AS PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe celebrated his 11th birthday (as he described it i.e. 8 plus 3), the state of the nation ought to have been in his mind and there can be no better concern for any head of state than the economic, political and social challenges that confront the country.
I read the article, ”RBZ pacifies restive judges”, published by the Zimbabwe Independent on 23 February 2007 with great interest not only because it comes on the back of a commitment by the RBZ Governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, that the RBZ had stopped quasi-fiscal operations, but because the implications of the RBZ donating assets to the judiciary circumventing the budgetary process in resource allocation poses a threat to the quality and independence of the judiciary.
It was reported that the donation by the RBZ was in the form of 30 vehicles, 30 laptops, and 30 desktop computers that included Toyota IMV trucks. This came on the back of the complaint by Judge President Rita Makarau last month about the lack of resources available to the judiciary and the implicit threat that if there is no intervention, Zimbabwe should not expect an independent judiciary.
Instead of the government responding by frame-working the resource requirements of the judiciary in conjunction with other sectors, the RBZ responds with real resources without any disclosure on the source of the funds. If Judge Makarau’s prayer is answered in a month, how should other equally deserving departments of government access resources? Is the Makarau formula, a harbinger to how the government should be responding to the needs of the governed? What is so special about the judiciary that the RBZ would come to the rescue?
This led me to locate the role of the judiciary in the post-Mugabe era. Could it be that a compromised judiciary may be handy to any political aspirant who may have something to hide?
What is interesting about the story is the denial by the Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs that the donation was in response to Justice Makarau’s complaints about poor conditions for judges. This is what the Minister is reported to have said: “Yes we got the cars and the computers which we will be distributing to the judges soon. In fact, some of them already have their cars. There is nothing sinister about the donation from the central bank because those are state funds they are using."
It is not clear from the Minister’s statement under what construction would the use of state funds outside the budgetary process be classified as a donation? Who is donating to whom and for what benefit?
Minister Chinamasa then proceeded to say that his ministry was planning to train the judges in the use of the computers. There are about 45 judges in the country.
A number of troubling questions emerge from the conduct of the RBZ and the contradictions raised by the Minister’s response. If the computers are part of the capital expenditure program of the Ministry, then it is not clear why would the funds be treated as a donation? Who procured the computers? Were state procurement guidelines used in the procurement process? Who supplied the computers? What is government policy on donations of hardware by quasi-state actors? Who approved the donation at the RBZ? What was the role of the Ministry in the donation arrangement?
It was also reported that the issue of equity emerged when labour court judges also demanded that they benefit from the donated vehicles. In other words, they were legitimately questioning why if state resources were used; only a select few were targeted as beneficiaries. Having been a victim of Makarau’s judgment in a matter in which my company sued the Minister of Justice, it occurred to me cynically that I should not have expected any justice when the Judge President is a beneficiary of an opaque governance and resource allocation scheme.
I could not help but wonder whether the speech by Makarau was orchestrated to generate the kind of response that we now see where no-one can accuse the RBZ of interfering in the resource allocation process through quasi-fiscal activities, when it is now common cause that to get justice in Zimbabwe, you need to placate the judiciary. It confirms that where things fall apart, it pays to threaten the executive.
While the RBZ Governor has made the stand on devaluation that there will not be any devaluation unless there is a social contract to provide a framework for managing the hyperinflationary environment, it is surprising that he could not tell Makarau that they also should wait until the political and economic crisis is resolved through a social contract before the so-called donation can be made.
I can only pity those that may appear before any of the beneficiaries of the computers and cars in a case involving the Governor of the RBZ and the Minister of Justice. Can you really expect that these judges will forget where their car keys came from? Equally, can you expect the Makarau gang to join the regime change chorus? It is true that justice purchased is an enduring threat and cancer to any Republic established on the doctrine of the separation of the three pillars of the state. I shudder to think what would happen if citizens were to match the donations to the judiciary that we now see coming from the government through the RBZ.
I think that the actions of the RBZ on the financing of the judiciary should open a window for Zimbabweans to debate on what kind of Republic they should have. Yes, 27 years after independence, we find that the President through his cabinet is failing to manage the state to the extent that donations become a substitute for a budget. Where is the Minister of Finance? Where is the CEO of Zimbabwe? Who should be culpable for the state of affairs? In the words of our founding fathers, may be donations are necessary to fight the diabolical policies of Blair!
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Blair, Mugabe and the Zimbabwe crisis
ON WEDNESDAY, February 21, 2007, President Mugabe will turn 83.
For better or worse, Zimbabwe’s post-colonial history is inextricably linked to this man and yet he remains as much an enigma as his is regarded a villain or warrior depending on who you talk to.
In trying to understand Mugabe, my attention was drawn to a story that was published in the Herald on Saturday, 17 February 2007, “Zim, UK talks off: President”, written by the editor of the newspaper, Pikirayi Deketeke in which he reported that the mediation efforts of former President Mkapa in the rift between Mugabe and Blair had been shelved. What was more interesting to me were the comments made President Mugabe on a number of issues in an exclusive interview with Deketeke.
I believe that there is merit in repeating what the President said and try to locate it with the broader debate about social contracts, rule of law, dictatorship, human and property rights, succession, constitutional amendments, and 2008 or 2010.
This is what the President said:
THE MKAPA INITIATIVE
"I did not want to put him (Cde Mkapa) to a task that will be too insurmountable for him," said President Mugabe. This confirms that the so-called Mkapa initiative that came on the back of Kofi Annan throwing the towel was indeed a brain child of President Mugabe in as much as the proposed harmonization project. President Mugabe then confirmed that British Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair’s government did not want talks. The agenda for such talks remains a mystery but it is self evident that there may have been no merit proceeding with such a meeting. The intervention of President Mkapa was widely misunderstood in as much as President Mugabe’s role in the initiative and what he hoped to achieve.
I have no doubt that President Mugabe will be reflecting as he should do on his birthday when his family and friends wish him many returns on the past 27 years of self government and the costs and benefits. However, for the majority of Zimbabweans who have accepted the link between the land question and the current state of the Zimbabwean economy will also reflect on whether it is the case that if Mr. Blair apologized to President Mugabe for the alleged interference in the domestic affairs of Zimbabwe as well as agreeing to compensating the settler farmers for the expropriation of land, the economy of Zimbabwe will change for the better.
I have no doubt that many Zimbabweans will expect President Mugabe to give a candid assessment of his tenure and the extent of contribution of the land question to the current state of the nation.
BLAIR v MUGABE
President Mugabe then proceeded to say: "The Blair government is a queer government and Blair, of course, behaves like a headmaster, old-fashioned. ‘Zvandataura ndizvozvo.’ Do it or if you don’t do it, you remain punished and an outcast."
I have no doubt that many would argue that what President Mugabe accuses the Blair government of doing is precisely what they accuse him as well of doing. Some have said that a government that fails to take responsibility for its own failures is a queer government. Would it be justified to describe the behavior of President Mugabe as old fashioned not only because he is 83 but the ideas that inform government policies and programs may not be different from the Stalin ideas?
