Mutumwa Mawere

The frontiers of poverty have increased during the last 28 years. The causes of the current condition of the Zimbabwean economy will continue to be a subject of debate for years to come.

Global financial markets have not been in greater turmoil since the Great Depression and normally economic chaos tends to bring political extremism. It is not unusual for countries caught in an economic quagmire to search for scapegoats.

Zimbabwe is not alone to take advantage of the current state of the world economy by attempting to rewrite its own history. Capitalism's strength in advancing human progress has been demonstrated over the years and yet its attackers are determined to use the current crisis to advance a new argument that socialism may, indeed, provide a solution for countries like Zimbabwe.

The nature, content and context of the Zimbabwean political, economic and social crisis have produced its own opportunities and challenges. Everyone assumed that the leaders of post-colonial Zimbabwe were possessed with the knowledge that was required to deal with the challenges of creating a progressive and inclusive society. However, the proof of the pudding always ought to be in the eating.

The severity of the current crisis, the pain it is inflicting on Zimbabweans and the shock it continues to deliver to conventional wisdom compels Zimbabweans to reflect on the past and decide on what kind of economic model they need to lift themselves out of the mess.

The role of the state to the extent that even the most developed capitalism systems have had to look to the state to intervene in the face of market failure will need to be reflected on and a balance between regulation and deregulation; and the state and market be struck.

Gono, whose first term as Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ), is due to expire at the end of this month feels vindicated that his approach to regulation and reliance on quasi-fiscal activities was justified and, indeed, was the appropriate medicine for the sick economy. President Mugabe who over the last 5 years has outsourced macro-economic management to the RBZ also feels that Gono has played a critical and catalytic role in keeping the economy going against a hostile sanctions regime and unfavorable economic and political situation.

For how can anyone blame Gono for being creative when the world has now come to terms with the fact that unregulated capitalism can be toxic? To the extent that the custodians of a capitalism model are now on the defensive, who can dare blame the Zimbabwean government for using the similar non-market instruments to advance national interest.

Gono like his principal is a controversial figure in the Zimbabwean political and economic matrix. Calls have been made for his removal and yet the current global meltdown has given him and his supporters a new lease of life. He can now argue as he has already done using the media that he is a messiah and should be congratulated for being the first one to recognize that keeping the currency printing press busy was a strategic decision.

Can we safely say that Gono was the right man for the job? This question can only be answered by undertaking a rational analysis of the policies and programs put in place by Gono as well as the true nature of the Zimbabwean economic crisis.

To what extent is the Zimbabwean crisis a result of a wrong ideology, populism, misplaced economic nationalism, bad economics, absence of the rule of law, lack of respect for property rights and sheer incompetence. Equally to what extent is the Zimbabwean crisis a result of market failure or state failure?

The last 28 years have seen the state attempt to create alternative economic instruments for transformation in the form of state institutions. To a large extent such institutions have failed to deliver what they were expected to do. For one to argue that the state can be trusted as a market corrector and referee, one has to determine whether the state actors are fully equipped to provide the kind of leadership expected of them. Even a referee has to know the game but can anyone say with certainty that Zimbabwean state actors know what the country requires.

Gono's new found confidence that his policies are what the country requires; is not supported by any empirical evidence demonstrating any supply response arising from the implementation of his policies. In terms of transparency, I do not believe that Zimbabweans know the full extent Gono has mortgaged the future. Unlike his counterparts in the West, he is not accountable to anyone. Parliament has no clue about what the RBZ is doing let alone the cabinet.

He has assumed functions that are normally reserved for parliament by intervening directly in the affairs of line ministries. He can now with confidence claim to be the real driver of the economy but regrettably not to a destination of prosperity but more poverty.

It may be easy to conclude that Gono is some kind of a socialist and the movement in traditional capitalist system towards a state directed economic destination is a vindication of the appropriateness of Gono's medicine. However, the last 5 years of Gonomics have shown that more of the medicine may be more toxic and lethal. Can Zimbabwe take more of Gono's experiments? Only you can answer.