Mutumwa Mawere

It is not accidental that many of the people seized with the responsibility of shaping the future of Zimbabwe work within the categories of race, class and ethnicity. Any attempt to think outside these categories carries with it risks of being misunderstood.

There are no easy answers and the framers of the colonial exclusionary society may also have been challenged by the same categories but chose to create a society that undermined the humanity of the people the system sought to civilize.

I believe that ideas can change the world. After all nation states is nothing more than a creation of human beings. However, when giving birth to anything one must not underestimate the obligations parentage and it is important that we of this generation never cease to take advantage of good conversations because it is only through them that the possibilities and opportunities squandered and to be taken advantaged of can be better understood.

It is for this reason that I chose the conversation arising from my article entitled: "Zimbabwe 2009 - So much to do with limited resources and capacity" as worthy of sharing with you.

MM stands for me and the comments came from one of the readers who keep my mind sharp by often reminding me of the implications of some of the views that I believe in. Everybody agrees that Zimbabwe has to get out of the economic quagmire but we all may not agree about the tactics and strategies and more importantly the ideological premises on which the change agenda ought to be crafted and implemented.

MM: It was evident from President Robert Mugabe's speech at the launch (of Sterp) that a new realisation that Zimbabwe has to look outside Africa for assistance has dawned.

Comment: what was the "look east" policy about if not that "realisation"?

MM: The look East was an attempt to distract attention from what the country really required(s). If it was serious there would be no need for the President to make a case against sanctions. The East would have easily filled the void created by sanctions. The realisation is that the West is still a factor for any country that seeks to advance its cause. Even in the face of the worst economic and financial crisis, the East is acutely conscious that if the West does not recover the ripple effects are devastating. The East needs a functioning West and its economic renaissance was premised on a growing market in the West.The interdependence is obvious. The problem is the flip flop approach to policy making. You should be asking Mugabe what has happened for him now to look to the devil West for economic salvation. Mugabe can attack the West yet he needs the same people for the country to move forward-since when do you need your enemy to advance your just cause. A General should plan his battle before risking his troops in battle only to find that he needs his adversary to keep the battle alive.

MM: Such (IMF) reforms were not implemented to their logical conclusion and the worldview that helped create the economic distortions of the late 1980s has not changed to allow any rational mind to expect that STERP will produce the kind of outcomes that the country requires.

Comment: i don't know if the IMF has ever recommended a rational policy to any developing country. how do you avoid subsidies, price controls, lower school and hospital fees for the poor and call yourself a people's govt? that is the dilemma that faces an MDC govt because it behaves as if the IMF and WB are welcome to do as they wish. that would be the end of the MDC. business is good, but so are the people who buy.

MM: It is not IMF reforms that I was talking about. At independence, the government made choices to spend money (borrowed) on education and infrastructure. This had to be done. However, this could only be sustainable in a growing economy. Unfortunately, the economy did not grow and little focus was spent on growing the economy. As a result in the middle and late 1980s, the government came to the realisation that the policies (social intervention) were not sustainable hence the approach to the IMF. You can choose to blame the fire brigade but what is more important is to look at the cause of the fire. The fire was caused by choices that were made to respond to the colonial legacy. No country needs to remove subsidies if it can afford them. Price controls without a reliable and efficient supply chain are toxic and often counterproductive. Lower school and hospital fees are great if someone pays. There has to be a payer. The need for structural reforms was not caused by the IMF but by the realisation that harvesting school graduates is more elusive than anything. The majority of the beneficiaries of free education are now paying taxes outside the country. The only benefit is the remittances flowing from the diaspora. How reliable is this for planning purposes? The income is not contractual and, therefore, is not certain.The debate should not be about MDC or the IMF but what kind of Zimbabwe you want to see. If you believe that the policies of the government - pro-poor can work without someone paying for it - then help us understand how this will work. Why call for external help when the business model is not well thought out? We have already been there - free education ---more of this or that from the state---trusting state actors to plan for tomorrow---what do we have to show for the past 29 years---your answers can help advance the debate rather than focus on what the IMF wants to see. It is Mugabe who wants sanctions to be lifted so that Zim can have access to the IMF. Why look West when you know the worldview that informs its policies? If you look West then you must adjust your values so that there is alignment with the sponsors. No free lunch - in this world. Zim is no exception I should like to believe.

MM: As Minister Biti and his colleagues prepare to engage the sanctions imposers, it is important that domestic voices also become vocal about what kind of Zimbabwe they want to see. It should not be the Zimbabwe that donors want to see.

