In 1980, President Robert Mugabe was alive to the link between national unity, peace and progress and his words at independence sought to provide a guide as to what was to be expected. As we look back, we are compelled to review the progress made during the last 33 years. Report by Mutumwa Mawere
Mugabe said: “Let us rejoice over our independence and recognise in it the need to dedicate ourselves to national unity, peace and progress.”
It is ironic that the forthcoming elections will be fought on the basis of which party can deliver the promise of shared prosperity when in 1980 this was the primary objective.
Notwithstanding, debate on indigenisation still rages on, but the divergent views on how best to approach the financial sector exposes the glaring lack of leadership on this key and fundamental public policy issue.
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) governor Gideon Gono has expressed unhappiness about what he describes as the “one-size-fits-all” approach to indigenisation and economic empowerment.
In an article entitled Reckless indigenisation disruptive to economy, Gono seeks to advance his position that the approach to indigenisation that has so far been pursued by Indigenisation minister Saviour Kasukuwere is reckless and disruptive to the economy.
Gono has a record that speaks volumes about what he believes in and it is important that the opportunity that he has opened by joining the battle of ideas on what matters to the future of Zimbabwe is taken advantage of.
Gono makes the point that he has some valuable experiences that inform his worldview why the financial sector ought to be treated with caution and why Kasukuwere’s “one-size-fits-all” approach to indigenisation of the financial sector is considered by him to be inappropriate, disruptive and dangerous.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
It is significant that Kasukuwere is a member of Mugabe’s Cabinet and although Gono and he were both appointed by Mugabe, it would appear that Gono’s statement above, if taken to its logical conclusion, would seem to suggest that it is aimed at Mugabe who has failed to rein in Kasukuwere.
Although Mugabe to whom the attack by Gono seems to be aimed at, has not yet weighed in fully on his vision regarding the kind of reforms that need to be undertaken in the financial sector in order to advance the cause, what is now clear is that after 33 years in office, clarity on what needs to happen remains elusive at the top of the political chain.
Gono’s argument in support of indigenisation of a different kind in the financial sector is betrayed by an acceptance that the need for indigenisation is long-overdue and desirable.
If this is the starting point of his worldview, then it cannot be argued that there should be any “sacred cows” for doing so would easily permit confusion.
Surely, if ownership is an important variable in asserting the inclusive agenda, then one cannot then advance the argument of sector exclusion.
One must accept that each enterprise is unique and, therefore, must be understood and if shareholding restructuring purely to address perceived historical commercial injuries is bad for the financial sector, it cannot be good, for instance, in the mining or any other sector.
It is evident that the arguments that Gono seems to be advancing are premised on the belief that while indigenisation is good, it is disruptive only where he is involved in.
He makes the point that: “Any deals that foreign banks in this market voluntarily or involuntarily enter into and sign-off without prior approval will remain ‘deals on paper’ — basically null and void” as if to suggest that the buck stops at him which would place him as a de-facto President of the financial sector.
In any functioning constitutional democracy, one would expect Gono and Kasukuwere to have ventilated their strong views in appropriate foras, but alas it would appear that such platforms no longer exist in Zimbabwe.
The indigenisation law was enacted in 2007 and one would naturally have expected that prior to its enactment, the direction and approach of the program ought to have been thought out so that the legislation would have made the exception that Gono is proposing albeit after the establishment of a Ministry of the same government that he is serving and a Minister having been appointed who remains a rising star of the party and a leading advocate of indigenisation.
Why would the President choose to remain silent while two bulls in his camp are fighting for attention?
Gono believes that indigenisation is only poisonous if applied to the financial sector and that shareholding ought not to be the critical focus and yet his principal, Mugabe, is clear that ownership is important.
Gono maintains that: “Like any national programme, the indigenisation and economic empowerment programme must be implemented in a manner that respects the entire legislative mapping of Zimbabwe as represented by various pieces of legislation on our books that seek to create checks and balances against potentially domineering legislative elephants in the living room, so to speak. The following are some of the critical pieces of legislation and regulatory frameworks to be respected: Banking Act, Chapter 24:20; Reserve Bank Act, Chapter 22:15; Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements; Competition Act, Chapter 14:28 and Corporate Governance Framework for Parastatals of which National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board is part of.”
Gono’s tenure has been controversial and he is not, therefore, the appropriate messenger to talk about corporate governance, separation of powers, transparency, checks and balances, and, more importantly, about domineering elephants.
If he understood what he is asking Kasukuwere, then surely his actions at the helm of the RBZ would have been different. There are too many corporate corpses that were victims of Gono and he probably set the stage for what he is now blaming Kasukuwere for.
The RBZ under his control assumed a life of its own and the reach of the bank was extensive. The RBZ became a state within a state. The concern about the dangerous role that the RBZ had assumed informed the crafters of the Global Political Agreement to call for the dismissal of Gono.
It would appear that Gono has now reinvented himself during the tenure of the inclusive government and his boss, Tendai Biti, is now his best friend.
Gono caused so much pain to indigenous entrepreneurs that must be told lest history is rewritten while we remain silent. Some of us have personal experiences that can add value to the debate that Gono now wants to be part of.
Under Gono, the RBZ became a little police establishment of its own. Former Police Commissioner Henry Mukurazhizha was recruited by Gono and the wounds caused are too fresh to be forgotten.
It is instructive that even Biti and the MDC-T are no longer asking for Gono to be relieved of his duties. Gono did not respect the entire legislative mapping of Zimbabwe and he was simply not accountable to anyone. The legislators did not have a clue as to how the RBZ was acting in the name of the State. The address of the Ministry of Finance had effectively moved to the RBZ.
All ministries were reporting to the big elephant and we now learn that even the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission was part of the value chain.
Perhaps Gono should begin by telling the nation how he managed to ignore the entire legislative mapping with impunity. What he described as a “casino economy” was realised under his watch and the abandonment of the local currency was really an indictment on his actions.
If the approach to indigenisation is faulty, then one has to locate the genesis of the fault lines. One cannot point a finger at Kasukuwere without pointing the same finger at Gono and many others who have created their own states within the State of Zimbabwe.
One can naively assume that Zimbabwe is a unitary state, but in reality each office bearer operates as if there is no accountability.
Gono would agree that the RBZ is part of the legislative mapping that he now speaks, but even in his piece it would appear that investors should know that in the final analysis it is a bigger elephant in the room.
Mugabe, who turned 89 recently, thanked Gono for the gift of 89 cattle. What we do know is that Gono knows how to manage the political processes to the extent that accountability is usually the problem.
The participation of Gono in this important debate is welcome and should allow for an honest assessment of his record with a view to establishing whether he has played any part in creating corporate violence and disorder.
