So South African president Jacob Zuma came to Harare, saw with his own eyes the mess that the dithering of SADC has wrought upon the political and economic fabric of Zimbabwe and was overcome by the scheming of ZANU-PF leader Robert Mugabe and his cohorts.
With subdued fanfare and little to show for his half-hearted efforts, Zuma left the country with yet another promise of more talks and new deadlines for the resolution of the so-called outstanding issues of the so-called inclusive government. He met separately with Reserve bank governor Gideon Gono and attorney general Johannes Tomana.
If it is true that Zuma did not ask these two Mugabe henchmen to step aside for the good of the country. then this was a truly a lost opportunity. We can surmise though, that Zuma could have offered each of these men a golden handshake of sorts in South African rand in order to tempt them to do what even they must know to be the right thing: leave their posts and hope that given their relatively young ages, they might have a real chance to participate in rebuilding the country in the future. After all, what use is South African wealth if some of it is not brought to bear on situations such as this?
The departure of Gono and Tomana will likely result in a domino effect because once these two are out of the way, who knows on whom the axe will fall next? I find it difficult to believe that ZANU-PF will begin the process of dismantling its terrorist apparatus. Fear of the slippery slope complex will mean that we are likely to be talking about this case until at least after the World Cup.
I believe that there will be some face-saving movement within the government in the wake of Zuma's visit. Governors will be appointed from the MDC side but perhaps not to the full extent envisaged under earlier agreements. ZANU-PF needs to slow down the transition process in Zimbabwe because there is a very real probability that an accelerated pace of change could flush the party down the drain of political oblivion.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
The case against the Brits
In his book Diamonds, Gold, and War: The British, the Boers, and the making of South Africa (read Southern Africa) Simon and Schuster, 2007, Martin Meredith gives a dispassionate account of the history of Southern Africa, with special attention to the colonization of Zimbabwe and the struggle for control of South Africa betwen the Brits and the the descendants the Dutch settlers who were the first white people to settle in that country, also known as the Boers.
Spearheaded by Cecil John Rhodes, the British presence in southern Africa appears to have been spurred by the efforts of treasure hunters lured by the prospect of striking it rich in the proven gold and diamond fields of South Africa and an imaginary eldorado in Mashonaland in what is present day Zimbabwe.
The brutal efficiency and cunning of Rhodes' s methods and the nod and wink approach of successive British governments are explored in depth. At times, the British government comes off as unwilling and unwitting victims of the machinations of Rhodes but most of the time, they never seem to take a firm stand against the actions of their citizens in southern Africa.
If that sort of behavior rings a bell, its because it is starkly similar to the attitude of British governments of the second half of the 20th century who seemed paralysed to do anything about the denial of basic human rights to Africans in Rhodesia and South Africa while publicly making loud noises to the contrary.The murderous deception that resulted in the conquest of Zimbabwe is described in sympathetic detail by the author.
Meredith's account of the uprising against the settlers by the indegenous peoples of Zimbabwe towards the end of the 19th century is illustrative of scheming and thuggery of the the most despicable kind, including the planned and deliberate provocation of the Matebele in order to get them into a fight which they would lose for the simple reason that they were heavily outgunned.
Someone should make a movie of the battle of Shangani, the last stand of the Matebele against Rhodes where they incurred heavy losses while killing every single member of Alan Wilson's patrol. King Lobengula of Matebeleland is portrayed as at once naive and thoughtful in his dealings with the settlers, whom he tried to avoid fighting despite the urging of his own generals. Believing that all the whites wanted was gold, Lobengula allowed them to prospect for gold in the territories under his control, including Mashonaland.
Much to the disappointment of the settlers, there was not much gold to be found in Zimbabwe and soon the settlers made it clear that their focus was more on seizing land than on finding King solomon's mines.In the end, there was nothing that Lobengula could do to stop British ambitions especially once the British government had joined in the plunder at the urging of Rhodes.
On a personal note, I have mixed feelings about Meredith's account of how the settlers may have saved my own people, Chief Bere's people who lived near Fort Victoria, now Masvingo. Sensing an opportunity, the settlers decided to take sides in the quarrel in order to provoke Lobengula into a fight which they knew they would win.
Am I then expected to be grateful to the settlers for saving my clan? Presumably, I would not have been born if my ancestors had been exterminated but this assumes that I was somehow predestined to show up on earth some time. This view goes against my basic instincts of who I am. Besides, what about all the millions of native peoples who have suffered colonially driven genocide over the centuries?
I recommend this book for anyone who wants to have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the colonial mindset of the British kind.
Spearheaded by Cecil John Rhodes, the British presence in southern Africa appears to have been spurred by the efforts of treasure hunters lured by the prospect of striking it rich in the proven gold and diamond fields of South Africa and an imaginary eldorado in Mashonaland in what is present day Zimbabwe.
The brutal efficiency and cunning of Rhodes' s methods and the nod and wink approach of successive British governments are explored in depth. At times, the British government comes off as unwilling and unwitting victims of the machinations of Rhodes but most of the time, they never seem to take a firm stand against the actions of their citizens in southern Africa.