The people of Matebeleland and the many that are now using foreign addresses because they remain punished and outcasted by the Mugabe government will see no difference between Blair and Mugabe.
By criticizing Prime Minister Blair and his government, President Mugabe is communicating to the world that he would never be the same as Blair. Based on this, it is clear that in as much as people describe President Mugabe as an old fashioned dictator he thinks otherwise.
It is important, therefore, to appreciate and acknowledge that President Mugabe has not been persuaded by all the criticisms to accept the proposition that in the final analysis he may not be any different from what he perceives the Blair government to be.
BLAIR – MUGABE BRIDGE
It was reported that when President Mugabe received the current British Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr Andrew Pocock, in February last year, he asked him to help build bridges between the two countries. He said Ambassador Pocock tried but was spurned and told not to talk that language.
The British government told him that the "Zimbabweans know what they must do" before there could be any talks "We say let them go that way and we go our own way, but we have not taken any action against them. "They (British) have lots of property and over 400 companies operating here, but we do not want to be vindictive," said President Mugabe. He, however, said there was a limit to which Zimbabwe can go in conceding to such behaviour.
It is apparent that President Mugabe would like to build bridges with Prime Minister Blair. When the British government says that Zimbabweans know what they must do, to President Mugabe it can only mean regime change. I am not sure whether in President Mugabe’s mind this may mean a change in the style and substance of governance and also an honest and candid appraisal of why Zimbabwe may be described as a failing state. I am sure many may argue that Zimbabwe is not yet in the category of Somalia, Dafur, Ivory Coast, Liberia or DRC. However, it is clear to any rational mind that the Zimbabwe of today does not reflect the stolen promise.
When a country breaks a world record in terms of inflation, unemployment, and general economic decay I think that it is futile to invoke third parties like Blair as if to suggest that if the British government had honored the Lancaster House promises, Zimbabwe would have made a record in making good the promise of independence to the majority of its people.
President Mugabe’s statement above is pregnant with a sinister threat to British owned companies that believe that they are safe as long as the Blair government does not see the Zimbabwe problem in the colonial context and reparation mode. President Mugabe is effectively saying how is it that the British government is saying that Zimbabwe is a failing state when its corporate and individual citizens continue to profit from Zimbabwe.
He is also saying that why would the British government choose to impose travel restrictions of him and his team while turning a blind eye to the interests of British companies that have unfettered access to Zimbabwean resources. In the circumstances, the President is effectively saying when we go our way of expropriation; do not blame us for not trying to engage the British.
Some may not know that my business interests in Zimbabwe are owned by two English companies pursuant to the acquisition transaction that I negotiated and concluded in 1996 with a British company. The illegal and unconstitutional seizure of my companies through a manufactured decree has an English connection. Without this English connection, the expropriation of my assets may have been concluded without any recourse but the government of Zimbabwe has discovered that their actions have no legal force without the consent of the English justice system and hence the litigation in England.
When I negotiated the acquisition transaction, I did not see merit in inheriting the two English companies but now I have come to realize that in as much as we condemn the British for colonizing us, the two judgments that I have received so far have reinforced my belief in the rule of law and the protection offered by a legal system that operates on the basis of justice and equity.
WHO IS CULPABLE FOR THE ZIMBABWE CRISIS
President Mugabe then said the Blair government was hiding behind accusations of lawlessness, human rights abuse, dictatorship and lack of democracy.
"I would like to see an African country that has gone this length in those directions . . . abiding by the rule of law, accepting the reign of human rights and establishing democracy. "You also have non-governmental organizations here telling them (British government) the opposite of what we are. In the meantime, they are enjoying the freedom of organizing our people without hindrance. "But we are hoping that with the departure of Blair (who is expected to step down as British Prime Minister this year) there will be a better situation there and they can be talked to," said President Mugabe.
It is clear from the above that President Mugabe genuinely believes that the accusations leveled against his government of lawlessness, human rights abuse, dictatorship and lack of democracy are baseless and unfounded. In this construction, anyone who accuses President Mugabe’s government of such falsehoods can only be a Blair puppet.
It is important, therefore, to read carefully what President Mugabe is saying so that those who will have the privilege of writing an honest record of the man will correctly record that even in the twilight of his reign he never saw any problem with his regime but only saw enemies violently cause confusion.
When I wrote about Tekere’s take on Mugabe some may have misunderstood my perspective. In the mind of President Mugabe, he is the best democrat in the world and he has honorably served Zimbabwe and protected the Republic from enemies like Bush and Blair.
However, an honest assessment will confirm that the problems of Zimbabwe predate both Blair and Bush and indeed MDC.
It is also evident that President Mugabe believes that Blair is the root cause of Zimbabwe’s problems and, if anything, when Blair goes Zimbabwe will start working again.
I am not sure that President Mugabe is aware that I am one of the victims of his government. My case is not only a human rights issue but a property rights matter with a nice English twist. The President is not honest when he says that the perception that there is lawlessness in Zimbabwe is a creation of Blair.
I have written an open letter to President Mugabe highlighting the utter disregard of the law and the systematic and orchestrated abuse of the state to disable my constitutional rights and then through an outsourced vulture like structure proceed to expropriate my assets using draconian measures that offend any civilized person. I should like to believe that Blair had no input in my predicament. If I was the only one to be a beneficiary of the tyranny of the state, then people may be justified in saying that you deserve it. Even under this construction where rational minds would find justification in the use of state machinery to steal my companies on the mistaken notion that the government of Zimbabwe was somewhat involved in the acquisition is something that continues to baffle me about the capacity of Zimbabwean minds to be blinded by personal prejudices even when facts are presented before them.
Having chosen to use the legal route, I had hoped that President Mugabe had managed to create an honest and transparent government capable of reading court papers but unfortunately I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Blair is right when he says that Zimbabweans know what they must do.
Judging from what I have read so far even on my case, I do not believe that it is appropriate for anyone to intervene in the Zimbabwean tragedy until Zimbabweans can honestly confront President Mugabe who may have created an ivory tower to tell him that he is wrong when he makes the point that it is Blair’s fabrication that has created the mess.
MUGABE & THATCHER
The President then said the situation was a lot better during the era of Mrs Margaret Thatcher, who was British Premier from 1979 to 1990. Although they differed quite a lot with her, she was amenable to discussing issues. President Mugabe recalled an incident in 1982 when six white Air Force of Zimbabwe officers were arrested on suspicion of complicity in the destruction of 13 aircraft at Thornhill Air Base in Gweru. The British demanded their immediate release and Thatcher denounced the arrest but the Zimbabwe Government insisted on a full investigation and trial.
"I said if the British cannot be arrested when they commit crime, then we would rather all the British left our country and I can open the doors of my country for their departure any time," Mugabe said.
