2018 Elections: Putting the Zimbabwean Revolution in Context

 

 

On the 4th of July America celebrated its independence day.

 

 

In fact in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776 America made a declaration announcing that the thirteen colonies (which were then at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain) would regard themselves as thirteen independent sovereign states no longer under British rule.

 

 

This makes the United States of America 242 years old.

 

 

Interestingly, at the time that the American founding fathers made the declaration of independence, the economy was only beginning to industrialize, and this was essentially the process of expanding cottage industries (what we call in Zimbabwe “home-based-industries”) to larger scales.

 

 

Historians note that around the time of the American Declaration of Independence, most production in the 13 colonies was agricultural, and at least 90% of eighteenth-century Americans made their living on the land.

 

 

Of course, we cannot ignore that black slaves had been working on American plantations since slavery began in in 1619, and undoubtedly African slaves helped build the American nation into an economic powerhouse through the production of lucrative crops such as tobacco and cotton.

 

 

Nevertheless, my argument here is centered on the fact that at the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, America had three key economic assets. These are land, minerals, and labour.

 

 

Sound similar? Of course! That’s because on a smaller scale, Zimbabwe is also very rich in those three key resources.

 

 

However it was the deliberate and focused attitude of the American leadership at the time of the industrial revolution that transformed that country into the giant it is today.

 

 

 

The Industrial Revolution

 

 

 

 

The industrial revolution was largely characterized by automation based on the establishment of infrastructure, which in the American context were the railway and the steam train.

 

 

In our context, this is what President Emmerson Mnangagwa has repeatedly referred to as the mechanization of agriculture and mining and the widening of our infrastructure base.

 

Also, the industrial revolution saw to the urbanization of America’s rural communities and consequently the expansion of markets for goods. Ultimately this allowed for an increase in the American standard of living.

 

 

Furthermore the proliferation of free market capitalism (despite its flaws) incentivized scientific innovation and rewarded hard work.

 

 

All in all, one hundred years after its independence, America had become a global force.

 

 

In fact, by 1900, the United States had one half of the world’s manufacturing capacity and had overtaken Great Britain both in iron, steel production and in coal production.

 

 

 

Re-industrializing Zimbabwe

 

 

I have often heard people speaking negatively about vendors, and how the informal economy in Zimbabwe is nothing more than a nuisance.

 

 

I do understand the logic behind those arguments especially when they come from rate paying shop-owners and business-people that have to accommodate vegetable sellers who sometimes urinate at their shop’s door-step.

 

 

However, I have argued before and I will state again here that our informal economy in Zimbabwe is a constant reminder of our backslide from an industrialized, advanced middle-income economy to the informal economy we are today.

 

 

Yet if we ponder over America’s experience form 1776, we can see that our future is filled with possibilities.

 

 

We are rich in land and mineral resources like America was when it began its industrial revolution. We also have an expansive and educated pool of labour.

 

 

But more than anything else, we now have the political will to re-industrialize, after years of isolationism and counter-productive politics.

 

 

In this light I give credit to President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s “Zimbabwe is Open for Business” program.

 

 

His efforts have once again put Zimbabwe on the international radar for the right reasons and over the months since November 2017 we have seen delegation after delegation from different parts of the globe coming in to register their interests in the Zimbabwe.

 

 

Clearly what we need now is to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to serve a full term in office during which Zimbabwe can undergo the process of re-industrialization.

 

 

Judging from American History, what is certain is that the re-industrialization of Zimbabwe is a real possibility if we focus as a nation after July 30.

 

 

At the end of the day, President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s “Zimbabwe is Open for Business” program presents a real opportunity for Zimbabwe to under-go an economic revolution and consequently and economic boom going forward.

 

 

For that reason I believe he deserves a full term in office.

 

 

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

2018: What Zimbabwe can learn from Gabon

Recently, I assisted a friend of mine with his application for a visa to Gabon.

 

During the process, I did a fair amount of research on the political economy of Gabon, which, it turns out, is one of the most prosperous countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

It is also one of the few African countries that requires Zimbabweans to apply for visas before entry.

 

Here are some interesting statistics about Gabon.

 

Gabon became fully independent from France on 15 July 1960. It is a small sparsely populated country with a population of 1.7 million people with a surface area of 268,000 square kilometers with forests covering 85% of the territory.

 

Gabon is an upper-middle-income country. It is the fifth largest oil producer in Africa, and it has experienced strong economic growth over the past decade, driven by oil and manganese production.