If that sort of behavior rings a bell, its because it is starkly similar to the attitude of British governments of the second half of the 20th century who seemed paralysed to do anything about the denial of basic human rights to Africans in Rhodesia and South Africa while publicly making loud noises to the contrary.The murderous deception that resulted in the conquest of Zimbabwe is described in sympathetic detail by the author.
Meredith's account of the uprising against the settlers by the indegenous peoples of Zimbabwe towards the end of the 19th century is illustrative of scheming and thuggery of the the most despicable kind, including the planned and deliberate provocation of the Matebele in order to get them into a fight which they would lose for the simple reason that they were heavily outgunned.
Someone should make a movie of the battle of Shangani, the last stand of the Matebele against Rhodes where they incurred heavy losses while killing every single member of Alan Wilson's patrol. King Lobengula of Matebeleland is portrayed as at once naive and thoughtful in his dealings with the settlers, whom he tried to avoid fighting despite the urging of his own generals. Believing that all the whites wanted was gold, Lobengula allowed them to prospect for gold in the territories under his control, including Mashonaland.
Much to the disappointment of the settlers, there was not much gold to be found in Zimbabwe and soon the settlers made it clear that their focus was more on seizing land than on finding King solomon's mines.In the end, there was nothing that Lobengula could do to stop British ambitions especially once the British government had joined in the plunder at the urging of Rhodes.
On a personal note, I have mixed feelings about Meredith's account of how the settlers may have saved my own people, Chief Bere's people who lived near Fort Victoria, now Masvingo. Sensing an opportunity, the settlers decided to take sides in the quarrel in order to provoke Lobengula into a fight which they knew they would win.
Am I then expected to be grateful to the settlers for saving my clan? Presumably, I would not have been born if my ancestors had been exterminated but this assumes that I was somehow predestined to show up on earth some time. This view goes against my basic instincts of who I am. Besides, what about all the millions of native peoples who have suffered colonially driven genocide over the centuries?
I recommend this book for anyone who wants to have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the colonial mindset of the British kind.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Is Mugabe right about the British?
Now I realize that it is not in good taste to abuse one's host but sometimes it is unavoidable. If one's host suggested that one could no longer have an independent opinion about certain issues after downing the host's sumptuous dessert, one might be in order to protest vehemently.
Many of my readers live in Britain where they are, in a technical sense, guests of the British government and the British people at large. Previously, I have suggested that the tragedy of Zimbabwe can be laid squarely on the feet of successive British governments spanning more than a century. I know that some of you will start wondering if I am suggesting that Africans have no minds of their own; that everything begins and ends in London. Nothing could be farther from my mind.
Surely, you might ask, the British did not order ZANU-PF leader Robert Mugabe to massacre twenty thousand of his own people in the western provinces? Surely the Brits did not instigate the recent murderous assault on the political opposition which claimed thousands of lives and livelihoods?
My point is simply that Mugabe was a good student of British history who learned the crucial lesson that his predecessor Ian Douglas Smith also had learned equally well: the cynicism and contempt of the British governing class about most things African. Notice I do not make a distinction between the left and the right in making this point as both Labor and the Conservatives have shared in this approach.
To be fair to the Brits, their cynical approach to all things African is something they have in common with much of the western world. It explains why Bill Clinton thought intervening in Rwanda was not worth the effort while Bosnia was good policy. It explains why Harold Wilson did nothing to stop Ian Smith's naked rebellion in southern Rhodesia and Margaret Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands.
Wilson's cynical approach to the Rhodesian case resulted in the deaths of at least fifty thousand Africans in Zimbabwe's war of independence. It also resulted in the radicalization of the nationalist movement in Zimbabwe and subsequently, to the rise of one Robert Mugabe, who has haunted the good people of our fair plateau for more than a generation.
By extension or extrapolation, one can blame the British government for much of what has transpired in Zimbabwe in more recent times.
In a very real sense, when Mugabe says to blame the British, he may be right, after all.
Next week, I will review a book which makes a far more convincing case of British diplomatic cynicism with respect to southern African affairs going back to the nineteenth century.
Many of my readers live in Britain where they are, in a technical sense, guests of the British government and the British people at large. Previously, I have suggested that the tragedy of Zimbabwe can be laid squarely on the feet of successive British governments spanning more than a century. I know that some of you will start wondering if I am suggesting that Africans have no minds of their own; that everything begins and ends in London. Nothing could be farther from my mind.
Surely, you might ask, the British did not order ZANU-PF leader Robert Mugabe to massacre twenty thousand of his own people in the western provinces? Surely the Brits did not instigate the recent murderous assault on the political opposition which claimed thousands of lives and livelihoods?
My point is simply that Mugabe was a good student of British history who learned the crucial lesson that his predecessor Ian Douglas Smith also had learned equally well: the cynicism and contempt of the British governing class about most things African. Notice I do not make a distinction between the left and the right in making this point as both Labor and the Conservatives have shared in this approach.
To be fair to the Brits, their cynical approach to all things African is something they have in common with much of the western world. It explains why Bill Clinton thought intervening in Rwanda was not worth the effort while Bosnia was good policy. It explains why Harold Wilson did nothing to stop Ian Smith's naked rebellion in southern Rhodesia and Margaret Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands.