He said the British then got frightened as they thought "I was going to be another Amin".
Idi Amin, who ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979, deported 90 000 Ugandan Asians who held British passports. President Mugabe said he later met Mrs Thatcher in 1983 in New Delhi, India, and she proposed lunch to discuss the issue. He said Thatcher explained that she did not mean that the British could not be arrested if they committed crime, but wanted them to be given a fair trial, which is what the Zimbabwe Government was doing. The issue was then resolved amicably.
"We shook hands with Thatcher, but Blair will not do that," said Mugabe.
It is clear that President Mugabe honestly believes that if Thatcher was still at No. 10 Downing Street, Zimbabwe would be working as she was mature enough to resolve problems in an amicable way.
In as much as people would like to believe that President Mugabe is responsible for the economic meltdown, he believes that there is a conspiracy involving Blair and possibly Bush. It is also clear that he believes that he is unfairly targeted for doing well for his people.
MUGABE/CHIRAC & SANCTIONS
Asked to comment on the rationale or appropriateness of inviting African heads of state as one group to meet with a single leader of a developed country, President Mugabe said it was not right.
"That principle is wrong. It doesn’t matter which country. Kungoti tidaidzwe the whole African continent kuenda kunyika one, it’s not right. "We might be poor, but it is not right to do that. "Let there be meetings with our delegations . . . that is better in my view," he said, adding that inviting the continent to meetings such as the EU-Africa summit was better. African leaders this week gathered in Cannes for the France-Africa summit where they met French leader Jacques Chirac. Zimbabwe did not attend the summit because it rejected an invitation with conditions on who should represent it.
I have no doubt that even President Chirac will be confused when he reads what President Mugabe is now saying about him. In the build up to the France-Africa summit, the government of Zimbabwe was complementary on Chirac’s independence from the Blair-Bush axis of evil and to the extent that Chirac had the courage to send the message to President Mugabe that he must reflect on the problems at home and is so doing he will discover that Blair and Bush may be his best friend. It would be interesting to discover when President Mugabe discovered that it is wrong for African countries like sheep to meet with a single leader of a developed country when he was one of the participants in the Sino-Africa summit and yet he did not make the same observations. Any leadership that is guided as a matter of principle by hypocrisy is necessarily a dangerous leadership.
It is common cause that if President Chirac had invited President Mugabe he would be heralded by the Herald as a great man. If President Chirac has created an administration that is capable of gathering its own intelligence that can properly inform his decisions, I believe that it is irresponsible for Zimbabweans not to use President Mugabe’s birthday as a day to tell him that his views about the conduct of his government have no relevance to the reality on the ground.
In choosing to use President Mugabe’s own words, I think that it helps many who may not get the real picture that Zimbabweans have different realities to start to reflect like Chirac has done that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. In the final analysis there can never be a wrong time to start adding your voice to something that is wrong. The salvation of Zimbabwe lies in people being able to fully comprehend and digest what informs the decisions of their adversaries.
Some are beginning to talk of the need for a social contract as a way forward for Zimbabwe forgetting that the framework of such contracts involves the working people only who ordinarily are represented by the unions, the employers who ordinarily have interests in the productive sector, and the government. However, with the fast diminishing formal sector and a divided organized labor grouping as well as an employer group that is not representative, it is a mockery and insult to any rational Zimbabwean to suggest that salvation can be located in a vacuum.
While Gono chooses to talk about social contracts, his boss is talking about Blair’s exit as the day of salvation. Could President Mugabe be warning Gono not to go beyond the standard text of blame everybody except you?
For better or worse, Zimbabwe’s post-colonial history is inextricably linked to this man and yet he remains as much an enigma as his is regarded a villain or warrior depending on who you talk to.
In trying to understand Mugabe, my attention was drawn to a story that was published in the Herald on Saturday, 17 February 2007, “Zim, UK talks off: President”, written by the editor of the newspaper, Pikirayi Deketeke in which he reported that the mediation efforts of former President Mkapa in the rift between Mugabe and Blair had been shelved. What was more interesting to me were the comments made President Mugabe on a number of issues in an exclusive interview with Deketeke.
I believe that there is merit in repeating what the President said and try to locate it with the broader debate about social contracts, rule of law, dictatorship, human and property rights, succession, constitutional amendments, and 2008 or 2010.
This is what the President said:
THE MKAPA INITIATIVE
"I did not want to put him (Cde Mkapa) to a task that will be too insurmountable for him," said President Mugabe. This confirms that the so-called Mkapa initiative that came on the back of Kofi Annan throwing the towel was indeed a brain child of President Mugabe in as much as the proposed harmonization project. President Mugabe then confirmed that British Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair’s government did not want talks. The agenda for such talks remains a mystery but it is self evident that there may have been no merit proceeding with such a meeting. The intervention of President Mkapa was widely misunderstood in as much as President Mugabe’s role in the initiative and what he hoped to achieve.
I have no doubt that President Mugabe will be reflecting as he should do on his birthday when his family and friends wish him many returns on the past 27 years of self government and the costs and benefits. However, for the majority of Zimbabweans who have accepted the link between the land question and the current state of the Zimbabwean economy will also reflect on whether it is the case that if Mr. Blair apologized to President Mugabe for the alleged interference in the domestic affairs of Zimbabwe as well as agreeing to compensating the settler farmers for the expropriation of land, the economy of Zimbabwe will change for the better.
I have no doubt that many Zimbabweans will expect President Mugabe to give a candid assessment of his tenure and the extent of contribution of the land question to the current state of the nation.
BLAIR v MUGABE
President Mugabe then proceeded to say: "The Blair government is a queer government and Blair, of course, behaves like a headmaster, old-fashioned. ‘Zvandataura ndizvozvo.’ Do it or if you don’t do it, you remain punished and an outcast."
I have no doubt that many would argue that what President Mugabe accuses the Blair government of doing is precisely what they accuse him as well of doing. Some have said that a government that fails to take responsibility for its own failures is a queer government. Would it be justified to describe the behavior of President Mugabe as old fashioned not only because he is 83 but the ideas that inform government policies and programs may not be different from the Stalin ideas?
The people of Matebeleland and the many that are now using foreign addresses because they remain punished and outcasted by the Mugabe government will see no difference between Blair and Mugabe.
By criticizing Prime Minister Blair and his government, President Mugabe is communicating to the world that he would never be the same as Blair. Based on this, it is clear that in as much as people describe President Mugabe as an old fashioned dictator he thinks otherwise.
It is important, therefore, to appreciate and acknowledge that President Mugabe has not been persuaded by all the criticisms to accept the proposition that in the final analysis he may not be any different from what he perceives the Blair government to be.
BLAIR – MUGABE BRIDGE
It was reported that when President Mugabe received the current British Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr Andrew Pocock, in February last year, he asked him to help build bridges between the two countries. He said Ambassador Pocock tried but was spurned and told not to talk that language.
