Zimbabwe 2018 Elections: Voter Behavior and Demographics

 

The 2018 election is perhaps the most interesting election in Zimbabwe’s history so far, for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly, It is the first election in the country’s history that does not include Mr Robert Mugabe on the ballot paper.

 

Secondly,in this election the predominance of voters are below the age of forty- about sixty percent in fact.

 

For that reason, many analysts and politicians are putting their money on youthful candidates prevailing at ward, constituency and national levels.

 

The overall logic that youthful candidates are likely to prevail because the majority of voters are youthful is understandable, but misguided all the same.

 

The fact is that elections are complex processes, and voter patterns and behaviors are complex as well.

 

A number of factors come into play when attempting to deduce voter patterns within the various demographics in the forth-coming elections.

 

I will attempt to discuss some of those factors here.

 

Age and Region

 

Nearly 5.3 million Zimbabweans have registered to vote in the 2018 elections.

 

This is comparable with 5.8 million who registered to vote in the 2013 harmonized elections.

 

Within the 5.3 million registered voters, there are three subgroups theoretically speaking.

 

These are: 1) “non-voters” (those who are registered but never have voted) 2) “occasional voters” and 3) “frequent voters”, that is, those who vote in every election.

 

It is often the case that the frequent voters are the elderly in society (or the forty percent who are over forty years old) and this group consists of people who have a sense of ‘civic duty’ and citizenship.

 

The “non-voters” who have registered to vote for the first time are an erratic group.

 

This is because it is not guaranteed that first time voters will spend election-day in queues waiting for their turn to vote.

 

In fact there is a high chance that many youthful first-time voters will treat election day as a holiday and take the day off.

 

It is indisputable that the figure of 5.3 million registered voters was arrived at over a period of years.

 

therefore it is highly unlikely that 5.3 million voters will turn out at polling stations on election day,especially considering that the 2013 harmonized elections saw only 59 percent of registered voters turning up to vote on election day.

 

Furthermore, the generally held ‘rational model’ for judging voter participation suggests that individuals will decide to vote when the benefits of voting exceeds the cost of voting.

 

This means that voters will participate in elections when they feel they have something tangible to gain, or lose.

 

In light of this we are likely to experience a high voter turnout in agricultural and rural areas, which consist largely of people  who have benefited from land reform or agricultural inputs.

 

These people will turn out in their numbers because they have something tangible to gain or lose and are therefore likely to vote.

 

However the urban areas are perhaps more likely to experience voter apathy because of a lack of tangible benefits for voting.

 

It is likely that Harare Metropolitan and Bulawayo Metropolitan will suffer from voter apathy among first time voters.

 

Gender

 

While many analysts are putting forward the argument that sixty percent of voters are below the age of forty, they are forgetting to mention that about fifty-four percent of our national population consists of women.

 

This means that we can assume that fifty four percent of registered voters (even those below the age of forty) are women, and this will have a significant impact on the electoral outcome.

 

Research from different parts of the world reveals that women vote at higher rates than men.

 

Furthermore It is also my perception that a significant number of women voters relate to women candidates irrespective political affiliation, primarily because women leaders understand issues relating to women far much more than men.

 

For this reason, we may find that women voters may prefer to choose female candidates at ward, constituency and presidential levels in the 2018 elections.

 

Such a scenario will see the Mujuru-Khupe alliance secure a significant number of votes in the forthcoming elections.

 

 

Political Affiliation

 

I think it’s fair to say that historically in Zimbabwe, the members of a political party will automatically vote for their party.

 

Of course, there have been incidents where this did not happen such as the 2008 ‘bhora musango’ campaign which saw traditional ZANU-PF members voting for their ward and constituency candidates, but not for their presidential candidates.

 

In 2018, I do not foresee a ‘bhora-musango’ scenario.

 

However, the MDC-T political infighting that has occurred over the last few months may see the Chamisa led MDC-Alliance lose a significant number of votes among party members, particularly in the Matebeleland regions.

 

Nevertheless, ultimately, this election will be determined not so much by the popularity of the Presidential candidates, but rather by the popularity of the ward and parliamentary candidates as these are the people who represent their parties in the various communities on a daily basis.

 

As things stand, it still seems as though ZANU-PF has the upper hand, particularly in rural Zimbabwe.