 

Gabon enjoys a per capita income four times higher than most sub-Saharan African nations, but because of high income inequality, a large proportion of the population remains poor. Nevertheless, Gabon has a per capita income of approximately USD$3,000 which is high by African standards

 

It also has a GDP of $14.47 billion, and 28% unemployment. It exports about $5.078 billion worth of goods per annum and imports about $3.224 billion worth of goods per annum.

 

It is ostensibly a well-managed and stable economy.

 

However, more interesting than anything else are the politics of Gabon, where Omar Bongo ruled since 1967 until his death on 7 May 2009. He ruled Gabon for 42 years.

 

Similar to other countries that have had long-time leaders (including Zimbabwe which was led by Robert Mugabe for 37 years) Omar Bongo’s critics describe his rule as characterized by autocracy, corruption and nepotism.

 

Critics also say that Omar Bongo mastered the extraordinary ability to sideline his rivals and ensure that no competitor, either individually or institutionally, could construct a power base to challenge him during his reign.

 

Nevertheless, after he passed on, Gabon regressed from 42 years of relative stability to instability.

 

He was succeeded by his son, Ali Bongo who narrowly won the disputed elections of 2009, and in 2016 he won the election by a slight majority of 50.66% of the vote against 47.24% of the vote which was garnered by his rival Jean Ping.

 

Ironically, Ali Bongo’s narrow victory in 2016 saw him delaying parliamentary elections in his country due to an alleged “shortage of funds.”

 

This is interesting, because Gabon is considered to be one of the top ten richest countries in Africa, alongside Seychelles, South Africa, Botswana and Mauritius.

 

What can ZANU-PF and MDC-T learn from Gabon?

 

Clearly, after the 42-year reign of Omar Bongo came to an end, the stability of Gabon and Bongo’s Gabonese Democratic Party (GDP) were affected.

 

While Omar Bongo was a master tactician who had a unique ability which enabled him to unite his party and co-opt his rivals simultaneously, the slight majority of 50.66% enjoyed by his successor Ali Bongo shows us that the successor of a long-time leader is not always as popular as his predecessor.

 

In Zimbabwe, a lesson can be drawn here by both the ruling ZANU-PF party and the main opposition MDC-T.

 

We recently saw Robert Mugabe step down as ZANU-leader and we suffered the death of Morgan Tsvangirai who had led the MDC-T for 18 years.

 

Now with Zimbabwe’s harmonized elections expected in July 2018, the sentiment on the ground is that Emmerson Mnangagwa is not as popular as Robert Mugabe was in ZANU-PF, and that Nelson Chamisa is not as popular as Dr. Morgan Tsvangirai was in the MDC-T.

 

In ZANU-PF it was actually the former first lady Grace Mugabe who was grossly unpopular among party members, and she is largely blamed for catalysing the events that led to the former president’s fall from power in November 2017.

 

Nevertheless, events around the primary elections in both ZANU-PF and the MDC-T show that there are serious fault lines within Zimbabwe’s two main political platforms.

 

For instance, after initially losing the ZANU-PF primary election for the Norton constituency, Chris Mutsvangwa (who is adviser to the Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa) apparently declared that “It is inconceivable that the President will win [the 2018 election}.”

 

Furthermore, the incumbent Norton legislator Themba Mliswa publicly stated that for ZANU-PF the 2018 election will be characterized by “bhora musango”, that is, protest votes and electoral apathy among the party supporters.

 

It goes without saying that in 2008, ZANU-PF’s presidential candidate Robert Mugabe lost the first round of the vote to his MDC-T rival Morgan Tsvangirai owing to “bhora-musango,”

 

The consequent 2008 run-off was characterized by intimidation and violence and its outcome was internationally disputed and ultimately this led to the formation of a Government of National Unity (GNU) comprising of both ZANU-PF and MDC-T leaders in 2009.

 

As is it stands today, ZANU-PF’s primary elections have been characterized by low voter turnout, disunity, and accusations and counter-accusations of factionalism. These are early signs of “bhora-musango.”

 

In this light it seems highly improbable that ZANU-PF will win the 61% it achieved at presidential level in 2013, or the two-thirds majority it achieved at parliamentary level in the same year.

 

More likely than not, the 2018 Zimbabwean election will see President Mnangagwa win by a slight majority similar to Gabonese president’s Ali Bongo’s 2016 slight majority of 50.66%.

 

There is also something else of particular importance.