Wilson's cynical approach to the Rhodesian case resulted in the deaths of at least fifty thousand Africans in Zimbabwe's war of independence. It also resulted in the radicalization of the nationalist movement in Zimbabwe and subsequently, to the rise of one Robert Mugabe, who has haunted the good people of our fair plateau for more than a generation.
By extension or extrapolation, one can blame the British government for much of what has transpired in Zimbabwe in more recent times.
In a very real sense, when Mugabe says to blame the British, he may be right, after all.
Next week, I will review a book which makes a far more convincing case of British diplomatic cynicism with respect to southern African affairs going back to the nineteenth century.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Can Zuma deliver?
Previously, I suggested that South African president Jacob Zuma's overriding priority over the next few months with regards to the Zimbabwean problem would be to contain it, not to fix it. This is because Zuma does not want the attention of the region and the world to be focused on anything other than the upcoming World Cup soccer tournament in South Africa next southern hemisphere summer.
If this assumption is true, it follows that Zuma will not be pushing hard to resolve the deadlock in the so-called inclusive government as any such move might invite the dogged resistance of those who know that Zuma's hand is virtually tied at this stage. It makes perfect sense from the South African side to postpone as much unpleasant conversation as possible until after the tournament.
Everything we have gleaned from the media over the past few months suggests that there will be no progress to write home about in these endless talks if only because all parties seem to have something to gain from protracted negotiations. Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF want to enjoy power for as long as possible. Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC are torn between those who want to resolve the outstanding issues immediately (those outside the governing elite in parliament and cabinet) and those who want to enjoy their appointments and elective offices for as long as possible.
Arthur Mutambara and his version of the MDC clearly would be rendered irrelevant by any final settlement which leads to free elections as they are likely to be buried under electoral rubble. Anyone please tell me why a member of the legislature who has just been given a loan to buy an expensive vehicle would suddenly want his tenure to end before they have made the first twelve payments. A doze of honesty is in order here: all parties, including SADC, the African Union have no interest in bringing this matter to an end.
Paradoxically, the only people whose interests are not being served by the continuing impasse are the western powers whose position looks increasingly untenable. Their argument that Zimbabwe has not changed enough seems cyclical if it is true that western aid could cause accelerated change if the people of Zimbabwe tasted the benefits of such aid.
I think the big boys in Washington and London need to put the sticks away and offer more carrots to the Zimbabwean people and see what happens. Right now it looks like their approach to this issue is driven more by pride than by sound policy.
It may well be that a change of tactics will turn out to be a mistake, but it would be a mistake made while trying to do the right thing. In any case, it can be successfully argued that the so-called sanctions imposed on Mugabe and his henchmen have been counter-productive. But that is another topic altogether. Besides, it would not be that hard to put Mugabe back in the box should that become necessary..
If this assumption is true, it follows that Zuma will not be pushing hard to resolve the deadlock in the so-called inclusive government as any such move might invite the dogged resistance of those who know that Zuma's hand is virtually tied at this stage. It makes perfect sense from the South African side to postpone as much unpleasant conversation as possible until after the tournament.
Everything we have gleaned from the media over the past few months suggests that there will be no progress to write home about in these endless talks if only because all parties seem to have something to gain from protracted negotiations. Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF want to enjoy power for as long as possible. Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC are torn between those who want to resolve the outstanding issues immediately (those outside the governing elite in parliament and cabinet) and those who want to enjoy their appointments and elective offices for as long as possible.
Arthur Mutambara and his version of the MDC clearly would be rendered irrelevant by any final settlement which leads to free elections as they are likely to be buried under electoral rubble. Anyone please tell me why a member of the legislature who has just been given a loan to buy an expensive vehicle would suddenly want his tenure to end before they have made the first twelve payments. A doze of honesty is in order here: all parties, including SADC, the African Union have no interest in bringing this matter to an end.
Paradoxically, the only people whose interests are not being served by the continuing impasse are the western powers whose position looks increasingly untenable. Their argument that Zimbabwe has not changed enough seems cyclical if it is true that western aid could cause accelerated change if the people of Zimbabwe tasted the benefits of such aid.
I think the big boys in Washington and London need to put the sticks away and offer more carrots to the Zimbabwean people and see what happens. Right now it looks like their approach to this issue is driven more by pride than by sound policy.
It may well be that a change of tactics will turn out to be a mistake, but it would be a mistake made while trying to do the right thing. In any case, it can be successfully argued that the so-called sanctions imposed on Mugabe and his henchmen have been counter-productive. But that is another topic altogether. Besides, it would not be that hard to put Mugabe back in the box should that become necessary..
Saturday, February 13, 2010
More ways to cut waste in government
Previously, I suggested that Zimbabwean defence spending is money going down the drain for no good reason. It follows that the country should take advantage of its land-locked status and lack of natural enemies to re-direct resources being wasted building a huge defence establishment towards providing essential social services such as education, health, housing and safety. I even hinted that the Swiss model might make sense for Zimbabwe but this may not be feasible in the current political climate.
