Davos and 2018 elections: What to Expect

 

 

 

 

 

In 2017, I made the argument that ZANU-PF would win the 2018 harmonized elections based on three fundamental reasons.

 

 

Firstly, ZANU-PF has a more conscientized membership than any other political movement in the country, where political consciousness refers to the levels of awareness and knowledgebility around a party’s political and ideological positions among its core and potential supporters.

 

 

Secondly, the success of the Command Agriculture government initiative in the 2016/2017 agricultural season will resonate in the 2018 elections as an advantage for ZANU-PF.

 

 

This is because government has enough stored food in its silos to feed the population affected by this season’s drought. In this light, ZANU-PF will raise Command Agriculture as one of its key electoral points.

 

 

The third reason is the youth vote. Statistically, about 60-65% of the population is below forty, and between the 2013 and 2018, it is ZANU-PF that has had the most active and visible youth league among all the major political formations in the country.

 

 

Furthermore, the MDC-T’s “no reform no election” lobby which saw the country’s main opposition party boycotting by-elections since the 2013 harmonized elections until the MDC-Alliance was formed in 2017 means that for four years the country’s main opposition has lost the opportunity to conscientize the electorate on its policy and ideological positions.

 

 

Put plainly the opposition’s “no reform-no election” agenda was a disservice to itself.

 

 

Nevertheless, the key aspect as to why ZANU-PF will win in 2018 is centered on events which began in November 2018.

 

 

 

The Post-Mugabe era

 

 

 

The opposition’s main political impediment since 2000 is that they centered their politics around the “Mugabe must go” mantra, and they credited themselves as the only political party which could unseat him.

 

 

Fast-forward to January 2018, and we find ourselves in a Zimbabwe, where former President Mugabe has recently stepped down, and the credit for his deposition lies within ZANU-PF in general, and with President Emmerson Mnangagwa and VP Chiwenga in particular.

 

 

In this light, voters that previously sympathized with the MDC’s “Mugabe must go” politics in previous elections will arguably sympathize with ZANU-PF in the 2018 election, because that is the party that orchestrated his departure.

 

 

Furthermore, the MDC-Alliance’s intense succession intra-party politics will cost that party votes in 2018.

 

 

Yet the main reason why we can expect ZANU-PF to win the elections in 2018 is that there is no other candidate in the country who is able to match President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s leadership.

 

 

That observation is not based upon sentiment or speculation, but upon certain scientific analytical tools.

 

 

Here’s the thing: there is a three-tier criteria for judging leadership and authority in an individual. The best leaders in history arguably possess all three characteristics combined, while lesser leaders possess one or two of the three traits.

 

 

These three characteristics of authority are:

 

 

  • Traditional authority which is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition and traditional leaders. In Zimbabwe, recently, the president of the Chief’s Council acknowledged President Mnangagwa as the rightful Zimbabwean leader consequently implying that he has the necessary traditional authority to lead the country.

 

 

  • Charismatic authority which is found in a leader who inspires others by his personal history and his vision. Leaders like Joshua Nkomo and Nelson Mandela undeniably possessed this trait. In Zimbabwe, President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s economic vision is inspiring to all Zimbabweans and at this point, Zimbabweans across race and class are willing to give him the opportunity to implement his vision.

 

 

  • Legal-rational authority which is authority that is possessed by an individual owing education and even the bureaucratic positions that a person holds. In our context, President Mnangagwa is a lawyer who has served in government in various ministries including defense, security and finance.

 

 

Essentially, President Mnangagwa inhibits traditional, charismatic and legal-rational authority and therefore the electorate will give him the opportunity to take the country forward.

 

 

Now, I’ve read various reports and opinion pieces arguing that President Mnangagwa should not call for elections in Zimbabwe until fundamental electoral reforms have been implemented.

 

 

This is noted.

 

 

However, after hearing President Mnangagwa reiterate in Davos that Zimbabwe is open for business, and after observing his interactions with world business leaders, I have come to the realization that international business is not going to listen to the calls of a splintered and weak opposition that is struggling to appoint a successor to its longtime leader.

 

 

Furthermore, I’ve noted that investors are primarily concerned with protection of property rights, ease of doing business, and the government’s guarantee that their investments will be safe in the country.

 

 

In this light, the protestations by opposition politicians that reforms should be implemented before elections, alongside their attempts to convince the world not to invest in Zimbabwe until electoral reforms are enacted are naïve and misplaced.

 

 

The fact is that constitutionally an election is due in Zimbabwe, and the constitution must be upheld. Electoral reforms can be implemented after the 2018 harmonized election.

 

 

At the end of the day, after observing Zimbabwe’s 2018 appearance at the World Economic Forum, two things are particularly clear to me: firstly, Zimbabwe is open for business and secondly, President Emmerson Mnangagwa and ZANU-PF will win the 2018 harmonized elections.

 

That is what we should expect. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tau Tawengwa

Executive Director

Email

zimrays@gmail.com

Donate to Zimrays by clicking the paypal button below.

Our email address is Zimrays@gmail.com

PayPal Donate Button

Advertisements

The Politics of Privatization

Scientific socialism refers to the combination of political and economic science and empirical scientific methodologies in attempt to achieve socialism, where socialism is the belief that people are equal and should therefore equally share in a country’s resources.