 

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 the MDC-T

 

The former Prime Minster and long-time leader of the MDC-T opposition party has been laid to rest after an arduous battle with cancer.

 

 

Indeed he fought a good political fight in his time and will certainly be remembered in the history of Zimbabwe as one of the country’s leading lights, particularly in the post-independence and post land-reform phases of our history.

 

 

However, his greatest shortfall (as with most African leaders) is that he failed to resolve the succession issue in his party timeously.

 

 

Put plainly he did not have in place a succession plan by the time of his departure.

 

 

I have argued before, and I will state again here that clear succession plans should be explicitly put in place in every institution, especially if the institution intends to ensure that there is continuity after its leader departs.

 

 

This is true in families, family businesses, corporates, political parties, and any other form of organization.

 

 

Every institution must have a clear and explicit formal succession plan.

 

 

Having said that, recent events in the MDC-T serve as examples of how things go terribly bad when succession is not handled well in politics.

 

 

Zeal without Knowledge

 

 

Proverbs 19:12 reads “desire without knowledge is not good how much more will hasty feet miss the way!”

 

 

Like many Zimbabweans, I marvelled at the haste with which Nelson Chamisa and his faction anointed themselves as heirs to Dr. Tsvangirai’s throne almost immediately after Morgan Tsvangirai’s death was announced.

 

 

In fact before the late opposition party leader’s body had arrived at Robert Gabriel Mugabe International airport, Chamisa and crew had already called for a National Council meeting which hastily elevated Chamisa to the position of acting President for a 12 month period.

 

 

Immediately after that National Council meeting, pastor Chamisa addressed a song-and dance rally outside of Harvest House during which he declared himself leader to the unsuspecting and impressionable crowds of the MDC-T political laity who were innocently waiting to hear about Dr Tsvangirai’s funeral arrangements.

 

 

Instead, they were mischievously misled into believing that Nelson Chamisa was their new leader.

 

 

Yet, by calling for the 14 February 2018 meeting at Harvest House, and furthermore by addressing his self-anointing rally on the same day, Nelson Chamisa showed the world his unbridled desire to be president of the MDC-T, and his willingness to exercise haste in order to achieve those ends, yet foolishly so.

 

 

If Nelson Chamisa is as popular as he assumes he is, then why couldn’t he wait a few days for Dr. Tsvangirai to be buried before engaging in his succession politics?

 

 

It is my view that the rally held by Nelson Chamisa’s faction on February 14 outside of Harvest House was the major cause for the violent episodes that we saw during Dr. Tsvangirai’s funeral.

 

 

The fact is that the crowds that he addressed on 14 February consisted of youths, undoubtedly inflamed on chibuku, bronco and cheap liquor, who then took pastor Chamisa’s populism as gospel and that is where the danger began.

 

 

 

That was his first mistake.

 

 

Violence is Inexcusable

 

 

We owe our children – the most vulnerable citizens in any society – a life free from violence and fear.Nelson Mandela

 

 

In 2014, the then MDC-T deputy treasury-general, Elton Mangoma and secretary-general, Tendai Biti were assaulted by a group of party youths for allegedly calling for leadership renewal in the party.

 

 

At the time they said they were attacked by “a drunken mob” and it was alleged that Nelson Chamisa was not far from the violence when Mangoma et al got thumped.

 

 

You see the reason why nobody believes Nelson Chamisa’s statements attempting to distance himself from the violent episodes at Dr. Tsvangirai’s funeral, is because he has been suspected of instigating violence before.

 

 

In fact a 2014 report of the Elton Mangoma related mayhem stated that “a four-minute, six seconds security video taken during the melee… saw Mangoma beaten up with punches and slaps all over his body by party youths, places Chamisa smack dab in the center of the incensed crowd, a few minutes before the assault.

 

 

“Standing amongst the crowd, which was singing and chanting, baying for Mangoma’s blood, snapshots from the video show Chamisa relating to some of the gathered youths.”

 

 

You see, given his reported participation in Mangoma’s 2014 attack, it is difficult to believe that Chamisa was not involved in the violence at Dr. Tsvangirai’s funeral, or in Dr. Khupe’s 2017 attack for that matter.