Cutting defence spending is not the only way to reduce the burden on the tax-paying public. Suffice it to say that there should be no sacred cows in any serious effort to focus governmental resources on a narrow set of issues that cretate an environment where the quality of life matters more than the tenure of political office holders. In order to eliminate or reduce opportunities for political patronage, the civil service has to be streamlined and allowed to dwindle to a more affordable size by attrition, if the politics of it are too ghastly to contemplate.
Obviously the number of ministries needs to be cut to reflect the core functions of government as opposed to the political interests of certain clans. It may be that in the early post-independence era, it was necessary to create employment opportunities for many who had not been given opportunities under the previous racist system but that time has long since passed and we should be moving into an era of realism about what we can and cannot afford, as taxpayers. Political stability should not come at the expense of common sense and fiscal sanity.
Certainly the idea of creating thirty to forty ministries for the purpose of buying political support seems ludicrous for a country decimated by poverty and disease and other social and economic ailments. It goes without saying that for a country of ten million to have more than two hundred legislators would be the stuff of comedy if it was not a matter of serious concern. A maximum of fifteen ministries should be able to take care of all the business of the people at a cost that reflects the meager resources available.
I think the number of legislators at national level should be reduced to about one for each of the administrative districts depending on population and should not be increased for political expediency but to meet the needs of a growing population. This reduction can be done as part of an exercise to devolve more and more power to the local authorities so that they can do the daily chores of government at a cost that reflects prevailing economic conditions in that particular region.
Do I think that a future government controlled by the MDC will make a significant shft towards more realism and accountability in government spending? The signs are not very encouraging because the movement seems to be learning very well under the tutelage of the masters of overbearing government, Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF. The longer this so-called inclusive government lasts, the less likely it will be that a new MDC-led government will have the courage to make the necessary changes to harness profligacy in government.
This may be the stuff of hope, hope that often feeds on crumbs.
Cutting defence spending is not the only way to reduce the burden on the tax-paying public. Suffice it to say that there should be no sacred cows in any serious effort to focus governmental resources on a narrow set of issues that cretate an environment where the quality of life matters more than the tenure of political office holders. In order to eliminate or reduce opportunities for political patronage, the civil service has to be streamlined and allowed to dwindle to a more affordable size by attrition, if the politics of it are too ghastly to contemplate.
Obviously the number of ministries needs to be cut to reflect the core functions of government as opposed to the political interests of certain clans. It may be that in the early post-independence era, it was necessary to create employment opportunities for many who had not been given opportunities under the previous racist system but that time has long since passed and we should be moving into an era of realism about what we can and cannot afford, as taxpayers. Political stability should not come at the expense of common sense and fiscal sanity.
Certainly the idea of creating thirty to forty ministries for the purpose of buying political support seems ludicrous for a country decimated by poverty and disease and other social and economic ailments. It goes without saying that for a country of ten million to have more than two hundred legislators would be the stuff of comedy if it was not a matter of serious concern. A maximum of fifteen ministries should be able to take care of all the business of the people at a cost that reflects the meager resources available.
I think the number of legislators at national level should be reduced to about one for each of the administrative districts depending on population and should not be increased for political expediency but to meet the needs of a growing population. This reduction can be done as part of an exercise to devolve more and more power to the local authorities so that they can do the daily chores of government at a cost that reflects prevailing economic conditions in that particular region.
Do I think that a future government controlled by the MDC will make a significant shft towards more realism and accountability in government spending? The signs are not very encouraging because the movement seems to be learning very well under the tutelage of the masters of overbearing government, Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF. The longer this so-called inclusive government lasts, the less likely it will be that a new MDC-led government will have the courage to make the necessary changes to harness profligacy in government.
This may be the stuff of hope, hope that often feeds on crumbs.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
How to trim defence spending in Zimbabwe
Last week I suggested that the Zimbabwe government was a burden on the taxpayer and should be trimmed. That is always easier said than done but this week I will make very specific proposals as to how to cut government expenditure in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwe government should develop a more realistic defence policy which recognizes that we have no natural enemies in southern Africa: none of our neighbors have any known territorial claims against us. Despite ZANU-PF leader Robert Mugabe's paranoia, neither the Brits nor the Americans have any desire to re-colonize Zimbabwe for any reason.
Those who keep making this assertion are plainly delusional, which is not entirely surprising given the advanced age of those who keep making these claims.
Furthermore, our membership in SADC means that we have the added security of a common defense policy with our neighbours. At the very least, we have an opportunity to propose and champion such a common defense policy if it were not already on SADC's agenda.
Granted that while our defence build-up in the post-independence era may have been driven by the apartheid regime in neighbouring South Africa, in more recent years it has been motivated by the political vulnerabilities of the septogenarians and octogenarians running the country.
What would such a new defence policy look like? One may understably wonder why we need a defence ministry at all given the prospects of regional integration, our land-locked status and lack of natural enemies. However, since I cannot predict the future, I am willing to stipulate that we need a defence establishment, leaving open the question of what size of defence department and at what cost to the taxpayer?
If it was up to me, I would look to the Swiss model but having already conceded the point for the sake of advancing the argument, I suggest that what Zimbabwe needs is a fierce fighting force of about ten thousand men and women, roughly a quarter of the current defence force.