 

In 1980, the post independence Zimbabwean government adopted scientific socialism as its developmental and governance paradigm.

 

 

One of the economic strategies associated with this paradigm was the extension of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

 

It is not a fluke that the government chose to adopt scientific socialism instead of free market capitalism in 1980 for two fundamental reasons.

 

 

Firstly Zimbabwe’s independence was achieved at the height of the “Cold War,” when the Soviet Union and the Western powers led by the United States were competing for geo-political and economic influence across the globe.

 

 

Since Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle was largely supported by Eastern European and Asian ideology and resources, it was natural in 1980 for the Zimbabwean state to adopt an economic paradigm that leaned towards communism.

 

 

Secondly, the ZANU-PF government in 1980 (unlike the South African ANC government in 1994) wanted to see social services and employment urgently extended to the majority black population after years of white minority rule and colonial oppression.

 

 

In this context soon after independence, the ZANU-PF government passed sweeping legislation that gave free primary education and free healthcare for the poor.

 

 

The new government also introduced consumer price controls, worker committees and black trade unions.

 

 

While it was Ian Smith’s pre-independence government that began buying controlling stakes in key agro-processing and textile industries prior to independence, the post-independence government continued with this culture, and today Zimbabwe has around 107 State Owned enterprises, many of which are burdened with mismanagement, debts and high wage bills.

 

 

It is true that on the basis of populist voter mobilisation just after 1980, parastatals made political sense as they provided black workers with jobs at both working class and managerial levels in a highly racialized economy at that time.

 

 

In simple terms, in 1980 and in the early years after independence, State Owned Enterprises won votes for ZANU-PF.

 

 

However, over time these parastatals have become bloated and barely functional.

 

 

In fact a reports from the auditor general’s office dating back to 2015 suggest that many parastatals are characterized by weak corporate governance resulting in huge financial losses and misappropriation of funds.

 

 

For that reason there is good cause to privatise non–performing parastatals; after all, SOEs are meant to benefit the taxpaying citizen, and not are not meant to milk the taxpayer.

 

 

The Pros and Cons of Privatisation

 

 

According to reports, the Zimbabwean government is selling off its shareholding in Air Zimbabwe, ZESA, NRZ, ZB Holdings, Agribank and Zimre Holdings.

 

 

Apparently the government is soon to add more enterprises to this list.

 

 

If indeed Zimbabwe is embarking on a privatisation process, it is important that we discuss the pros and cons of privatisation.

 

 

Some of the pros of privatisation can be listed as follows:

 

 

  • Improved efficiency. Private companies have a profit incentive to cut costs and to become more efficient. In this context privatization is positive.

 

  • Lack of political interference. Across the world, SOEs are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. As we have seen in Zimbabwe in the past SOEs were used to ‘sponsor’ million-marches and other political events.

 

  • Short term view. Across the world, it is common for governments to think only in terms of the next election, and this often has long term consequences. Perhaps privatization brings private sector pragmatic long term planning to SOEs.

 

  • Increased competition. Privatisation of SOEs occurs alongside deregulation and the enactments of legislation to allow more firms to enter the industry and increase the competitiveness of the market. This is positive and welcome.

 

  • Government will raise revenue from the sale. Selling state-owned assets to the private sector raises significant sums for the government. The UK government benefited from privatization in the 1980s as did the Russian government in the 1990s.

 

 

Some of the negative aspects of privatization can be listed as follows:

 

  • Natural monopoly. Privatisation runs the risk of creating monopolies. The risk of privately controlled monopolies is that they tend to raise prices and exploit consumers.

 

  • Public interest. Some industries like ZESA, arguably perform an important public service. In this context their privatization should be considered with enough due diligence and with the national interest in mind.

 

  • Government loses out on potential dividends. While it is true that SOEs are often poorly managed, government should consider whether or not these entities would be good sources of revenue if they were managed better. In this context government could consider employing better management staff and techniques rather than privatization.

 

  • Foreign Ownership of Key Assets. The greatest threat presented by privatisation is the foreign ownership of key state assets. In this context, perhaps our government leaders should pursue the privatisation process guided by our indigenisation laws, and should allow youth consortiums and women consortiums to benefit from the privatisation processes.

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

It is true that the era of scientific socialism has passed, and I agree with the notion that the world is capitalist and that there are no free lunches. Zimbabwe needs to embrace competitiveness, and privatisation is the first step in that direction.

 

 

While many business leaders and politicians have welcomed the idea of privatisation, there seems to be consensus that the process of privatisation should be conducted on a case by case basis and that adequate due diligence should be applied.

 

 

Furthermore, from a political point of view, 2018 is an election year, and therefore government should perhaps consider whether privatisation should take place before or after elections.

 

 

Finally, the privatisation processes in Zimbabwe should be guided by the principles of indigenisation, and should involve youth and women business consortiums as those subgroups make up the bulk of the electorate.

 

Tau Tawengwa

 

Executive Director

 

Email

zimrays@gmail.com

Donate to Zimrays by clicking the paypal button below.

Our email address is Zimrays@gmail.com

PayPal Donate Button