Where is the short-term recovery?

It must be noted that the inclusive government is still at its embroyonic stage. It also needs to be admitted that the transitional government has a herculean task in achieving the object of turning around the economy.
Nevertheless, six months on, it is now necessary to evaluate the balance sheet and ascertain whether or not steady progress is being achieved. The fundamental questions are: Where is the short term recovery so far? What is the economic policy that the transitional government has adopted in order to achieve its objectives? What are the correct economic policies that should be adopted in order to prevent Zimbabwe from sliding into continued economic decay?
The first question may be answered by carrying out a comparative analysis of the economic situation before the advent of the inclusive government and the current status of the economy. This process required tedious enquiry and investigation, which this author has carried out.
It is common knowledge that before the existence of the inclusive government, the cost of living had risen high, education had virtually collapsed, infrastructural facilities had disappeared and medical facilities were no longer functioning and existence generally was out of reach of the poor.
The economy worsened due to large budget deficits and external debt and the national currency, the Zimbabwe dollar had fallen to the standard of toilet papers.
The above developments affected the economy so much that the mess was then transferred to the transitional government by the old Zanu-PF administration. What we then witnessed during the past six months was a flurry of activity, which saw Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his ministers going abroad with begging bowls in search of financial aid and the removal of sanctions.
What has been the results of these and other efforts designed to improve the performance of the economy? This author has skeptical thoughts about progress made so far. This is largely due to the absence of an economic policy needed to revamp the economy. In other words, the inclusive government has no clear policy on how to revive the economy.
Beyond frequent announcements that the government has been promised financial assistance from China, Sweden and the SADC to mention but a few, the overseas emissaries brought back the bowls half empty and half-full.
Sanctions have not been lifted because Western governments are demanding that those white farmers who had their farms seized be given back their land.
When we hear the American and the British governments and their European allies raise issues of ‘good governmence,’ ‘human rights’ and the ‘rule of law’, they are in fact using these concepts as instruments of control and additional conditionalities aimed at instilling Western values in borrowing countries. Given this scenario therefore, it is fool hardy to continue expecting any meaningful assistance from Western countries.
Since the inception of the inclusive government, recurring stories of poverty inequality and exclusion continue to bedevil the country. Citizens in major cities continue to lack access to safe water, and adequate sanitation. Harare for example, looks like a ghost city as traffic lights and street lights are non-existent in some areas. Heaps of uncollected rubbish continue to characterise the peripheries of low and high density suburbs.
Unemployment is increasing at an alarming rate and electricity blackouts are still occurring from time to time. Equally, if not more disturbing, people, mostly in the rural areas have no access to the US dollar or the rand. Conferences after conferences have been held ostensibly to try and find out solutions to the economic problems Zimbabwe is facing.
However, in the absence of a clear economic policy based on the concrete conditions prevailing in the country, no amount of talking will rescue the economy from the doldrums. The failure to provide basic services to their fullest degree indicates that there is a black hole in the government economic policy.
The inclusive government seems to be guided by neo-liberalism that prioritise market-oriented development strategies, progress and prosperity through economic growth.
The inclusive government seems to prefer a minimal role of the state and is in favour of privatisation. The economic policy seems to be based on IMF and World Bank prescriptions, which dismally failed to achieve results for African economies in the 1980s and 1990s.
Liberalisation and privatisation of the economy in a developing country such as Zimbabwe, not only undermines the role of the State, but promotes a dependency syndrome. This neo-liberal discourse of development supports the notion that competition rather than collaboration and co-operation leads to economic growth.
This view is as fallacious as it is a superimposition of a western model of development that is not consistent with the concrete realities of the situation prevailing in Zimbabwe. Development and economic growth of a country must take into account the social and political institutions as well as differential cultural values.
The key to mastering development and other economic challenges Zimbabwe is facing is for the inclusive government to adopt a new economic policy anchored in the belief that the state plays a key role to successful economic development.
The role of the state has a number of interlocking functions, which encompass investment in education, employment, health, poverty alleviation, infrastructure, mobilisation of resources to finance public expenditure and the provision of a stable macro-economic environment.Against the foregoing background, it is imperative to stress that rolling back the functions of the state in pursuit of privatisation and capitalism will not contribute towards development. If anything, the reality of capitalist development has negative effects of increased social polarisation and large scale unemployment.
While Zimbabwe may attract private capital, development involves a totality of effort. This implies strengthening public-private partnerships for the purpose of enhancing social and economic inclusion. Thus, a policy of joint ventures for example, can go a long way to address some of the economic imbalances prevalent in the country.
The road to successful development in Zimbabwe does not require giving great emphasis to private capital, to competition, accumulation, deregulation, market liberalisation or streamlining the State. Rather, the private sector should live side by side with a strong public sector. Foreign investors should be regarded as merely catalysts and not cartographers in the development of the Zimbabwe’s economy.
– Austin Chakaodza is an analyst of African Political Economy and is professor of International Relations at Regents College in London. Email Chakaodza8@hotmail.co.uk