This goal cannot be achieved over-night but is achievable in the long term by means of attrition and reorganisation. Any new government emerging from the current chaos should preferably set up a commission to study this matter and come up with firm proposals about how to trim our defence spending in line with a new set of national priorities.
If all other reasons fail, affordability should suffice and guide any future defence policy.
Next week, I will suggest more ways to rescue Zimbabwean taxpayers from the grip of greedy political schemers.
The Zimbabwe government should develop a more realistic defence policy which recognizes that we have no natural enemies in southern Africa: none of our neighbors have any known territorial claims against us. Despite ZANU-PF leader Robert Mugabe's paranoia, neither the Brits nor the Americans have any desire to re-colonize Zimbabwe for any reason.
Those who keep making this assertion are plainly delusional, which is not entirely surprising given the advanced age of those who keep making these claims.
Furthermore, our membership in SADC means that we have the added security of a common defense policy with our neighbours. At the very least, we have an opportunity to propose and champion such a common defense policy if it were not already on SADC's agenda.
Granted that while our defence build-up in the post-independence era may have been driven by the apartheid regime in neighbouring South Africa, in more recent years it has been motivated by the political vulnerabilities of the septogenarians and octogenarians running the country.
What would such a new defence policy look like? One may understably wonder why we need a defence ministry at all given the prospects of regional integration, our land-locked status and lack of natural enemies. However, since I cannot predict the future, I am willing to stipulate that we need a defence establishment, leaving open the question of what size of defence department and at what cost to the taxpayer?
If it was up to me, I would look to the Swiss model but having already conceded the point for the sake of advancing the argument, I suggest that what Zimbabwe needs is a fierce fighting force of about ten thousand men and women, roughly a quarter of the current defence force.
This goal cannot be achieved over-night but is achievable in the long term by means of attrition and reorganisation. Any new government emerging from the current chaos should preferably set up a commission to study this matter and come up with firm proposals about how to trim our defence spending in line with a new set of national priorities.
If all other reasons fail, affordability should suffice and guide any future defence policy.
Next week, I will suggest more ways to rescue Zimbabwean taxpayers from the grip of greedy political schemers.
The gluttonous government
Pardon me all you twenty-something boys out there because the analogy I am about to use may be offensive to some of you. It is well known that for some biological reason, young men seem to gain a lot of weight through their twenties and early thirties. Their waistlines expand exponentially until sometimes one can fail to recognize them if one has not seen them in a few years! These young men tend to have huge appetites for all sorts of things: food, sex, money, beer -you name it.
Many of these young men will begin to not like the man in the mirror at some point. They may be motivated to do something about it and enrol in a gym or dietary program of some kind in order to look and feel healthier. Others learn to throw their weight around to gain any advantage they may from carrying extra pounds. Many will just give up and accept their new acquired looks as if they were part of their pre-destined lot in life. Paradoxically, such an attitude may have positive emotional benefits, even it may have negative long term health implications.
Now imagine a young man who is permanently in his twenties, continually gathering weight, throwing his weight around, demanding more and more food, air and space. At some point, such a young man will either eat up his entire tribe or the tribe will have to give him a reality check before things get out of control. Such a young man is an apt description of any government, especially the Zimbabwe government in recent times.
Now, there are those who think that a better metaphor for the Zimbabwe government would be that of a super-massive black hole eating up all matter in its neighborhood and wandering across the galaxy in search of more matter to swallow. For me that seems a little like overkill and gives the impression that we cannot do something to stop the government. The reality is that we do not need divine intervention to deal with a gluttonous state which is threatening to turn into a cannibal.
It is well within our power to prevent the government from chewing us all up, something which we allowed it to do in recent years until foreigners came to our rescue. To do this, we must return to our original analogy of the growing young man. With a combination of good advice, reasonable rations, exercise and plain tough love, it is possible to give the average young man a chance to develop into a healthy adult who cares more about his tribe and his world and less about his self-destructive tastes and wants.
Therefore we must allow the Zimbabwe government to shrink by attrition and design; devolve the state machinery so that the local people are more aware of the cost of government. Government services, including schools, should be allowed to reflect regional affordabily and needs. Any individual or group that wants to start a school at their own expense should be able to do so without central government permission or license. Driver's licenses should be issued locally.
The central government may continue to set standards without imposing them upon populations who cannot afford them. The police should be funded by the local tax and rate payers so that they are more answerable to the local people than to the whims of some political heavy weight who decides who is to be arrested and who is allowed to get away with murder.
In other words, the cost of government should be a daily experience of the people so that they can remain vigilant againt wasteful and self-serving government spending.
Many of these young men will begin to not like the man in the mirror at some point. They may be motivated to do something about it and enrol in a gym or dietary program of some kind in order to look and feel healthier. Others learn to throw their weight around to gain any advantage they may from carrying extra pounds. Many will just give up and accept their new acquired looks as if they were part of their pre-destined lot in life. Paradoxically, such an attitude may have positive emotional benefits, even it may have negative long term health implications.
