Indigenisation: The United Front – [An Analysis and Commentary by Reason Wafawarova]



Editor’s Note:  Indigenisation is a sensitive topic in Zimbabwe. It is the common denominator which has been a coup, a cause celebre and a cast-off. The policy unites and divides. Like most of government’s recent initiatives, the sense is that the policy is causing an uncertain future for the country

If Zimbabweans have reasons to fear what might happen in the next few days, so do the various policy makers in government. It seems we are trapped between unenviable options, between a minister who is rarely trusted, written off as a motormouth and one who certainly faces accusation of going overboard in trying to re-engage the West to resuscitate the economy.
Ministers Patrick Chinamasa and Patrick Zhuwao are embattled in serious struggles because of differing opinions about how the policy should be implemented. Opposition parties accuse Zanu PF of using it as an election gimmick, while independent analysts argue that it drives away investors.
What is the history of the idea? What inspires the Indigenisation policy? Is it necessary? Why is it riddled in complexity? Who is lying? and What do Zimbabweans stand to lose, and benefit from it?
Analyst, Reason Wafawarova delves into this issue that has become life and death for Zimbabwe.

Indigenisation: The United Front


We most certainly cannot afford the current blandishment in the lexicography adopted by others in the debate of how and why the indigenisation of Zimbabwe’s economy should not only be a matter of priority or politicking, but in fact a matter of life and death.

Reason Wafawarova The Political Analyst
Reason Wafawarova is a Zimbabwean Political Analyst, an Opinion Leader, and well read expert on Zimbabwe’s Liberation Struggle

Indigenisation is too important a policy to leave in the hands individual politicians, and the reported tussling between line-Ministers cannot be helpful to the cause of empowering the local entrepreneur.

In early November 2011, The Herald published a piece written by the then Senator Obert Gutu, in which the now MDC-T spokesperson was “interrogating” the indigenisation and empowerment policy, juxtaposing it against the ill-fated MDC-T investment and job creation initiative, later to be known as Jobs, Upliftment, Investment and Environment (JUICE).

Zimbabwe owes money to the IMF and the World Bank, like many other developing countries do. This debt must never be construed as a debt owed to foreign investors.

If investors and would be investors believe that Zimbabwe owes them give away policies designed to maximise profiteering, the truth is that this is the kind of debt we cannot repay. We have nothing to repay that kind of debt with, not exactly because we are a people of given inanity, but because it is not our responsibility to safeguard the self-interests of capitalist foreign investors.

History owes us something that our former colonisers with all their wealth can never repay – the debt of blood.

It was our blood that was shed for Africa to be colonised, and for it to assume the geographical characteristics it carries today, as well as its socio-economic skewed structures, particularly the crippling over-dependency on Foreign Direct Investment. Even our freedom and independence came with the shedding of blood.

Today’s poverty in Zimbabwe may be attributable to our own corruption and incompetence, and there is no doubt these two ills are a pandemic challenge. However, corruption and incompetence are only exacerbating factors, not the root cause of our economic crisis.

We are in an economic quagmire that is mainly a product of confrontations. When people make sweeping statements about the dire status of our economy they often forget the crisis did not happen overnight. It has been with us since the day the country was first colonised, and it has remained with us ever since, regardless of our remarkable efforts that gave us political independence.

The crisis has been deepening with time, like it is doing in South Africa at the moment. We have a choice to make. We can remain subjects to our exploiters, or we can embark on a revolution to reverse our misery. The former will in a comforting way give us a measure of anesthetics to ensure that we comfortably allow ourselves to be raped without feeling the current excruciating pain of poverty, and the later will permanently and genuinely end our agony.

The crisis we have is that we have refused to allow wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, and in principle this also incudes the unfair privilege of the black elite. We have refused an economic stability created by the unfair advantage of a selected few, and we have refused a job creation policy premised on the capitalist exploitation of our resources.

There are others who ask us today to collaborate in the search for stability – stability to the benefit of the holders of financial power, to some of us stability to the detriment of our masses.

We have said we cannot in sanity be accomplices in this kind of colonial slavery. Surely we cannot go along with those who suck the blood of our peoples, and who wish to live off our sweat.

We have said we cannot go along with the murderous ventures of imperialism and monopoly capitalism.

This is fair enough a resolution, but do we have a workable plan to alleviate our own predicament?

When we get ready to create a revolution there are no short cuts. Revolutions are about redefining the world, about redefining words, about redefining paradigms, about redefining structures; and there is no cosy way around these.

We cannot be as simplistic as to be stupid. Indigenisation is hardly a shareholding issue, and neither is it a mere capitalisation matter, important as these concepts maybe. Quarrelling over shareholding, capitalisation, or taxation can be a reflection of lazy thinking and cheap politicking when done outside the sound footing of genuine empowerment.

Indigenisation is about the means of production. It is about innovation and invention. It is about utilisation of untapped resources. It is about the application of acquired skills into developmental issues. It is not about consumption.
It is about the exhibition of the empowered black person’s mindset, not about merely proving the advantage of having a black skin in Zimbabwe.

Shareholding policies and capitalisation are auxiliary efforts in this revolution, not its foundation. Indigenisation is a complex process that cannot be implemented at political rallies.

We are dealing with matters of dominion here – the power to define and name things. We are saying we permitted another people to name and define the way we should live our lives, and now we want to stop the domination and define our own way of living. We must have the stomach for it.