The British government told him that the "Zimbabweans know what they must do" before there could be any talks "We say let them go that way and we go our own way, but we have not taken any action against them. "They (British) have lots of property and over 400 companies operating here, but we do not want to be vindictive," said President Mugabe. He, however, said there was a limit to which Zimbabwe can go in conceding to such behaviour.
It is apparent that President Mugabe would like to build bridges with Prime Minister Blair. When the British government says that Zimbabweans know what they must do, to President Mugabe it can only mean regime change. I am not sure whether in President Mugabe’s mind this may mean a change in the style and substance of governance and also an honest and candid appraisal of why Zimbabwe may be described as a failing state. I am sure many may argue that Zimbabwe is not yet in the category of Somalia, Dafur, Ivory Coast, Liberia or DRC. However, it is clear to any rational mind that the Zimbabwe of today does not reflect the stolen promise.
When a country breaks a world record in terms of inflation, unemployment, and general economic decay I think that it is futile to invoke third parties like Blair as if to suggest that if the British government had honored the Lancaster House promises, Zimbabwe would have made a record in making good the promise of independence to the majority of its people.
President Mugabe’s statement above is pregnant with a sinister threat to British owned companies that believe that they are safe as long as the Blair government does not see the Zimbabwe problem in the colonial context and reparation mode. President Mugabe is effectively saying how is it that the British government is saying that Zimbabwe is a failing state when its corporate and individual citizens continue to profit from Zimbabwe.
He is also saying that why would the British government choose to impose travel restrictions of him and his team while turning a blind eye to the interests of British companies that have unfettered access to Zimbabwean resources. In the circumstances, the President is effectively saying when we go our way of expropriation; do not blame us for not trying to engage the British.
Some may not know that my business interests in Zimbabwe are owned by two English companies pursuant to the acquisition transaction that I negotiated and concluded in 1996 with a British company. The illegal and unconstitutional seizure of my companies through a manufactured decree has an English connection. Without this English connection, the expropriation of my assets may have been concluded without any recourse but the government of Zimbabwe has discovered that their actions have no legal force without the consent of the English justice system and hence the litigation in England.
When I negotiated the acquisition transaction, I did not see merit in inheriting the two English companies but now I have come to realize that in as much as we condemn the British for colonizing us, the two judgments that I have received so far have reinforced my belief in the rule of law and the protection offered by a legal system that operates on the basis of justice and equity.
WHO IS CULPABLE FOR THE ZIMBABWE CRISIS
President Mugabe then said the Blair government was hiding behind accusations of lawlessness, human rights abuse, dictatorship and lack of democracy.
"I would like to see an African country that has gone this length in those directions . . . abiding by the rule of law, accepting the reign of human rights and establishing democracy. "You also have non-governmental organizations here telling them (British government) the opposite of what we are. In the meantime, they are enjoying the freedom of organizing our people without hindrance. "But we are hoping that with the departure of Blair (who is expected to step down as British Prime Minister this year) there will be a better situation there and they can be talked to," said President Mugabe.
It is clear from the above that President Mugabe genuinely believes that the accusations leveled against his government of lawlessness, human rights abuse, dictatorship and lack of democracy are baseless and unfounded. In this construction, anyone who accuses President Mugabe’s government of such falsehoods can only be a Blair puppet.
It is important, therefore, to read carefully what President Mugabe is saying so that those who will have the privilege of writing an honest record of the man will correctly record that even in the twilight of his reign he never saw any problem with his regime but only saw enemies violently cause confusion.
When I wrote about Tekere’s take on Mugabe some may have misunderstood my perspective. In the mind of President Mugabe, he is the best democrat in the world and he has honorably served Zimbabwe and protected the Republic from enemies like Bush and Blair.
However, an honest assessment will confirm that the problems of Zimbabwe predate both Blair and Bush and indeed MDC.
It is also evident that President Mugabe believes that Blair is the root cause of Zimbabwe’s problems and, if anything, when Blair goes Zimbabwe will start working again.
I am not sure that President Mugabe is aware that I am one of the victims of his government. My case is not only a human rights issue but a property rights matter with a nice English twist. The President is not honest when he says that the perception that there is lawlessness in Zimbabwe is a creation of Blair.
I have written an open letter to President Mugabe highlighting the utter disregard of the law and the systematic and orchestrated abuse of the state to disable my constitutional rights and then through an outsourced vulture like structure proceed to expropriate my assets using draconian measures that offend any civilized person. I should like to believe that Blair had no input in my predicament. If I was the only one to be a beneficiary of the tyranny of the state, then people may be justified in saying that you deserve it. Even under this construction where rational minds would find justification in the use of state machinery to steal my companies on the mistaken notion that the government of Zimbabwe was somewhat involved in the acquisition is something that continues to baffle me about the capacity of Zimbabwean minds to be blinded by personal prejudices even when facts are presented before them.
Having chosen to use the legal route, I had hoped that President Mugabe had managed to create an honest and transparent government capable of reading court papers but unfortunately I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Blair is right when he says that Zimbabweans know what they must do.
Judging from what I have read so far even on my case, I do not believe that it is appropriate for anyone to intervene in the Zimbabwean tragedy until Zimbabweans can honestly confront President Mugabe who may have created an ivory tower to tell him that he is wrong when he makes the point that it is Blair’s fabrication that has created the mess.
MUGABE & THATCHER
The President then said the situation was a lot better during the era of Mrs Margaret Thatcher, who was British Premier from 1979 to 1990. Although they differed quite a lot with her, she was amenable to discussing issues. President Mugabe recalled an incident in 1982 when six white Air Force of Zimbabwe officers were arrested on suspicion of complicity in the destruction of 13 aircraft at Thornhill Air Base in Gweru. The British demanded their immediate release and Thatcher denounced the arrest but the Zimbabwe Government insisted on a full investigation and trial.
"I said if the British cannot be arrested when they commit crime, then we would rather all the British left our country and I can open the doors of my country for their departure any time," Mugabe said.
He said the British then got frightened as they thought "I was going to be another Amin".
Idi Amin, who ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979, deported 90 000 Ugandan Asians who held British passports. President Mugabe said he later met Mrs Thatcher in 1983 in New Delhi, India, and she proposed lunch to discuss the issue. He said Thatcher explained that she did not mean that the British could not be arrested if they committed crime, but wanted them to be given a fair trial, which is what the Zimbabwe Government was doing. The issue was then resolved amicably.
"We shook hands with Thatcher, but Blair will not do that," said Mugabe.
It is clear that President Mugabe honestly believes that if Thatcher was still at No. 10 Downing Street, Zimbabwe would be working as she was mature enough to resolve problems in an amicable way.
In as much as people would like to believe that President Mugabe is responsible for the economic meltdown, he believes that there is a conspiracy involving Blair and possibly Bush. It is also clear that he believes that he is unfairly targeted for doing well for his people.