Now imagine a young man who is permanently in his twenties, continually gathering weight, throwing his weight around, demanding more and more food, air and space. At some point, such a young man will either eat up his entire tribe or the tribe will have to give him a reality check before things get out of control. Such a young man is an apt description of any government, especially the Zimbabwe government in recent times.
Now, there are those who think that a better metaphor for the Zimbabwe government would be that of a super-massive black hole eating up all matter in its neighborhood and wandering across the galaxy in search of more matter to swallow. For me that seems a little like overkill and gives the impression that we cannot do something to stop the government. The reality is that we do not need divine intervention to deal with a gluttonous state which is threatening to turn into a cannibal.
It is well within our power to prevent the government from chewing us all up, something which we allowed it to do in recent years until foreigners came to our rescue. To do this, we must return to our original analogy of the growing young man. With a combination of good advice, reasonable rations, exercise and plain tough love, it is possible to give the average young man a chance to develop into a healthy adult who cares more about his tribe and his world and less about his self-destructive tastes and wants.
Therefore we must allow the Zimbabwe government to shrink by attrition and design; devolve the state machinery so that the local people are more aware of the cost of government. Government services, including schools, should be allowed to reflect regional affordabily and needs. Any individual or group that wants to start a school at their own expense should be able to do so without central government permission or license. Driver's licenses should be issued locally.
The central government may continue to set standards without imposing them upon populations who cannot afford them. The police should be funded by the local tax and rate payers so that they are more answerable to the local people than to the whims of some political heavy weight who decides who is to be arrested and who is allowed to get away with murder.
In other words, the cost of government should be a daily experience of the people so that they can remain vigilant againt wasteful and self-serving government spending.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Can we afford this government?
How much government can Zimbabwean tax-payers afford?
The answer to this question depends largely on who you ask. If you asked me, I would say that one of the more important lessons of the past thirty years of one party rule is the danger of an overbearing, almighty central government which accretes power and uses it to perpetuate its incumbency. Inevitably, such a regime extracts an increasingly larger share of national resources through taxation and (in the case of the Zimbabwe government) by outright confiscation using extra-legal means. For me, the smaller the government, the better.
What is a smaller government, you may ask? Broadly speaking, a government which has no political limits on the revenues it can collect through taxation is too large. A government which directly controls upward of a tenth of GDP ought to be considered too large in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. But why a tenth? Well, one tenth is psychologically significant by tradition spanning centuries across most world cultures. Ten per centum seems to be the point where corporations and individuals begin to resist the collection efforts of the tax man. After all, even the gods above seem to ask for no more than a tenth for charity. Why should this thing called government deserve more than the gods who supposedly determine our destinies?
Zimbabwe's GDP is progressively estimated at about 5 billion United States dollars and conservatively thought to be a billion dollars less. If we accept the latter estimate, we immediately realize that if the Zimbabwean taxman is collecting anything approaching a billion dollars a year, then he is taking way more than the 400 million he may is fairly entitled to. Under Finance Minister Tendayi Biti's current budget, the government expects to collect in excess of a billion dollars this year. This is more than 20% of GDP and clearly way above the psychological barrier of 10% that we established above.
It appears safe to conclude that the Zimbabwe government as presently constituted is a financial burden on the people of Zimbabwe and should be trimmed so that it focuses only on its primary responsibilities: education, health and safety. Any new political dispensation which does not refocus a future government back into a more limited role will be a lost opportunity.
The answer to this question depends largely on who you ask. If you asked me, I would say that one of the more important lessons of the past thirty years of one party rule is the danger of an overbearing, almighty central government which accretes power and uses it to perpetuate its incumbency. Inevitably, such a regime extracts an increasingly larger share of national resources through taxation and (in the case of the Zimbabwe government) by outright confiscation using extra-legal means. For me, the smaller the government, the better.
What is a smaller government, you may ask? Broadly speaking, a government which has no political limits on the revenues it can collect through taxation is too large. A government which directly controls upward of a tenth of GDP ought to be considered too large in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. But why a tenth? Well, one tenth is psychologically significant by tradition spanning centuries across most world cultures. Ten per centum seems to be the point where corporations and individuals begin to resist the collection efforts of the tax man. After all, even the gods above seem to ask for no more than a tenth for charity. Why should this thing called government deserve more than the gods who supposedly determine our destinies?
Zimbabwe's GDP is progressively estimated at about 5 billion United States dollars and conservatively thought to be a billion dollars less. If we accept the latter estimate, we immediately realize that if the Zimbabwean taxman is collecting anything approaching a billion dollars a year, then he is taking way more than the 400 million he may is fairly entitled to. Under Finance Minister Tendayi Biti's current budget, the government expects to collect in excess of a billion dollars this year. This is more than 20% of GDP and clearly way above the psychological barrier of 10% that we established above.
It appears safe to conclude that the Zimbabwe government as presently constituted is a financial burden on the people of Zimbabwe and should be trimmed so that it focuses only on its primary responsibilities: education, health and safety. Any new political dispensation which does not refocus a future government back into a more limited role will be a lost opportunity.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Zimbabwe stock market in 2010
The direction of the Zimbabwe stock market in the short to medium term is once again in focus. Of particular interest is what might happen to the market if there is evidence of a solid political settlement which could deliver economic stability, the rule of law, boost business and consumer confidence at home and spark the interest of investors abroad. Could there be a massive injection of foreign money into the country through the stock exchange?