For as long as we depend on the power of the foreign investor we cannot pretend to be shaping our own destiny. There is the same underlying problem for the politician who believes that only foreign investment can turn the wheels of an African economy and the other who believes that enforcing affirmative shareholding policies and taxation on foreign investors is the way to empower the local entrepreneur. Both approaches are a telling acknowledgement of the supremacy of foreign economic power.

Indigenisation is all about power relations. The business language we use, the currencies we are using today, the countries we aspire to live in, and the countries from whom we import goods are all signs of power relations.

China is in ascendancy today and the power relations are shifting accordingly. Trade is connected to power. The capacity to have other people speak one’s language is power-determined.

We all know how we recently celebrated the visit by the Chinese president as a milestone achievement. It is all about power relations.

When the Zambian president visited Zimbabwe last year we were only left with telling memories of his fancy footwork-dancing prowess, and there was hardly any mention of why he had jetted into our country. We know too well the power relations between Zimbabwe and Zambia, and we did not expect much from President Lungu’s visit.

Imperialism is about domination and it is about defining the way others must comply to the diktats of foreign powers. If we are serious about assuming power in Zimbabwe then we must assume the capacity to name and define everything around us, including the way we exploit, develop and benefit from the resources of the heartland.

Obert Gutu in the piece cited at the beginning of this piece bemoaned the fact that “the average Zimbabwean is still classified as poor by world standards,” adding “this is a very sad indictment of the vision of this great nation’s founding fathers and mothers.”

These could be easily viewed as remarkable Pan-Africanist utterances, if only they were not made with the sole intent of belittling the efforts of ZANU-PF as a governing party.

Indigenisation, just like national security must be a cross-party shared value. It must be a matter above politics. It cannot be a preserve of ZANU-PF politicians. It must be a nationally shared principle. We need a united front on this principle, and this means the implementation of the indigenisation policy must not be politicised.

The problem we have in Zimbabwe is lack of institutional memory. One gets appointed as a Minister and they start pretending to be manufacturing inventions. We need to acknowledge that the indigenisation drive did not start in 2007. There has always been the indigenisation drive from the onset of independence, and that is why we had such initiatives like the IBDC and the AAG.

The fact that political factors pushed ZANU-PF into enacting the indigenisation law in 2007 does not mean the importance of the policy gets relegated to the politics of electioneering, like the opposition did with the land reform program.

We know that both policies were “vigorously opposed” by the Tsvangirai-led opposition, to borrow from what Gutu wrote in his piece. This means as a nation we have never really had a united front around the cornerstone of the liberation war that brought us independence. We have sacrificed the very essence of our own liberation at the alter of political expediency.

Perhaps ZANU-PF is culpable for monopolising issues of national importance, and of focusing more on the politically popular matters of policy. Our opposition in equal measure is culpable for thwarting the national interest in a bid to stall the unfair strides of a political opponent.

Now that the opposition is as good as dead, protagonists within ZANU-PF have turned the indigenisation policy into yet another football, abusing the principle to settle personal and factional scores. Again this comes at an exorbitant cost – the suffering of the masses.

The perceived differences between Treasury and the Indigenisation Ministry are hardly policy matters. They are political differences far removed from the collective resolve to see Zimbabwe prospering.

By Gutu’s admission, the empowerment of Zimbabweans “is a very serious and crucial issue,” it being the founding cause for the blood that was shed to bring us freedom.

He added the policy “should not be taken as a simple electioneering gimmick by any political party.” True, and neither should it be vilified for the sake of political opposition.

We can generally agree that ZANU-PF has electioneered with people-oriented policies, just like the opposition has electioneered by the derision and vilification of the same policies, all at the expense of national development.

Gutu asserted that economic empowerment is “a matter of life and death.” There is no substitution for life and death. Both are unambiguous and absolute.

“We cannot empower the poor by grabbing wealth from the rich and dishing it out like confetti at a wedding,” added Gutu.

“You do not empower the poor and marginalised by changing the colour of the new bourgeois from white to black,” the Senator counseled.

Well, development itself is never about distributing wealth, but about creating it.

The question we must be answering as a nation is how we are going to create business opportunities in the context of our indigenisation policy, and how we are going to expand the industrial and financial base for the economy.

Obert Gutu suggested the typical FDI filter-down effect where foreign owned businesses are supposed to create employment and to spawn local business. We know we once had significant FDI in this country, and surely that did not meaningfully spawn local business initiatives.

We now need a workable plan on how to marry FDI with the promotion and growth of local businesses. Minister Patrick Zhuwawo says no country was ever developed by FDI, and that is to an extent true. Foreign prescribed and directed FDI cannot by definition develop host countries. This is purely because it is designed for profit, and not for human development.

However FDI and indigenisation can co-exist, as Tichaona Zindoga once argued in one of his pieces.

What we need to redefine for Zimbabwe is FDI itself. It has to be development oriented, not profit oriented. Increasingly it is becoming harder for FDI to maximise profits in developing countries, and we must know that now there is a fierce competition for African resources.

The fear that economic empowerment will create “cartels,” as Gutu suggested, is a contradiction in itself in the Zimbabwean context.

For as long as Zimbabwe pursues the capitalist model in empowering its people, it is bound to create cartels, not because of the weakness of the implementation, but that of capitalism itself.

Every capitalist state is controlled by cartels, and that is by definition and design.

What we need are empowerment opportunities for our people, and with such opportunities the people will develop themselves.

None of us has capacity to create wealth for each and everyone in the country.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer based in SYDNEY, Australia.

This article was reproduced from Wafawarova’s Facebook Fan Page. It also appears in The Herald, Zimbabwe. 


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here