Comment: but that is what your article is saying Mawere, that without bending to the dictates of the West we are doomed. If we need the West then we have to appreciate the values that informs the West's worldview. However, it is important that domestic voices are respected because it should not matter where the money comes from as long as it can generate returns. The tendency in most African states is to treat foreign investment as superior to local investment. As you are aware, we have also been victimised by a black government and yet the inclusive government has no agenda for us. Mugabe would rather make peace with the West than with Makamba for instance. How hollow? I would expect you to read between the lines and understand what I was trying to communicate. As long as Joram is not respected it would be futile to cast the net wider and expect foreigners to feel comfortable when the natives are externalised. The new beginning has to start with correcting the past wrongs. If Mugabe/Tsvangirai/Mutambara can share the same cabinet room I do not see why Kuruneri and Tsvangirai for instance cannot find something in common. However, the approach is to reach out to people from far away ignoring the people who can quickly inspire confidence. If Makamba were to come back to Zimbabwe today for instance what kind of moral boost will that give to people who are on the verge of leaving Zim?

MM: However, the President challenged the business community to desist from profiteering, a tendency that he believes detracts from noble government initiatives. Profit is the measure of success or failure of an economic enterprise. He must know by now that an unstable economy is susceptible to speculative pricing and any attempt to convert business into some kind of a salvation army will not work.

Comment: govts the world over worry about this. Even Obama was complaining about the same last week in the very home and heart of capitalist enterprise. any economy that has no "perfect"competition will be "unstable" and we dont have perfect competition any where in the world. that is why govts intervene. nit's a matter of degree depending on the level of sophistication and the ability of the market to regulate itself. where productive levels are low, there is bound to be low competition, and limited choice for consumers, hence greater need for govt intervention.Yes government worry about profiteering. However, without profits there would be no business and without business there would be no tax payers. Without income there can be no tax paid. Government is just an organ of citizens to advance their collective interests. If the government worries about profits then it should provide an alternative. What motivates people to do more than they have to just to survive may be found in the mechanism in which businesses are rated. Profits just gives a barometer of the response of customers to your products and solutions. The customers are the ones that can make or break a business. Only a foolish businessman would focus on undue profits rather than sustainability because customers can find alternatives and more importantly other people may get into the same business. As long as you have a free society where entrepreneurs can enter and leave businesses as they wish then the market can play a better role in regulating economic behaviour. Governments can and are critical in regulating the market environment but I am not sure whether an elected person can be a better player than a referee. Right now Zimbabweans are purchasing goods and services that are imported and in so doing they are exporting jobs while the factories in Zimbabwe are idle. Who is responsible for this absurdity? The prices of the imported goods are not controlled. However, prior to dollarization the prices were controlled so was the export price of goods through the exchange rate mechanism.A producer did not know when next he would get access to foreign currency unless he was connected to the system. The prices reflected the distortions created by intervention. People had to find alternatives and the RBZ was participating in the black market while pretending otherwise. Can you trust the gov of Zim to make the right choices for you?

MM: Sustainable change has to come from organized citizens who must now know that the future is their responsibility and Zimbabwe does not belong to politicians.

Comment: but you are telling the same "citizens" that MDC "politicians" are gods, different from self-centredness of zanu pf "politicians".

MM: I have never said that MDC politicians are Gods. Please identify where I have said this. What I have preached is citizen responsibility. I have always said that we must be the change that we want to see. I do not trust another man to be the change that I want to see. I have to add my voice and actions to the change that I want to see. Yes MDC people are new to the state and they may be more amenable to see the world as it is and not as it should be. Mugabe has been in the game for too long and the system has no capacity to tell him what time it is. He may not have moved an inch from the Mugabe of 1979. He still looks at the rear view mirror and many in ZANU-PF are afraid to tell him the honest truth that Zimbabweans (many of them) would rather be outside the country than in it. People have to be encouraged to believe again.There are many in the diaspora who see the emergence of the MDC as positive to the extent that it has created a plural environment where ideas can be ventilated without the state being used for political and partisan interests. We have to seize the moment and encourage the new players to be the voice that we think should inform government policies. I do not think that your characterisation of what I believe in is fair and honest. Where did I say that ZANU-PF are self centred? Yes some have been in power for too long and may not easily change their worldview because they may not know what the general public knows. The general public may already have discounted government and is now operating as if there is no government. He/she would rather go for the dollar than the Z$ because they now know that Zim has been sufficiently discredited that being a President or Minister means absolutely nothing for someone on the death bed looking for a doctor or medicines.