By some accounts, it may be too late to ask that question given the phenomenal rise in the values of a few key counters on the local bourse since the dumping of the Zimbabwe dollar in the first quarter of 2009. According to this school of thought, most of the speculative money has already arrived, much to the benefit of the Econets, the La Farges, the Rio Tintos and the BATs of this bourse. I suspect that there is something there, but given that these counters dominated the market before dollarization, it may be that what we have here is old money in new wallets.
There are those who believe that the foreign investing public still lacks confidence in the future of the economy given the tectonic nature of the so-called inclusive governing environment, where either of the major players seem bent on eating each the other's lunch, if not corpse! I tend to agree with them. For a start, even the highest quoted stock on the bourse is still a penny stock. When we begin to see a few stocks trading above five dollars, we may begin to believe that the new money has arrived.
For now, we must continue to wonder why African Sun and other tourism related stocks continue to wallow in "shallows and miseries", given the up-coming World Cup in neighbouring South Africa which should, if only in the short term, shore up these stocks. After all, tourism is likely to be one of the fastest growing segments of the economy going into the future, if international visitors return in significant numbers.
It appears that while there should be little doubt that some speculative money is at play in the market, the real money is still off-shore and business and government leaders should continue to work hard to bring it across the oceans and the Limpopo.
By some accounts, it may be too late to ask that question given the phenomenal rise in the values of a few key counters on the local bourse since the dumping of the Zimbabwe dollar in the first quarter of 2009. According to this school of thought, most of the speculative money has already arrived, much to the benefit of the Econets, the La Farges, the Rio Tintos and the BATs of this bourse. I suspect that there is something there, but given that these counters dominated the market before dollarization, it may be that what we have here is old money in new wallets.
There are those who believe that the foreign investing public still lacks confidence in the future of the economy given the tectonic nature of the so-called inclusive governing environment, where either of the major players seem bent on eating each the other's lunch, if not corpse! I tend to agree with them. For a start, even the highest quoted stock on the bourse is still a penny stock. When we begin to see a few stocks trading above five dollars, we may begin to believe that the new money has arrived.
For now, we must continue to wonder why African Sun and other tourism related stocks continue to wallow in "shallows and miseries", given the up-coming World Cup in neighbouring South Africa which should, if only in the short term, shore up these stocks. After all, tourism is likely to be one of the fastest growing segments of the economy going into the future, if international visitors return in significant numbers.
It appears that while there should be little doubt that some speculative money is at play in the market, the real money is still off-shore and business and government leaders should continue to work hard to bring it across the oceans and the Limpopo.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Surprise! Surprise!
If recent press reports are anything to go by, it appears that the MDC era has arrived. The goings on in entities run by the MDC at local and national levels suggest that party leaders have started gouging from the crumbs left over from the ZANU-PF looting orgy. MDC politicians are growing fat at the expense of the rate and tax payers.
Surprise! Surprise!
It is clear that as far as most of these MDC politicians are concerned, the struggle against ZANU-PF was a struggle for the perks, legit or otherwise, that come with control of local and national resources. Naturally, party apologists have already begun dishing out an endless list of excuses, inter alia, the truly ludicrous suggestion that some of the nefarious practices were inherited from the former ruling party. By implication, there was nothing that the MDC could do about it but to continue the robbery.
Talk about a code of conduct for party leaders seems to be lifted right out of the ZANU-PF playbook for the sole purpose of deceiving the people of Zimbabwe into believing that something is being done about these corrupt activities. Party leaders have been visiting local councils and ministries to do something which they are not qualified to do: investigate and find evidence of corruption and presumably recommend disciplinary measures against perpetrators.
This is not only a recipe for intra-party strife but also will be greeted with glee at Chibuku house.It is not my business to advise any political party and if the MDC would like to destroy themselves from within, that's something I cannot do anything about.Suffice it for me to suggest that the movement should use this transition phase in the affairs of the nation to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of its internal screening and election systems for party leaders.
Let the rotten apples expose themselves in the meantime. In the end, the only true disinfectant is the sunshine. This means that any member of the party should be able to run for any position within the party and government- from branch secretary to party president, from councillor to state president. Such a system would ensure that that the party was continually renewed in terms of leadership and ideas.
The current party leadership ought to be seen as a transitional one, which should be replaced in a more open political environment, not one designed principally to foil ZANU-PF infiltration.
Posted by allen at 8:33 AM
Surprise! Surprise!
It is clear that as far as most of these MDC politicians are concerned, the struggle against ZANU-PF was a struggle for the perks, legit or otherwise, that come with control of local and national resources. Naturally, party apologists have already begun dishing out an endless list of excuses, inter alia, the truly ludicrous suggestion that some of the nefarious practices were inherited from the former ruling party. By implication, there was nothing that the MDC could do about it but to continue the robbery.