 

 

It is also therefore difficult to believe his statements distancing himself from the recent drama.

 

 

Given the intra-party violence that has occurred in the MDC-T in recent times at the alleged instigation of Chamisa, firstly against Mangoma and Biti and later against Khupe, one could be forgiven for thinking that pastor Chamisa is thuggish.

 

 

 

Apparently they charged “Chamisa, Chamisa” as they charged at a retreating Dr. Khupe.

 

 

All this unethical tomfoolery brings to mind the saying “You can take the homeboy out of Kuwadzana East, but you can’t take Kuwadzana East out of the homeboy.”

 

 

For a long time the nation has given Nelson Chamisa the benefit of the doubt, saying he’s youthful and educated.

 

 

However based upon recent events, it would seem he’s also power-hungry and violent.

 

 

His haste and desire for power have made him miss the way. That’s unbecoming of the political pastor.

 

 

My own view is that Nelson Chamisa is politically immature, and cannot capably fit the shoes of the late Dr. Morgan Tsvangirai. First it was his Trump and 15billion debacle and now this.

 

 

I think it is safe to say that Nelson Chamisa a local leader that should be confined to Kuwadzana East. He is not a national leader and in fact he has a lot of growing up to do politically.

 

 

Furthermore, my perception is that the constitutional leader of the MDC-T is Dr. Khupe, and she should be in charge of the party until the next congress.

 

 

Also, it would seem that Nelson Chamisa’s shenanigans have discredited him as a potential leader of the MDC-Alliance, and it is probable that Dr. Joice Mujuru will soon become the new face of the coalition.

 

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

Zimbabwe 2018 election: Ethics versus Prosperity

 

On Thursday 15 February 2018, I was part of the crowd outside Harvest House in Harare listening to Nelson Chamisa and crew politicking, and appearing to anoint themselves as Dr Morgan Tsvangirai’s successors a few hours after his passing, and days before he was laid to rest.

 

 

What many people thought would be memorial rally in honour of the former Prime minister at Harvest House, turned out to be a rally which saw Nelson Chamisa’s faction declaring themselves as the rightful heirs to the MDC-T throne.

 

 

The event seemed distasteful to many who attended desiring to honour Morgan Tsvangirai, and not to participate in MDC-T factionalism.

 

 

That matter got me thinking about whether or not our politicians still consider ethics in politics, or do they seek power at all costs?

 

 

Interestingly, in town on the same day, I overheard a conversation between two youthful gentleman, during which one said to another “kana zvisingasungise muZimbabwe hazvina mari (if the business you are doing in Zimbabwe is not illegal it is not profitable.”

 

 

This made me ask if we, as a citizens still consider ethics in our day to day lives, or are we out for prosperity at all costs?

 

 

All this made me recall a research project I steered in a Pentecostal church in Pretoria some years ago.

 

 

The aim of that research was to determine what social benefits the church’s brand of ‘prosperity gospel’ had for the wider Pretoria community.

 

 

After an insightful period of twelve months, the research was concluded, and it was found that the church’s “prosperity gospel” did indeed inspire members of the congregation to aspire for prosperity and consequently to engage in various forms of enterprise and ingenuity in attempt to achieve that end.

 

 

Yet, one fundamental question kept on arising: do the church members pursue wealth using moral methods? Or do they attempt to achieve prosperity by any means necessary, irrespective of morality?

 

 

Put plainly, in our contemporary society is morality still important in the pursuit of wealth?

 

 

In the course of that research, I found that many church members engaged in dubious practices in their pursuit of wealth.

 

 

This was not surprising, because that particular church was an inner-city congregation located in an area well known for unemployment, informal sector trade, violent crime, substance abuse, and prostitution.

 

 

In fact some members of that church were rumoured to be hard criminals, yet they faithfully attended church, paid tithes and offerings and believed with all their hearts that they too could attain the ‘blessings’ of prosperity.

 

 

That old research seems relevant approach the harmonized elections.

 

 

 

Politics and Ethics

 

 

Prosperity is a key theme of political party manifestos at election time.

 

 

The various political manifestos will propose how they intend to bring prosperity to the country, and improve the lives of our people.

 

 

Already, we have heard politicians pronounce how they were promised 15billion.