MUGABE/CHIRAC & SANCTIONS
Asked to comment on the rationale or appropriateness of inviting African heads of state as one group to meet with a single leader of a developed country, President Mugabe said it was not right.
"That principle is wrong. It doesn’t matter which country. Kungoti tidaidzwe the whole African continent kuenda kunyika one, it’s not right. "We might be poor, but it is not right to do that. "Let there be meetings with our delegations . . . that is better in my view," he said, adding that inviting the continent to meetings such as the EU-Africa summit was better. African leaders this week gathered in Cannes for the France-Africa summit where they met French leader Jacques Chirac. Zimbabwe did not attend the summit because it rejected an invitation with conditions on who should represent it.
I have no doubt that even President Chirac will be confused when he reads what President Mugabe is now saying about him. In the build up to the France-Africa summit, the government of Zimbabwe was complementary on Chirac’s independence from the Blair-Bush axis of evil and to the extent that Chirac had the courage to send the message to President Mugabe that he must reflect on the problems at home and is so doing he will discover that Blair and Bush may be his best friend. It would be interesting to discover when President Mugabe discovered that it is wrong for African countries like sheep to meet with a single leader of a developed country when he was one of the participants in the Sino-Africa summit and yet he did not make the same observations. Any leadership that is guided as a matter of principle by hypocrisy is necessarily a dangerous leadership.
It is common cause that if President Chirac had invited President Mugabe he would be heralded by the Herald as a great man. If President Chirac has created an administration that is capable of gathering its own intelligence that can properly inform his decisions, I believe that it is irresponsible for Zimbabweans not to use President Mugabe’s birthday as a day to tell him that his views about the conduct of his government have no relevance to the reality on the ground.
In choosing to use President Mugabe’s own words, I think that it helps many who may not get the real picture that Zimbabweans have different realities to start to reflect like Chirac has done that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. In the final analysis there can never be a wrong time to start adding your voice to something that is wrong. The salvation of Zimbabwe lies in people being able to fully comprehend and digest what informs the decisions of their adversaries.
Some are beginning to talk of the need for a social contract as a way forward for Zimbabwe forgetting that the framework of such contracts involves the working people only who ordinarily are represented by the unions, the employers who ordinarily have interests in the productive sector, and the government. However, with the fast diminishing formal sector and a divided organized labor grouping as well as an employer group that is not representative, it is a mockery and insult to any rational Zimbabwean to suggest that salvation can be located in a vacuum.
While Gono chooses to talk about social contracts, his boss is talking about Blair’s exit as the day of salvation. Could President Mugabe be warning Gono not to go beyond the standard text of blame everybody except you?
Sunday, February 4, 2007
When the center cannot hold
AS PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe approaches his 83rd birthday on February 21, he can look back and reflect on the journey traveled and in the quietness of his time carefully examine the proposition that the promise of independence may have been significantly eroded by a combination of bad policies, lack of leadership, clinging to a discredited ideology, and pursuit of directionless policies and programs.
In the final analysis he will, as he should, take responsibility for the current economic and political quagmire that has visited Zimbabwe with no prospect for salvation even from Your Governor.
I have no doubt that President Mugabe will not think that it is unfair for him to answer the following questions: Has post-colonial era lived up to the expectations of Zimbabweans? Who should be culpable for condemning a promising nation into the current state of hopelessness? Is it fair in 2007 to exclusively blame third parties for what many may regard as internally generated problems? What, if any, was the Zanu PF plan for the transformation of Rhodesia into an inclusive and dynamic nation? When economic indicators are stubbornly showing that the nation is in intensive care, has the time not arrived for President Mugabe to put the country’s interests first?
Since December 2003, the management of the economy was outsourced to the unelected Dr. Gideon Gono who never conceptually appreciated the gravity of the economic and political situation and mistook the RBZ for the commercial bank that he is erroneously credited for turning around on the back of a patronage banking architecture and profiting from artificially created distortions.
Messrs. Tendai Biti and Arthur Mutambara have already eloquently critiqued the so-called Monetary Policy Statement that essentially confirmed what was predictable that the wheels were off since Gono’s appointment and there appears to be no driver after all. What has not been said is what the real costs of Gono’s experiment with power have meant for the country. The Governor has suddenly run out of enemies to blame or externalise and appears to have come to the realisation that President Mugabe was wrong in entrusting the stewardship of the economy to a blind and paranoid process.
What Gono failed to mention in his statement is the real cost of his misguided policies. It would be simplistic to apportion blame on Gono alone as if he appointed himself. In addition, it is evident that Gono enjoys the support of the President and indeed the cabinet. I am acutely aware that many who have read my recent articles may have come out with the impression that I was trying to absolve President Mugabe from taking responsibility for his record at the helm of the nation’s political economy. Having been one of the victims of the misguided policies, I am not naive to know who ultimately is culpable.
However, it is important that the conversation is broadened to include the totality of the governing structures including the political institutions that give legitimacy to the government.
Some have argued that the salvation of the country lies in a reformed Zanu PF without acknowledging that President Mugabe’s record has to be evaluated in a holistic manner that recognises the contribution of the party and its actors in the systematic collapse of the nation. It is important that we recognise that it is hypocritical to isolate one person when the passengers and spectators to a 27 year process of mortgaging the country’s future are many. Even those who have continued to watch at close range while prudent and rational economic solutions are discarded in preference for untried and bizarre policies are aware of the cost to the nation but choose to remain in silence.
I think that it is important that the conversation be broadened to critically examine as any nation should whether the current government is capable of addressing the challenges that confront the economy. Gono has thrown the towel and seeks to escape scrutiny under the guise that the salvation lays elsewhere as if he suddenly had a revelation. I am sure that if President Mugabe’s actions are informed by a national interest, he would be the first one to accept responsibility that he has failed the nation.
Surely for example, if I acquired a house 27 years ago, it would be foolish for me to blame the previous owner for cracks without taking responsibility for the lack of maintenance during the period of occupation. Yes it is true that indeed freedom is latent, and if you stay in someone’s house you can never be free. Can Zimbabweans after 27 years of self government be considered to be free when they find themselves vulnerable? Is it true that Zimbabwe belongs to its inhabitants or now belongs to a club called Zanu PF whose decisions become binding for everyone even when it is common cause that citizens live in fear today than at anytime in the nation’s history?
Harmonisation of Presidential and Parliamentary ElectionsI thought it may be useful for me to add my voice to the debate on the above mentioned project. There has been talk that the project may be derailed by the so-called 'Mujuru faction' who are presumed to be anxious to change guard in 2008. It is ironic that the future of the Presidency is now somewhat premised on the actions of Zanu PF, suggesting that there may be no plan B to save the country than depend on the same forces that have collectively put in place measures to alienate citizens from their future.
While many argue that the project will not succeed because of internal opposition in Zanu PF, no-one has been able to explain how a poison pill in the party will be removed to allow for another person being a leader of the party before 2009. The last Zanu PF congress was in December 2004 and President Mugabe was elected as party President for a five year term. His current term as President of the Republic expires next year and if the tradition in the party is observed it falls to reason that he is the only legitimate nominee of the party for the Presidency.
