BY DR MASIMBA MAVAZA.
No one would envy Zimbabwean politics. It is characterised by an all-or-nothing, no-holds-barred aggression between two parties, the ruling ZANU PF and its main rival, the MDC ALLIANCE. Disputes are most commonly settled not in parliamentary debate or at the ballot box, but through paralysing hartals strikes-cum-blockades enforced by partisan thugs. The losing parties go to the painful length to harm progress and spoil development so that the ruling party is viewed as a failure. It is easy to turn starving people against their leaders. In the mind of an economically struggling person his good life is behind the guy in power. So it becomes easy to cause chaos with the hope of getting richer. Bearing in mind that the opposition won in urban areas so the multitudes in towns are being misled by the hope that dialogue is to remove ZANU PF. This is not democracy at all.
Democracy is consolidating in Zimbabwe and it is threatened by bad losers. Free and contested elections are increasingly the norm rather than the exception, and we are experiencing peaceful turnovers of power from incumbents to challengers. But we are bedeviled by those who do not wish to lose. Notwithstanding the benefits of democracy, though, some aspects of the democratic process in Zimbabwe can insert inefficiencies in policy formulation and implementation. Any new strategy the government tries to implement is met with serious resistance and unrelenting criticism. This brings the country on its knees.
Zimbabwe is a vibrant democracy where elections are vigorously contested. They are generally free and fair, and voter participation rates are high. Two political parties—the MDC and ZANU PF have dominated the political scene since 2000. No political party has been able to succeed itself after the mandatory two-term limit of five years each.
Elections in Zimbabwe are “winner takes all.” The spoils are: the right to appoint ministers, presidential staffers, managers and board members of all parastatals, and more importantly, the right to award contracts and the right to govern.
The political parties define themselves by ideology. There are also differences in the geographic support base of the two dominant parties. The towns are mostly opposition’s stronghold while the rural base reliably vote for ZANU PF. The semi Rural Areas are typically swing regions. The opposition parties also attempt to distinguish themselves by touting “competence,” past record, and the character of their leadership (honesty, corruptibility, charisma, and modesty).
Remarkably, neither the ZANU PF nor the MDC draws its support from any identifiable socio-economic group. In fact, party supporters appear to be no more than associations of prominent individuals and their followers or “fan clubs.
For the most part, elections are contested on the basis of promised infrastructure projects, utility price reductions, the restoration of DIGNITY investments and general good life. Neither party is associated with consistent and coherent policies to favor a particular socio-economic group or economic activity.
Labor in Zimbabwe unions, trade associations, and the self-employed) and other socio-economic groups are very vocal on pocketbook issues.
Invariably, these policies are perceived and/or presented as “gifts” from a caring government.
The administrations scrupulously avoid policies that would negatively impact a specific socio-economic group, especially organized labor. Government is always afraid to tax its people this they do in-order to maintain popularity.
Thus, the tax-to-GDP ratio is very low, while economic rents are important sources of government revenues.
In any case, exchange rate and tariff policies are designed to favor consumption as opposed to production.
It then becomes clear that our economy depends on our political landscape.
Thus, the nature of Zimbabwe’s political landscape is particularly important in shaping the country’s policy decisions. For example, the administration is keen to showcase its economic achievements. Windfall rents from the extractive industries are channeled into investment.
On the flip side, the Zimbabwean polity slows economic growth, promotes inefficiency, and is inimical to inclusive and broad-based development. Instead instead of concentrating on the economy they become busy putting time on the survival politically surrendering the whole nation to fate. In a very thin line between corruption and efficiency, Contracts are awarded to individuals perceived as sympathetic to the political party in power. As a result, a viable and dynamic national private sector is slow to emerge as few contractors survive the cycle of political alternation of power. Contracts awarded under previous administrations are often canceled or forcibly renegotiated, leading to sizable judgement debts.
Rivalry between and within political parties for control over the management of infrastructure projects can be debilitating. Opposing parties rarely complete projects initiated under other administrations.
Despite the critical importance of the facilities the opposition parties will always be very hostile to the facility.
The political economy of policy formulation and implementation has led to outcomes that we characterize as the Zimbabwean economic paradox. The economy has been very wounded.
Growth rates have been respectable and, at times, spectacular, though the exceptional performances are usually linked to booms in the primary sectors. This was attributed to command economy which was abandoned without explanation. There should have been heavy investment in productive, transport, and housing infrastructure. But the picture flashed to the investors makes it dangerous for them to invest in Zimbabwe. Moreover, Zimbabwe has experienced an extremely unstable macroeconomic environment of high inflation, unstable exchange rates, upward trending interest rates, and unsustained public sector wages.
On the far left we have an opposition crying for talks. These are not talks to sort the economy but to Squize for a position in the government. The talks are not for the good of the country. They are selfish way of coming into government through the back door.
At the same time, the economy is afflicted with crushing indebtedness and unemployment. Income distribution is grotesquely skewed. There is underfunding of social programs. The bulk of the population is increasingly impoverished. Social tensions are heightened. The population bitterly complains about unkept promises and poverty which can literally be seen. Their complaints are given a false legitimacy by the opposition which keeps them hoping for a negotiated government.
Zimbabwean case demonstrates that democracy does not always get it right, and it is definitely not a panacea. In fact, democracy is guaranteed to get it wrong if the choices are all unpalatable. Talks of creating a government above a democratically elected government is not a democratic way all. No wonder why it is the losing parties in the world who support MDC in having a dialogue. The agenda for reform in must include economic, regulatory, and political measures.
It is an affront to economic efficiency and justice. Talks must be economical not political.
as democracy makes more inroads and consolidates in Zimbabwe , it would be important to ensure that political parties emerge that are more inclusive and reflect the socio-economic aspirations of the broad segment of the population. Moreover, specific socio-economic groups need to find their voices on issues such as the management of national resources and economic and trade policies, as well as demand political representation, regulatory, and political reforms. This would minimize inefficiencies in policy formulation and implementation so that Zimbabwe can better pursue policies that promote employment, the local private sector, economic efficiency, and broad-based development.
The opposition must not take advantage of the economic problems in order to gain political recognition.
Vazet2000@yahoo.co.uk
Comments
About Author