 

 

Such pronouncements beg the question: do our politicians consider national ethics when they make us promises about national prosperity?

 

 

The difference between ethics and morals, is that morals are subjective and usually inspired by an individual’s religious beliefs, while ethics are commonly recognised despite an individual’s religion.

 

 

For instance, a follower of traditional religion may believe that polygamy is moral, while a Christian may believe that it is in fact immoral.

 

 

Yet, from an ethical perspective, both the tradionalist and the Christian will agree that spousal abuse is illegal and therefore unethical, despite their contrasting moral standpoints.

 

 

While morals deal with people’s personal beliefs, ethics refer to general codes of conduct.

 

 

Now, since the year 2000 Zimbabwe has suffered economic decay that has affected citizens across political persuasions.

 

 

Yet, ironically, one could argue that the nation has become morally stronger since 2000, despite our economic regression.

 

 

This is because in the midst of our economic backslide, our country has seen vast growth in the religiosity of our citizens with ninety percent of Zimbabweans belonging to Protestant or apostolic religions in 2018 as compared to sixty percent in 2000.

 

 

Yet being moral doesn’t make you ethical, and perhaps we can agree that since 2000 corruption has become endemic in Zimbabwean society.

 

 

In fact recent Transparency International reports state that Zimbabwe is the most corrupt country in Southern Africa, and one of the most corrupt countries in Africa- this despite our intense religiosity.

 

 

We are the most religious (and perhaps moral) country in Southern Africa, yet we are also the most corrupt, and therefore unethical.

 

 

We have become a people that wholeheartedly pursues power, profit and prosperity without considering ethics.

 

 

We are a conflicted nation.

 

 

Nevertheless the 2018 elections provides a golden opportunity for our politicians to begin the process of reintroducing ethics to our people.

 

 

So far, I commend president Emmerson Mnangagwa for his consistent calls for investment and his reiterations that Zimbabwe is open for business, while simultaneously saying that the new dispensation has a ‘zero-tolerance approach’ to corruption.

 

 

This is a bold first step towards reigniting an ethical society.

 

 

If government continues to take firm action against corruption and other unscrupulous behaviours, then people will think twice before engaging in unethical conduct.

 

 

In this light it was encouraging to see the flamboyant Wicknell Chivayo appearing before parliament this week.

 

 

In the past, Chivayo’s open profligacy and social media pronouncements had embittered many citizens.

 

 

For instance in April 2016 he reportedly posted a picture on social media with the caption: “Had dinner in Dubai yesterday with my mother (Grace Mugabe) and my little brother (Robert Jnr).

 

 

“I love my parents…Mungandi dii? Hapana kana zvamunondiita (What can you do to me? There is nothing that anyone can do to me).”

 

 

For the record this is Wicknell Chivayo, the self-confessed ex-con, who told parliament that he has no qualifications, yet he allegedly somehow, a few years ago managed to convince government ministers to advance him seven million dollars for a project which to date has never materialised.

 

 

He did this, in a country with ninety percent underemployment, and graduates that sell airtime and live with their parents.

 

 

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I say that controversial Wicknell Chivayo deal portrays how unethical our society had become.

 

 

Ethics should be reflected in Politics

 

 

As we approach elections, my hope is that the positive rhetoric that we have been hearing from president Mnangangwa with respect to corruption and ethics goes beyond talk and becomes enunciated potential policy in the various political manifestos, so that the talk of building an ethical society becomes national policy post-elections.

 

 

We have examples across the world of countries that have managed to restore ethics after years of decline.

 

 

China for instance has had a far-reaching campaign against corruption since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2012 steered by that country’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI).

 

 

Also Singapore (considered to be one of the most ethical societies in the world) seems to have won the war on corruption through strong political will, and by institutionalising a robust, comprehensive anti-corruption framework that spans laws, law-enforcement, the public service and public outreach.

 

 

In any case, it should be the priority of our political leaders to achieve sustainable prosperity alongside ethics beyond the 2018 elections.

 

 

If we build our reputation as an ethical country, with an ethical workforce and an ethical policy framework then naturally investment and revenue will follow.

 

 

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

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

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

Cyril Ramaphosa’s Political Minefield

The 54th African National Congress (ANC) elective conference has now passed and Cyril Ramaphosa has emerged as the President of the ANC, victorious over his rival for the presidency: Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma.