If this is true, even if the harmonisation project does not succeed, the party will have to convene a special congress to elect new leaders and to date we have not heard any of the factions calling for a special congress suggesting that there may be no other candidate for the party until 2009. The question is whether the party that is credited with reducing Zimbabwe to a basket case can abandon its leader who has managed to entrench the party in power against the interests of the country in terms of economic development.
Some have said that President Mugabe would agree that if the economic indicators were a barometer for the success or failure of the independence project, Zanu PF would be considered a dismal failure and not fit to run any economic enterprise let alone a nation of 15 million. The economy has already spoken against the harmonisation project and yet political analysts and political actors have failed to articulate why it is not in the interests of the country to continue with failed policies and programs while the nation continue to be blind folded by propaganda.
Some have argued that since Zanu PF parliamentarians did not campaign on the basis that they wanted to implement the harmonization project and Zanu PF’s manifesto did not anticipate the proposed constitutional changes, the party has no legitimacy to change the constitution using its parliamentary majority. This argument does not hold any water as the actions of elected officials are not bound by manifestos or what was said during elections. We may have to accept that there may be no legal grounds to challenge the right of parliament however illegitimate it may be to amend a constitution.
However, it would be wrong for anyone to seek to remain in power when the governed are condemned to a life that even President Mugabe would agree was never part of the independence deal. It is time for those that sacrificed a lot to bring about sovereignty to speak out like Edgar Tekere and Enos Nkala on the key values that they fought for and whether Zimbabwe under the leadership of Zanu PF has lived up to their expectations.
Only last week, I met in Washington DC with a former senior government official who is working for a multilateral development institution and is about to retire. His concern was whether to retire in Zimbabwe or South Africa. He is convinced that Zimbabwe has been sufficiently damaged to give him the standard of life that he expects. I am sure that many pensioners in Zimbabwe who have had to be subjected to voodoo economic policies would agree that they have effectively been condemned to death by a government they trusted so much that they voted it into power consistently since independence while consistently being betrayed. I am sure that even President Mugabe would agree that he has run out of ideas and even the Look East policies many not yield the desired outcomes that people of Zimbabwe deserve.
The real question that people are asking President Mugabe, while using convoluted constitutional arguments, is whether he is aware of the poverty trap that independence has created for many Zimbabweans who have not been able to escape. When you have the majority of the population now carrying their CVs and prostituting the skills for any interested bidder who is out of the country then you know it is time to go. I believe that if President Mugabe is a man of the people as he claims to be, he will agree that it is time to exit in the interest of the nation. It may be a source of encouragement to see leaders like Hugo Chavez experiment with their citizens but the difference is that in Zimbabwe people are now tired of living on borrowed time and lies.
Reflections on Gonomics
I have written a lot about the role of the RBZ in undermining democracy in Zimbabwe not because I have anything against Gono but because I care about Zimbabwe to remain silent when foolish policies are inflicted on a people already battered by bad governance. I am acutely aware that if Gono was a man of principle he would have resigned that participate in robbing citizens of their future without their consent. I thought it would be beneficial to add my insights into the monetary policy statement that read more like the State of the Nation address.
Dr. Gono said that he would not devalue the Zimbabwean dollar. He said: "No devaluation from this governor." Zimbabwe's dollar has been fixed at an official rate of 250 to the US dollar since July last year, but the market exchange rate is about 20 times this rate. Gono, like a politician, said it was not his responsibility to inflict the pain on defenseless consumers that rising prices would bring. He went on to say that: "No amount of devaluation will lead to planeloads, truckloads of foreign exchange flowing into Zimbabwe in a sustainable way."
Like a failed General he pointed out that he had already authorised more than eight devaluations since he took the reins at the central bank in December 2003.
Yes the Governor like President Mugabe may think that accepting market fundamentals is poisonous but the market has a strange way of educating fools.
Yes, the Soviet Union fought against market principles and the jury only spoke after about 75 years at a great cost to the country and not the chefs. It is important that we bring the issue of devaluation into some perspective. The hypocrisy of the Governor is what is inexcusable. While he pontificates that he would not devalue, it is common cause that he is the chief player in the parallel market where the RBZ is a significant purchaser of foreign currency from the market. Is it beneficial for a Governor to pretend that there is a market in Zimbabwe where a person with US$1 will be willing to exchange it for Z$250 when he knows that he can get 20 times more from the parallel market.
Imagine that fuel in Zimbabwe at a cost of Z$5,000 per liter that translates to US$20 per liter at the official exchange makes the country the most expensive for any foreigner to visit and rent a car. While the Governor is bold to say that he will not devalue he makes no statement about the impact of inflation on exporters when their revenues are constant through a manipulated exchange rate that is effectively a tax on enterprising people.
The exchange rate issue is not exclusively a Gono matter but arises from President Mugabe’s deeply held belief that the poor can be protected by refusing to accept market principles. The position of President Mugabe on devaluation has not changed and it appears that Gono is now a willing disciple without being honest to his principal that the official exchange rate does not exist other than for the extortion rate extracted from exporters by the RBZ. It appears that no government official has managed to convince President Mugabe that the black market is a real market and unless the government accepts that wrong policies have consequences, no salvation will come.
Quasi Fiscal Operations
Gono revealed that the RBZ has stopped forthwith engaging in quasi fiscal activities although he stated that the RBZ will finish off the activities it had started. He said: "The RBZ will, with immediate effect, bring to an end such interventions and wishes to concentrate on core business activities. An agreement has been reached although some people were doing their work."
He said a new company, FISCORP Private Limited, will be unveiled soon to administer and collect outstanding loans parceled by the RBZ during the interventions in its quasi fiscal activities. FISCORP will start operating on March 1.
We are now told that the RBZ has stopped engaging in quasi fiscal activities without the benefit of knowing how much was disbursed and whether the funds were used for intended purposes. There have been allegations that corruption underpinned these opaque operations that were hidden from parliament. As the Governor has now said, parliament will once again be denied the opportunity to review these operations and independently confirm that the funds were not used for other purposes or to further the political aspirations of the few who see a real and serious power vacuum created by President Mugabe’s management style that is not detail oriented but long on politics and conspiracy. Why would limited liability company takeover quasi fiscal assets without the people of Zimbabwe being privileged to know how their funds were used. Why set up a special purpose vehicle to warehouse proceeds of what may be termed corruption without allowing the Minister of Finance to present to the nation how the funds were disbursed and utilized and the repayment plan.
In my company’s case, I have only been made aware through court documents that instructions were given personally by Gono for Z$1 trillion (old money) to be disbursed to SMM Holdings under the control of Arafas Gwaradzimba. No report has been produced on how the funds were used and why the government would agree to pay Gwaradzimba a fee of 6% of the turnover of all companies without any third party verification of what is going on.