Talk about a code of conduct for party leaders seems to be lifted right out of the ZANU-PF playbook for the sole purpose of deceiving the people of Zimbabwe into believing that something is being done about these corrupt activities. Party leaders have been visiting local councils and ministries to do something which they are not qualified to do: investigate and find evidence of corruption and presumably recommend disciplinary measures against perpetrators.
This is not only a recipe for intra-party strife but also will be greeted with glee at Chibuku house.It is not my business to advise any political party and if the MDC would like to destroy themselves from within, that's something I cannot do anything about.Suffice it for me to suggest that the movement should use this transition phase in the affairs of the nation to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of its internal screening and election systems for party leaders.
Let the rotten apples expose themselves in the meantime. In the end, the only true disinfectant is the sunshine. This means that any member of the party should be able to run for any position within the party and government- from branch secretary to party president, from councillor to state president. Such a system would ensure that that the party was continually renewed in terms of leadership and ideas.
The current party leadership ought to be seen as a transitional one, which should be replaced in a more open political environment, not one designed principally to foil ZANU-PF infiltration.
Posted by allen at 8:33 AM
Saturday, January 2, 2010
How about national memory banks?
One of the few silver linings of the recent economic, social and political apocalypse in Zimbabwe is the chance to clear the slate and start all over. Transitions of any kind can be painful exercises but they do offer the opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of the past.
For better or for worse, human beings have very short memories. We need short memories in order to cope with tragedy and adversity so that we can make the best of our short stays on this planet; we need long memories so that we do not fall prey to our recent short-comings or failures of judgment. Balancing these two competing interests is the bread and butter of everyday life. Sadly, many of us do not do a good job of reconciling our long-term and short-term memories, which explains why many abused spouses often end up in a series of such abusive relationships.
Extrapolating this balancing act to the country level, one can say that Zimbabweans have a lot to learn from the national catastrophe of the past thirty years. Re-writing the constitution is one of many things that may contribute towards establishing a national memory bank. But it is by no means enough. Indeed, it is naive to think that a piece of paper could be the panacea to our democracy deficit. After all, one of the least talked about short-comings of the past few decades is how the Zimbabwe government ignored its own laws, including the constitution, to achieve many of its political victories, such as the forcible seizure of land.
I think that the constitution-building process can be useful in preserving both long and short term national memory by institutionalizing it. It can be shown that much of what transpired in recent years in Zimbabwe could have been avoided with stronger national institutions such as the police force and the judiciary. Once these supposedly independent bodies came under the control of the ruling party, Zimbabweans were (and still are) at the mercy of thugs operating out of Chibuku house.
One of the most obvious ways to strengthen national institutions is to limit the over-arching power of the executive over them. A starting point would be to make sure that parliament has a say over all appointments of a certain rank to the judiciary, the police, the army, the foreign service and the public service.
Such a confirmation process would limit the tendency of politicians to appoint their home-boys and relatives to the cabinet and the judiciary and could mark the beginning of true accountability in our national affairs which could result in enhanced confidence in some of the institutions at the core of our democracy.
I do not believe that the current deal-making approach adopted by the parties to the so-called inclusive government will result in stronger institutional memory banks. It smells like more of the same.
Never before in our short history has such a small number of vulnerable politicians owed so much to so many of their friends, clansmen and henchmen.
Once again, it appears that we are screwed!
For better or for worse, human beings have very short memories. We need short memories in order to cope with tragedy and adversity so that we can make the best of our short stays on this planet; we need long memories so that we do not fall prey to our recent short-comings or failures of judgment. Balancing these two competing interests is the bread and butter of everyday life. Sadly, many of us do not do a good job of reconciling our long-term and short-term memories, which explains why many abused spouses often end up in a series of such abusive relationships.
Extrapolating this balancing act to the country level, one can say that Zimbabweans have a lot to learn from the national catastrophe of the past thirty years. Re-writing the constitution is one of many things that may contribute towards establishing a national memory bank. But it is by no means enough. Indeed, it is naive to think that a piece of paper could be the panacea to our democracy deficit. After all, one of the least talked about short-comings of the past few decades is how the Zimbabwe government ignored its own laws, including the constitution, to achieve many of its political victories, such as the forcible seizure of land.
I think that the constitution-building process can be useful in preserving both long and short term national memory by institutionalizing it. It can be shown that much of what transpired in recent years in Zimbabwe could have been avoided with stronger national institutions such as the police force and the judiciary. Once these supposedly independent bodies came under the control of the ruling party, Zimbabweans were (and still are) at the mercy of thugs operating out of Chibuku house.
One of the most obvious ways to strengthen national institutions is to limit the over-arching power of the executive over them. A starting point would be to make sure that parliament has a say over all appointments of a certain rank to the judiciary, the police, the army, the foreign service and the public service.
Such a confirmation process would limit the tendency of politicians to appoint their home-boys and relatives to the cabinet and the judiciary and could mark the beginning of true accountability in our national affairs which could result in enhanced confidence in some of the institutions at the core of our democracy.
I do not believe that the current deal-making approach adopted by the parties to the so-called inclusive government will result in stronger institutional memory banks. It smells like more of the same.
Never before in our short history has such a small number of vulnerable politicians owed so much to so many of their friends, clansmen and henchmen.
Once again, it appears that we are screwed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)