 

However, despite his victory, Cyril Ramaphosa and the ANC are faced with a number of challenges that urgently need attention and tact.

 

Some of the issues that the new ANC president has to deal with can be listed as follows:

 

Factionalism and Tribalism

 

Unfortunately, president Zuma’s reign as ANC president saw tribalism and consequently factionalism permeating the organisation like never before.

 

In fact President Jacob Zuma’s politics at the helm of the ANC can be described as a form of “ethnic nationalism” where ethno-nationalism can be defined as “support for the political interests of a particular ethnic group.”

 

For example, Jacob Zuma managed to beat Thabo Mbeki at the 2007 ANC elective conference in Polokwane by wooing the ethnic demographic of Zulu speaking ANC supporters particularly from his home province of KwaZulu-Natal.

 

This is the same strategy that he used to be reelected as ANC president in Mangaung in 2012, and it is the same strategy that the Zuma camp attempted to implement on behalf of presidential hopeful Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma in 2017.

 

However, in 2017 that strategy has failed.

 

One of the reasons is because some of the ANC delegates from the Provincial Executive Committees (PECs) of KwaZuluNatal ,Free State as well as some ANC branches from the North-West were not  allowed to vote as a result of a court ruling.

 

This was a blow to Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma’s bid and she narrowly lost by just under 200 votes.

 

Her loss has upset a significant number of pro-Zuma supporters from KwaZuluNatal.

 

As a result, the new ANC president has to hit the ground running and work tirelessly in order to placate disgruntled supporters and unite the party as a whole.

 

The first best course of action for him is perhaps to offer incentives to senior ANC National Executive Committee   (NEC) members who belong to the pro-Zuma faction; particularly those from KwaZulu Natal.

 

If he fails to do so, he risks losing votes to an ethno-nationalist movement in the form of the resurgent Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) when the 2019 elections arrive.

 

Corruption

 

Besides tribalism and factionalism, President Jacob Zuma leaves the ANC  with a legacy of corruption.

 

During his two terms at the helm of the organization, the ANC has been scandalized by ‘Guptagate,’ Nkandla, ‘State-Capture’ and a nuclear deal, notwithstanding President Zuma’s 783 charges of corruption, money laundering and racketeering.

 

Unfortunately the scandalized and tarnished perceptions of the ANC as a corrupt organization will take more than political will to fix.

 

Even if Cyril Ramaphosa determines to root out corruption in the ANC, he must  remember that a significant number of the ANC NEC members are staunch supporters of the Zuma faction.

 

Such members include David Mabuza who is the Premier of Mpumalanga and now also the deputy President of the ANC.

 

David Mabuza has staunchly supported Jacob Zuma since 2007.

 

During his reign as Mpumalanga Premier , Mabuza has earned a reputation for ruling by fear and violence, and has allegedly left a trail of political assassinations and allegations of wide-scale corruption in his wake.

 

At some point, Mabuza  allegedly took a trip to Russia with the Guptas on their private jet.

 

This all spells out trouble for Cyril Ramaphosa and his supporters who generally thought that voting for Cyril Ramaphosa would mean an end to Jacob Zuma’s legacy of corruption.

 

That misconception is soon to become apparent as the pro-Zuma faction members in the ANC NEC are likely to coalesce around David Mabuza and continue with their corrupt tendencies as normal.

 

Conceivably, there are too many senior members in the ANC implicated in corruption, and there is no way for Cyril Ramaphosa to punish them all without causing disunity in the organization.

 

It is therefore likely that Cyril Ramaphosa will secretly offer amnesty to senior ANC members like David Mabuza in exchange for individual loyalty and general party unity.

 

Populism

 

As part of his legacy, it must be noted that President Jacob Zuma leaves his party members doused with unconstructive populist rhetoric and the latest dance moves.

 

President Zuma will be remembered for songs like “Umshini Wami” and phrases like “White Monopoly Capital” and “Radical Economic Transformation,” which are all populist in nature, and have stirred an expectation among the ANC laity which Cyril Ramaphosa will have to fulfill.