 

If ZANU-PF fails to retain its two-thirds majority in 2018, this will complicate its legislative agenda going forward, as the party will not have the quorum to amend the constitution, essentially meaning that post 2018 elections, ZANU-PF will have less power than it did when it was voted into power in 2013.

 

This is a notable fact, given that as of 2023, constitutionally, the two vice-presidents of the country will no longer be appointed, but will have to be elected as presidential running mates.

 

Consequently, this means that failing to win a two-thirds parliamentary majority will complicate post-2018 politics for ZANU-PF for two reasons.

 

Firstly, it is more likely than not that come 2023, the Zimbabwean diaspora (comprising approximately four million people) will vote in that election.

 

This will adversely affect ZANU-PF because under the current circumstances, ZANU-PF will not win the two-thirds parliamentary majority in 2018 that it needs to amend the constitution in order to prevent the diaspora from voting in 2023, or to change the clause that stipulates Vice Presidents will be elected and not appointed as of 2023.

 

Secondly, in 2018, about 65% of Zimbabwe’s voters are below forty years old, and youthful voters often (not always) support youthful leaders. Come 2023, approximately 75% of voters will be below forty, further complicating things for ZANU-PF which has an average age of 66 among its top five leaders.

 

The situation is no better in the MDC-T which split after the death of Dr. Tsvangirai into a faction led by Nelson Chamisa and another led by Thokazane Khupe. Up to date, the two factions are battling in court over which is the legitimate MDC-T and who is the legitimate leader of the MDC-T.

 

Also, recently Jesse Majome- a well-respected lawyer and MDC-T legislator for Harare West- has chosen to run for Harare West constituency as an independent candidate citing irregularities in the MDC-T’s primary election procedures.

 

As a result, it is clear that like ZANU-PF, the MDC-T is much more divided, and factionalized in 2018 than it was in the 2013 elections.

 

The Prospect of a Government of national Unity post 2018 election

 

Wherever they occur, elections should be free fair and credible so as to show the world that whoever seizes power post-elections has the unanimous mandate of the people to govern the country as its legitimate leader.

 

It is no surprise then, that after achieving a controversial and slight majority of 50.66% in the 2016 election, Gabonese President Ali Bongo delayed parliamentary elections.

 

Clearly, he is aware his slight majority demonstrates that the nation is deeply divided.

 

Accordingly, since 2016 he has avoided parliamentary elections, and has instead chosen to appoint Emmanuel Issoze Ngondet as the prime minister of Gabon, and has tasked him to form a Government of National Unity comprising members of opposition parties in key posts.

 

Perhaps this is a viable option for Zimbabwe post-2018 elections, especially given the that president Emmerson Mnangagwa is likely to win the presidency, but only by a slight majority.

 

Also, ZANU-PF is unlikely to win a two-thirds majority at parliamentary level.

 

As a result, in order to substantially gain the trust of Zimbabweans and international investors alike, it will take ZANU-PF and the MDC-T to come together and share power for a period of time, in the same way that they did during the 2009-2013 Government of National Unity.

 

 

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

The Politics of Succession

Human Capital refers to the skilled personnel possessed by any state, business or organisation- often referred to as Human Resources.

 

There are two fundamental reasons why human resource departments are generally considered to be part of the pivotal pillars of organisations.

 

The first reason is that despite the rapid technological advances taking place in the world, it will always be skilled human beings who are needed to oversee the technology and to implement technology related policy.

 

Put plainly, you need skilled and experienced people in order to implement policy. This is true at both micro and macro levels. As a result people are the biggest contributors to organizational success.

 

Secondly, it is the department of human resources in any organisation that is tasked with executing succession related organizational policy.

 

In fact, some of the most successful global organisations today task their human resources departments to prioritize succession planning policy as a fundamental part of business strategy.

 

The reason is that organisations without a succession strategy lack continuity when a key senior member exits the bureaucracy for any reason.

 

This is true in all organizations; even political parties, governments, multi-national corporations and family businesses alike. Every bureaucracy needs a clear succession plan.

 

The reason is simple: without a clear succession strategy in place that runs in conjunction with a clear operational strategy, your organisation risks collapsing when any one of the organization’s key leaders exits for any reason.

 

This is because where there is no clear strategy on how to replace a leader  with  someone who is equally as critical, cohesive, commanding and charismatic, then factional conflicts and divisions will inevitably lead to the organisation’s uncompetitiveness and ultimately its demise.

 

As reported in the New York Times concerning succession planning in family businesses, “business owners who do not form a succession plan create a time bomb that can not only destroy their companies but tear apart their families.

