×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Is the sanctions lie finally over?

Columnists
Driving out vendors, demolition of houses and raging job losses - any worse perfect storm scenario when crisis is piled upon crisis?

Driving out vendors, demolition of houses and raging job losses – any worse perfect storm scenario when crisis is piled upon crisis?

By Conway Tutani

That’s what has happened in Zimbabwe in the shortest possible period of time. This rare combination of circumstances has worsened the situation drastically. Did it have to come to this and at the same time? Did something give? Could Zimbabwe be on the verge of a reset? No pain, no gain? Any lessons learnt?

In all this unfolding tragic drama, there has been three main players: labour (employees), business (employers), and government.

As for labour, it has been most destabilised. The painful truth of the matter is that what’s done is done despite government promising retrospective action to remedy the situation. Those jobs won’t be recovered. Those pinning their hopes on a complete reversal of things had better be coldly realistic – hard as it is – and accept that it will never be the same again. Labour had already been reduced into the weakest player among the three players because of closing factories and high unemployment – mostly due to unworkable and damaging government policies. So labour has all the disadvantages that come with reduced influence. Any labour expert will tell you that ill-advised government policies led to this disequilibrium that has eventually left labour at the total mercy of business. This lack of balanced policies almost always results in such devastation to one party or other side as we are witnessing now. This is inbuilt in all bad policies. Before the Supreme Court ruling in July allowing employers to terminate employee contracts on three months’ notice, employers were in that untenable, helpless situation now facing workers. Now this has been instantly and completely reversed.

Another lesson for trade unions is that when they represent workers and sit down with employees, they should not treat them as adversaries to extract or squeeze the maximum from them as this can come back to haunt them in changed circumstances.

Even if government had the will to rectify the situation, it does not have the capacity to do so. One can glean this from President Robert Mugabe’s State of the Nation Address this week, which, while without his usual sound and fury, still signified nothing concrete and immediate for a nation in need of tangible and urgent solutions.

As for business, it had largely given up on an unresponsive, intrusive and disruptive government. Ill-conceived policies – the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act being among the latest in a long chain – militated against ease of doing business in the country. And taking farming out of the chain following land invasions left many companies in limbo. In such cases, the rug was pulled from under the feet of such companies and they suddenly were saddled with idle staff. Sure and secure markets disappeared into thin air. Essential staff suddenly became excess staff and firms were forced to carry this burden for years and years because of the disequilibrium in labour laws. Something had to give. What is happening is most painful, but, sadly, inevitable.

But some business had brought the mess upon themselves through accumulating bad habits over the years. In some cases, it was a toxic combination of overstaffing with overrated and overpaid workers. When times are good, people tend to indulge in reckless expenditure only to be forced into panicky decisions when that rainy day comes – as it does sooner or later. The collateral damage falls on employees. Making employees pay for the sins of the bosses cannot be justified in anyway. But, of course, people being people, that is exactly what is happening on the ground.

This is where government has to come in. In China, they have gone for equilibrium. That’s why US$100 a month is a livable salary in that country. In 2013 in Switzerland, in a referendum called the “people’s initiative against fat-cat pay”, people voted in favour of curbing excessive executive salaries and perks. The penalty for bosses who fail to comply is up to three years in jail or the forfeiture of up to six years’ salary. Isn’t this direct democracy at play? This lesson has yet to be learnt in Zimbabwe. How many Harare City Council jobs could have been saved by firing the top brass whose contribution was next to nothing as seen in the sorry state of the capital city? As it is, in Switzerland they would be languishing in jail.

And another bright spot of sorts was that Mugabe did not promise much on his own because he does not have much. The low-down he gave was that it was time for Zimbabwe to bend to the dictates of political and economic common sense, not the jingoism that has brought the country to its knees. It was time to push pride aside because time is running out – fast.

Isolationism does not pay in this interconnected, real-time world. China’s ruling Communist Party recognised that it was to their nation’s advantage not to isolate itself economically from the rest of the world. Beyond trade, then President Deng Xiaoping, who was in office between 1981 and 1987, invited investment from abroad in Chinese industries. Ownership of industries by foreigners and by individual citizens exists alongside State-owned industries. According to Business Week in 2005, the private sector accounted for 70% of the nation’s GDP – a figure many believe to be an under-estimation. Indeed, the government has no business in business. But Zanu PF has completely overturned this template with disastrous results. Look at the fast-running out diamonds in Chiadzwa with nothing to show for them.

Again, in all this, China has not been soft on corruption. In fact, it has been brutal with those found guilty of grand corruption – including top party officials – executed promptly after sentence. But Mugabe, in his “10-Point Plan for Economic Growth” in his State of the Nation Address, lists “Pursuing an Anti-Corruption Thrust” near the tail-end at Number 9 whereas this should be right at the top. In Zimbabwe corruption is a thriving industry with the big fish driving it secure in the knowledge that no one, nothing, will touch them. They are the ones who were extorting money from evicted vendors, fleecing desperate homeseekers whose houses have been demolished and stripping companies, including State-owned firms, of assets resulting in employees losing jobs in their thousands. The government’s role should be limited to giving support services.

But that it was Mugabe’s first such address in eight years —- whereas this is supposed to be an annual address – could be tellingly symptomatic of this government sleeping on duty and its haphazard, disorganised, lackadaisical ways as seen in policy inconsistencies that have led to this multiplicity of crises coming to a head all at once. If the Head of State cannot stick to this important schedule of duty, it speaks for itself. What other items on the to-do list are being neglected? Does it need to have a crisis escalate to such magnitude to address the nation? No. This should be done as and when due. We musn’t hold out for another eight years for Mugabe’s next State of the Nation address.

That said, the biggest positive climbdown is that Mugabe this time around did not mention the “s” word – sanctions – not even once or by innuendo. It was indeed a significant step. As it is, the word “sanctions” should be banned from all official speeches. It had always been about sanctions and the historical “shortcomings” of the British and how “inept” they are. The sanctions mantra could finally have run its course, meaning no more burying of heads in the sand and – crucially – no more lies.

What else can we conclude if the man himself studiously avoided to mention the “s” word in giving such an important speech?

l Conway Tutani writes on political and socio-economic issues. He can be contacted at [email protected]