It is important that Gono is made to account for the crazy transactions that he has been personally involved in so that obscure vehicles like Fiscorp are not used to hide the operations of the government from its citizens. I have no doubt that President Mugabe would agree that if there is corruption involved in the quasi fiscal operations, this must be exposed and it would be unfair for him to extend his term if he is not able to supervise the operations of the government effectively. Anyone who has been following Gono’s activities would agree that he has a propensity to use special purpose vehicles to perform functions of the government as if the government is a private affair of the President. I am sure that the President would equally be concerned about the manner in which the Governor conducted himself in the case of the mysterious car.
In conclusion, I think it is important to use this month to highlight to the President how under his watch the operations of the government have become opaque to the extent that citizens feel they no longer own the development process. Indeed, it is evident that the process of governance may have been outsourced sufficiently to alienate the governed from their future.
I have confidence that President Mugabe would agree with the observations of many that he must take responsibility for the decay and if it can be confirmed that the wheels are off and things have fallen apart, then change has to come because without it, the independence project is at risk of being the greatest sham and robbery by a few using democratic manipulation to sustain and entrench a regime that never had direction.
As citizens try to reclaim their Republic, there can be no better place to start than investigate Gono and the role of the RBZ in undermining democratic institutions.
Ultimately when things fall apart, the center cannot be expected to hold and I am not sure whether Zimbabwe still has a center of gravity or is gravitating to the precipice!
In the final analysis he will, as he should, take responsibility for the current economic and political quagmire that has visited Zimbabwe with no prospect for salvation even from Your Governor.
I have no doubt that President Mugabe will not think that it is unfair for him to answer the following questions: Has post-colonial era lived up to the expectations of Zimbabweans? Who should be culpable for condemning a promising nation into the current state of hopelessness? Is it fair in 2007 to exclusively blame third parties for what many may regard as internally generated problems? What, if any, was the Zanu PF plan for the transformation of Rhodesia into an inclusive and dynamic nation? When economic indicators are stubbornly showing that the nation is in intensive care, has the time not arrived for President Mugabe to put the country’s interests first?
Since December 2003, the management of the economy was outsourced to the unelected Dr. Gideon Gono who never conceptually appreciated the gravity of the economic and political situation and mistook the RBZ for the commercial bank that he is erroneously credited for turning around on the back of a patronage banking architecture and profiting from artificially created distortions.
Messrs. Tendai Biti and Arthur Mutambara have already eloquently critiqued the so-called Monetary Policy Statement that essentially confirmed what was predictable that the wheels were off since Gono’s appointment and there appears to be no driver after all. What has not been said is what the real costs of Gono’s experiment with power have meant for the country. The Governor has suddenly run out of enemies to blame or externalise and appears to have come to the realisation that President Mugabe was wrong in entrusting the stewardship of the economy to a blind and paranoid process.
What Gono failed to mention in his statement is the real cost of his misguided policies. It would be simplistic to apportion blame on Gono alone as if he appointed himself. In addition, it is evident that Gono enjoys the support of the President and indeed the cabinet. I am acutely aware that many who have read my recent articles may have come out with the impression that I was trying to absolve President Mugabe from taking responsibility for his record at the helm of the nation’s political economy. Having been one of the victims of the misguided policies, I am not naive to know who ultimately is culpable.
However, it is important that the conversation is broadened to include the totality of the governing structures including the political institutions that give legitimacy to the government.
Some have argued that the salvation of the country lies in a reformed Zanu PF without acknowledging that President Mugabe’s record has to be evaluated in a holistic manner that recognises the contribution of the party and its actors in the systematic collapse of the nation. It is important that we recognise that it is hypocritical to isolate one person when the passengers and spectators to a 27 year process of mortgaging the country’s future are many. Even those who have continued to watch at close range while prudent and rational economic solutions are discarded in preference for untried and bizarre policies are aware of the cost to the nation but choose to remain in silence.
I think that it is important that the conversation be broadened to critically examine as any nation should whether the current government is capable of addressing the challenges that confront the economy. Gono has thrown the towel and seeks to escape scrutiny under the guise that the salvation lays elsewhere as if he suddenly had a revelation. I am sure that if President Mugabe’s actions are informed by a national interest, he would be the first one to accept responsibility that he has failed the nation.
Surely for example, if I acquired a house 27 years ago, it would be foolish for me to blame the previous owner for cracks without taking responsibility for the lack of maintenance during the period of occupation. Yes it is true that indeed freedom is latent, and if you stay in someone’s house you can never be free. Can Zimbabweans after 27 years of self government be considered to be free when they find themselves vulnerable? Is it true that Zimbabwe belongs to its inhabitants or now belongs to a club called Zanu PF whose decisions become binding for everyone even when it is common cause that citizens live in fear today than at anytime in the nation’s history?
Harmonisation of Presidential and Parliamentary ElectionsI thought it may be useful for me to add my voice to the debate on the above mentioned project. There has been talk that the project may be derailed by the so-called 'Mujuru faction' who are presumed to be anxious to change guard in 2008. It is ironic that the future of the Presidency is now somewhat premised on the actions of Zanu PF, suggesting that there may be no plan B to save the country than depend on the same forces that have collectively put in place measures to alienate citizens from their future.
While many argue that the project will not succeed because of internal opposition in Zanu PF, no-one has been able to explain how a poison pill in the party will be removed to allow for another person being a leader of the party before 2009. The last Zanu PF congress was in December 2004 and President Mugabe was elected as party President for a five year term. His current term as President of the Republic expires next year and if the tradition in the party is observed it falls to reason that he is the only legitimate nominee of the party for the Presidency.
If this is true, even if the harmonisation project does not succeed, the party will have to convene a special congress to elect new leaders and to date we have not heard any of the factions calling for a special congress suggesting that there may be no other candidate for the party until 2009. The question is whether the party that is credited with reducing Zimbabwe to a basket case can abandon its leader who has managed to entrench the party in power against the interests of the country in terms of economic development.
Some have said that President Mugabe would agree that if the economic indicators were a barometer for the success or failure of the independence project, Zanu PF would be considered a dismal failure and not fit to run any economic enterprise let alone a nation of 15 million. The economy has already spoken against the harmonisation project and yet political analysts and political actors have failed to articulate why it is not in the interests of the country to continue with failed policies and programs while the nation continue to be blind folded by propaganda.
Some have argued that since Zanu PF parliamentarians did not campaign on the basis that they wanted to implement the harmonization project and Zanu PF’s manifesto did not anticipate the proposed constitutional changes, the party has no legitimacy to change the constitution using its parliamentary majority. This argument does not hold any water as the actions of elected officials are not bound by manifestos or what was said during elections. We may have to accept that there may be no legal grounds to challenge the right of parliament however illegitimate it may be to amend a constitution.