 

“A lot of families fight and fight until the business is gone.”

 

I’ve written before about how family businesses typically collapse within three generations.

 

This is portrayed well by a certain Mexican adage which says, “Father, founder of the company, son, rich and grandson poor.”

 

Put plainly, the founder establishes a competitive business, the founder’s children reap the fruits of his labour, yet unfortunately they leave the founder’s grandchildren with a shadow of the original entity.

 

This is usually because of a lack of clear and methodological succession planning.

 

Of course, such a fatalist foreclosure is preventable in family businesses, large corporations and political parties alike.

 

However, such prevention is only pursuant to the implementation of clear and strategic succession policy which runs concurrently with the operational policy of the organization.

 

This brings me to the context of Zimbabwe’s current socio-political quandary.

 

Zimbabwe’s Succession Politics

 

I’m a born free Zimbabwean, meaning that I was born after independence in 1980.

 

This also means that I’ve lived through three phases of Zimbabwe’s socio-economic history: The honey-moon phase, the structural-adjustment phase, and the crises phase which we are still experiencing today.

 

I don’t intend to argue how, when or why we are in this crisis because that has been written about extensively and that literature is readily available.

 

However, the key concern of many a citizen is how do we as a country extricate ourselves from this current crisis and chart a cohesive way forward?

 

The answer is in clear succession planning.

 

It is my view that the reason why so many Zimbabweans were disappointed when Ex-Vice President Dr. Joice Mujuru was expelled from party and government in 2014, and also, why so many people are disappointed by ex-Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s expulsion today, is because Zimbabweans had placed their future hopes in these individuals ,who they perceived as the embodiments of a tacit succession plan.

 

Yet, as I mentioned earlier, a succession plan should not be secretive, informal or tacit- it must not be based upon secret agreements done amongst politicians in the liberation days or presently.

 

Instead, a succession plan must be open, clear, transparent and progressive.

 

As it stands, arguably, the palpable political disgruntlement amongst Zimbabweans, particularly war veterans and the Masvingo and Midlands regions is perhaps based upon perceptions of the betrayal  of certain informal and secret agreements done amongst politicians in the liberation days or presently.

 

Unfortunately, however, where there is no record or trace of such informal agreements, then the only way to settle the dispute is through conflict… and conflict is always the culmination of poor succession planning.

 

History shows this to be true in family businesses, corporates and political parties alike.

 

Nevertheless, where  there is an open, public, clear and concise succession plan that is agreed to by all the influential personalities in an organization, then conflict is avoided and continuity prevails.

 

Now, it seems that ZANU-PF has been deliberately expelling its strongest personalities for some time now, notwithstanding at the expense of the socio-political and economic stability of Zimbabwe at large.

 

 

It was Dr. Joice Mujuru yesterday and now it is Honorable Emmerson Mnangagwa today.

 

This systematic elimination of ZANU-PF’s strongmen and women over time has arguably been motivated by a dynastic agenda, which is now being formalized and presented to the public at the expense of historical informal, secret agreements allegedly concluded amongst politicians in the liberation days and recently.

 

Nevertheless the reality is that Zimbabwe is at an all-time low.

 

The way out (as I perceive Eddie Cross has tried to initiate) is to invite all the influential anti-dynastic and disgruntled forces to one negotiating table where they must discuss and establish two things.

 

Firstly, a sound socio-political and economic governance plan designed for Zimbabwe for the next ten years that will be implemented by a Government of National Unity similar to what we saw in the 2009-2013 period.

 

Secondly, the negotiations must draw out a formal, irrevocable, transparent, clear and concise succession plan that will be guaranteed by SADC, the AU and the UN.

 

Such a succession plan will run concurrently alongside the aforementioned economic governance operational strategy.

 

In this light, it is the hope of the Zimbabwean people that Dr. Joice Mujuru, Honorable Emmerson Mnagagwa, The MDC-T, war veterans and other influential, progressive and anti-dynastic forces can come to the negotiating table and chart a way forward.

 

 

Such an arrangement should be mediated by Former president Thabo Mbeki or Cyril Ramaphosa.

 

The fact is that too many Zimbabwean lives and livelihoods across races, regions, and tribes have been sacrificed for too long at the altar of political self-gain and expediency.

 

In all truth fifteen years from now, students of economic history, political science, and sociology will look back at this time and ask why the various disgruntled Zimbabwean leaders could not find common ground to defeat this crisis.

 

This is their opportunity to do exactly that.

 

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