country needs to move forward? How best can Zimbabweans tell President Mugabe that Idi Amin's type policies do not deliver value?

This is the first week of June and at the end of this month Zimbabwe may have a new President if the votes are counted and announced on time. There are two individuals who will be on the ballot box and it is clear to everyone that Zimbabwe needs to turn a new leaf.

Empowerment is a recycled argument that any desperate person trying to cling to power is easily tempted to use. Anyone who does not understand the proper role of the state can be excused for accepting cheap arguments that a state can lift a country up by merely changing the names on title deeds.

It has been accepted universally that the most reliable engine of growth is the private sector and most sovereign economic units cannot be relied upon to move any nation forward. It may be argued that the experience in China and other former communist state capitalist systems suggests that the state can be a reliable agent for nation building and economic progress but without a fundamental change in policies, the progress we witness in these countries would have been impossible to attain.

In the case of Zimbabwe, an analysis of the post colonial experience would suggest that President Mugabe's administration has been found wanting in using state institutions as instruments for production and efficiency. Most of the institutions established by President Mugabe's government have failed and even prior to the land reform stalemate, the government of Zimbabwe had conceded that the state corporations were a drain on the fiscus at a time when the tax base was shrinking due to punitive economic policies.

It would, therefore, be unreasonable to expect that President Mugabe's new administration will have any new ideas that can work. It has been generally accepted that President Mugabe is not a friend of the private sector whether black or white controlled. It is not clear how a regime that is not a friend of agents of economic transformation can be trusted after 28 years of missed opportunities to move the country forward.

Many have observed that President Mugabe is a man of the past and Zimbabwe urgently needs a new face in the statehouse. The state is broke not because of a colonial conspiracy but due to the fact that the numbers do not add up. President Mugabe believes that a state can never be bankrupt and can exist even without a tax base. It is not surprising that the busiest and most productive factory in Zimbabwe today is the printing press.

Can any country that prints money as a substitute for production be classified as a viable entity? President Mugabe has made the case that he will transfer assets to penniless blacks after the elections and hence they should vote for him so that they can have share certificates in place of food and jobs.

One would have expected President Mugabe to take the country's problems seriously given the consequences. However, the mere fact that he is still campaigning on the empowerment ticket and his name is on the ballot paper must scare anyone who passionately believes in Zimbabwe's future.

If there was anytime that people of Zimbabwe must come together for a project that will save the country from total economic collapse it is now and the hour is fast approaching. Many have spoken about government of national unity as a substitute to taking a stand against violence and bankrupt policies. Zimbabwe is too important to retreat into silence and inaction.

Given that President Mugabe has been tried and tested with known outcomes it is time that a new leader emerges on 27 June. This should not be an accident of history and it is evident that there is a desperate man on the ballot paper who will stop at nothing to remain in power.

The only viable and predictable instrument for empowering Zimbabweans is not to entrench the status quo but to vote and become part of the history makers. The hour of change will become a footnote of history if the people who care about the future decide to watch a naked emperor play games in the name of empowerment.

Surely cash flow is more important than share certificates. It is your time to tell President Mugabe what time it is. It should and must be Zimbabwean time and not a tired President's time. The vote has all the answers to violence as long as people fix their eyes on the prize.