However, it would be wrong for anyone to seek to remain in power when the governed are condemned to a life that even President Mugabe would agree was never part of the independence deal. It is time for those that sacrificed a lot to bring about sovereignty to speak out like Edgar Tekere and Enos Nkala on the key values that they fought for and whether Zimbabwe under the leadership of Zanu PF has lived up to their expectations.
Only last week, I met in Washington DC with a former senior government official who is working for a multilateral development institution and is about to retire. His concern was whether to retire in Zimbabwe or South Africa. He is convinced that Zimbabwe has been sufficiently damaged to give him the standard of life that he expects. I am sure that many pensioners in Zimbabwe who have had to be subjected to voodoo economic policies would agree that they have effectively been condemned to death by a government they trusted so much that they voted it into power consistently since independence while consistently being betrayed. I am sure that even President Mugabe would agree that he has run out of ideas and even the Look East policies many not yield the desired outcomes that people of Zimbabwe deserve.
The real question that people are asking President Mugabe, while using convoluted constitutional arguments, is whether he is aware of the poverty trap that independence has created for many Zimbabweans who have not been able to escape. When you have the majority of the population now carrying their CVs and prostituting the skills for any interested bidder who is out of the country then you know it is time to go. I believe that if President Mugabe is a man of the people as he claims to be, he will agree that it is time to exit in the interest of the nation. It may be a source of encouragement to see leaders like Hugo Chavez experiment with their citizens but the difference is that in Zimbabwe people are now tired of living on borrowed time and lies.
Reflections on Gonomics
I have written a lot about the role of the RBZ in undermining democracy in Zimbabwe not because I have anything against Gono but because I care about Zimbabwe to remain silent when foolish policies are inflicted on a people already battered by bad governance. I am acutely aware that if Gono was a man of principle he would have resigned that participate in robbing citizens of their future without their consent. I thought it would be beneficial to add my insights into the monetary policy statement that read more like the State of the Nation address.
Dr. Gono said that he would not devalue the Zimbabwean dollar. He said: "No devaluation from this governor." Zimbabwe's dollar has been fixed at an official rate of 250 to the US dollar since July last year, but the market exchange rate is about 20 times this rate. Gono, like a politician, said it was not his responsibility to inflict the pain on defenseless consumers that rising prices would bring. He went on to say that: "No amount of devaluation will lead to planeloads, truckloads of foreign exchange flowing into Zimbabwe in a sustainable way."
Like a failed General he pointed out that he had already authorised more than eight devaluations since he took the reins at the central bank in December 2003.
Yes the Governor like President Mugabe may think that accepting market fundamentals is poisonous but the market has a strange way of educating fools.
Yes, the Soviet Union fought against market principles and the jury only spoke after about 75 years at a great cost to the country and not the chefs. It is important that we bring the issue of devaluation into some perspective. The hypocrisy of the Governor is what is inexcusable. While he pontificates that he would not devalue, it is common cause that he is the chief player in the parallel market where the RBZ is a significant purchaser of foreign currency from the market. Is it beneficial for a Governor to pretend that there is a market in Zimbabwe where a person with US$1 will be willing to exchange it for Z$250 when he knows that he can get 20 times more from the parallel market.
Imagine that fuel in Zimbabwe at a cost of Z$5,000 per liter that translates to US$20 per liter at the official exchange makes the country the most expensive for any foreigner to visit and rent a car. While the Governor is bold to say that he will not devalue he makes no statement about the impact of inflation on exporters when their revenues are constant through a manipulated exchange rate that is effectively a tax on enterprising people.
The exchange rate issue is not exclusively a Gono matter but arises from President Mugabe’s deeply held belief that the poor can be protected by refusing to accept market principles. The position of President Mugabe on devaluation has not changed and it appears that Gono is now a willing disciple without being honest to his principal that the official exchange rate does not exist other than for the extortion rate extracted from exporters by the RBZ. It appears that no government official has managed to convince President Mugabe that the black market is a real market and unless the government accepts that wrong policies have consequences, no salvation will come.
Quasi Fiscal Operations
Gono revealed that the RBZ has stopped forthwith engaging in quasi fiscal activities although he stated that the RBZ will finish off the activities it had started. He said: "The RBZ will, with immediate effect, bring to an end such interventions and wishes to concentrate on core business activities. An agreement has been reached although some people were doing their work."
He said a new company, FISCORP Private Limited, will be unveiled soon to administer and collect outstanding loans parceled by the RBZ during the interventions in its quasi fiscal activities. FISCORP will start operating on March 1.
We are now told that the RBZ has stopped engaging in quasi fiscal activities without the benefit of knowing how much was disbursed and whether the funds were used for intended purposes. There have been allegations that corruption underpinned these opaque operations that were hidden from parliament. As the Governor has now said, parliament will once again be denied the opportunity to review these operations and independently confirm that the funds were not used for other purposes or to further the political aspirations of the few who see a real and serious power vacuum created by President Mugabe’s management style that is not detail oriented but long on politics and conspiracy. Why would limited liability company takeover quasi fiscal assets without the people of Zimbabwe being privileged to know how their funds were used. Why set up a special purpose vehicle to warehouse proceeds of what may be termed corruption without allowing the Minister of Finance to present to the nation how the funds were disbursed and utilized and the repayment plan.
In my company’s case, I have only been made aware through court documents that instructions were given personally by Gono for Z$1 trillion (old money) to be disbursed to SMM Holdings under the control of Arafas Gwaradzimba. No report has been produced on how the funds were used and why the government would agree to pay Gwaradzimba a fee of 6% of the turnover of all companies without any third party verification of what is going on.
It is important that Gono is made to account for the crazy transactions that he has been personally involved in so that obscure vehicles like Fiscorp are not used to hide the operations of the government from its citizens. I have no doubt that President Mugabe would agree that if there is corruption involved in the quasi fiscal operations, this must be exposed and it would be unfair for him to extend his term if he is not able to supervise the operations of the government effectively. Anyone who has been following Gono’s activities would agree that he has a propensity to use special purpose vehicles to perform functions of the government as if the government is a private affair of the President. I am sure that the President would equally be concerned about the manner in which the Governor conducted himself in the case of the mysterious car.
In conclusion, I think it is important to use this month to highlight to the President how under his watch the operations of the government have become opaque to the extent that citizens feel they no longer own the development process. Indeed, it is evident that the process of governance may have been outsourced sufficiently to alienate the governed from their future.
I have confidence that President Mugabe would agree with the observations of many that he must take responsibility for the decay and if it can be confirmed that the wheels are off and things have fallen apart, then change has to come because without it, the independence project is at risk of being the greatest sham and robbery by a few using democratic manipulation to sustain and entrench a regime that never had direction.
As citizens try to reclaim their Republic, there can be no better place to start than investigate Gono and the role of the RBZ in undermining democratic institutions.
Ultimately when things fall apart, the center cannot be expected to hold and I am not sure whether Zimbabwe still has a center of gravity or is gravitating to the precipice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