 

On a continent like Africa (and particularly in countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe) where clarity on policy is needed in order to lure investors, populist rhetoric like “radical economic transformation” can be likened to very cheap liquor which quickly intoxicates but has long lasting side effects like headaches and nausea.

 

That is what President Zuma’s populism has done to the ANC and the South African economy- it has left a lot of headaches for his successor.

 

His last populist blow was his announcement that the South African government will subsidize free higher education for the poor and working class students and Cyril Ramaphosa will be obliged to fulfill this promise.

 

If he fails to do so, we can expect a return to the “fees must fall” protests in February 2018.

 

Ultimately Cyril Ramaphosa has a lot of work to do in order to repair the damage caused by 10 years of Jacob Zuma’s politics.

 

The claims that President Jacob Zuma has ‘left the ANC in tact’ are ridiculous, if not laughable.

 

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

President Mugabe and the One Party State Ambition

Recent events in Zimbabwe have been dramatic to say the least.

 

Within a short space of four months we saw a sitting and popular Vice President surviving a poisoning attempt, and consequently, a (former) first lady wildly ranting against the popular Vice President who she allegedly poisoned.

 

We also watched as the popular Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa was irrationally and unjustifiably fired from government in what was a thinly veiled attempt by  President Mugabe to impose his unpopular and deranged wife as Vice President on an already frustrated and restive populous of Zimbabwean citizens.

 

The moment President Robert Mugabe fired Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa, it became clear to all of us that he wanted to overstep democratic processes and implement a dynastic agenda.

 

Now, while trying  to rate his 37 year long reign, I came across a New York Times report dated August 19, 1990, in which the late Nathan Shamuyarira (then Zimbabwean foreign affairs minister) affirmed that the Zimbabwean government “intended to push ahead with plans to introduce a one-party state.”

 

Let’s take note that this was as far back as 1990.

 

In fact the same report observes that President Mugabe had wanted a one-party state since independence in 1980.

 

Interestingly, The ZANU politburo rejected the notion of one party state in August 1990 almost unanimously. Only four out of twenty six officials supported the idea.

 

Now two notable themes emerge here.

 

Firstly, the fact that President Mugabe was pushing for a one party state (or what’s been referred to recently in ZANU-PF as “One Center of Power”) as far back as independence in 1980 is telling.

 

It means that his ambition to have absolute power over Zimbabwe is not recent; it has in fact been his life objective alongside dying in office.

 

Secondly, the same way that politburo members rejected President Mugabe’s proposals for a one party state back in 1990 is the same way that General Chiwenga, and Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa (the last surviving commanders of the liberation war high command alongside President Mugabe) have resisted his attempts at dynasty today through “Operation Restore Legacy.”

 

If they hadn’t made that intervention, Zimbabwe would have experienced more oppression than ever before.

 

Nevertheless, amidst all this drama, one thing that is clear is that President Mugabe was given too much power, and too much time to rid himself of opponents, enrich himself and weaken everything and everyone around him.

 

Now we know that anyone who leads the country going forward should do so within the confines of the constitution, and that we as citizens should remember how much we suffered under “one center of power.”

 

That suffering was enough; we never want to experience it again.

 

Now that his reign is over, I think we can clearly deduce that Robert Mugabe had a “God Complex,” or what psychologists refer to as Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

 

Essentially, a person with “God Complex” not only wants to be worshiped, but he or she is extremely arrogant, and might consider himself or herself to be infallible and might try to control or manipulate other people without empathy or compassion for their well-being.

 

It is no wonder then, that President Mugabe wanted a one party state, modelled around the social structure of North Korea which is also a one party state.

 

In fact reports say that North Korea defectors believed that Kim Jong-il was “a god” who could read their thoughts.

 

That is what President Mugabe wanted, and that is why he would do weird things at ceremonies like bow to his own portrait.

 

Also, that is why his wife (during her crazy rants) would say bizarre things like “Mugabe will rule from the grave.”

 

 

At the end of the day, I for one am grateful to the Zimbabwe Defense Forces and the Honorable Emmerson Mnangagwa for implementing “Operation Restore Legacy.”

 

 

It is clear that the same leadership ideals that prevented him from succeeding in his “One Party State” venture in 1990 are the same ideals that prevented him today.

 

Now, let’s all come together Zimbabwe, and rebuild this great country.

 

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