Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Michael Gomo
6 July 2009
opinion
Harare — The debate around the resuscitation of Zimbabwe's economy seems to be centred on a capitalist model that does not view the majority as important players to development.
There is so much emphasis and belief that cash injections and foreign investment are the only panacea to our economic challenges.
While this may be true in the short and perhaps medium term, recent development approaches suggest that economies built on economically weak societies are prone to the vagaries of economic mischief and manipulation by global markets, exposing people to economic downturn such as the current global recession.
It's a human-made financial catastrophe.
Calls for the revision of the indigenisation laws are not only myopic and one-sided, but are purely capitalistic in nature and will have dire consequences for the ordinary people of Zimbabwe.
This drive is only meant to entice foreign cash injections, which many would like us to believe will stimulate the economy without looking at what role our society should play in this game.
We are not completely poor.
Those who are pushing for that agenda believe that the prosperity of a nation depends on its supply of capital and the rules of economy are determined by only those with the means of production.
Government involvement is only limited to the provision of infrastructure and an enabling environment.
Anything more than that is considered interference and detrimental to economic growth.
Statements such as "capital is coward" by a United States businessman in a recent speech to businesspeople in Harare confirm this capitalist ego-centrism.
The general assumption is that the benefits of capitalist-driven economic growth will trickle down naturally and automatically to all sectors of society.
They argue that opening up a mine in Mutorashanga, for example, will benefit a grandmother in Lupane as her grandson will be employed as an underground worker.
The majority are often relegated to "trickle-down benefits", ignored or drowned out in submissive roles of employees and consumers.
This system does not allow them to own the wherewithal of production.
This approach has proven to be a failure in many African countries for several reasons.
The economy and the nation are left at the mercy of the very people who created the mess in the first place, including foreign interests.
It creates a false sense of economic security among individuals and families.
Many a time, companies linked to transnational corporations are used to manipulate the political landscape through sanctions, withdrawal of investment and economic sabotage.
This leads to economic downturn and massive retrenchment and resultantly social uprising against the government or, worse still, human suffering.
The Government's ability to cope with increasing welfare demands is stretched as it grapples with rapidly depleting tax income as companies close and more employees lose their jobs.
It is my view, therefore, that we should take the current state of our economy as an opportunity to address and redress some of the economic imbalances that were inherited from the colonial period and introduce a locally and people-driven economy.
And this requires courage and resilience.
New development approaches put the empowerment of the masses at the centre of any meaningful and sustainable economic development.
An economy is sustained by the economic power of its people.
It assumes that if the majority are able to make their own income and pay for goods and services, it sustains the small, medium and large businesses in the country.
Empowerment is seen as a process of obtaining and stimulating basic opportunities for marginalised people.
This entails developing the skills for self-sufficiency, with a focus on eliminating the future dependency on employment and the need for welfare.
Though some people may think the process is difficult to start and to implement effectively, the Zimbabwe situation offers a fertile environment because at least the large number of people have land and they have survived on this land ever since they have known farming.
All it requires is increasing the social or economic strength of individuals and communities based on their capacities combined with timely planning, agriculture inputs, and an average or good rainy season.
A back-up system can be put in place to allow them access to loans to finance their agricultural activities.
Obviously harvest will go towards feeding the family and the excess is sold.
It can be sold to raise income for other family purposes. This takes away the welfare burden from the Government.
As goods, services and money exchange, a self-sustained and locally-based economic system is created.
The Chinese family-based business model offers a good example of economic empowerment.
The family is at the core of this model and each family member has a responsibility to ensure the business succeeds not only for purposes of creating wealth, but also for improved quality of life for the family.
The increase in Chinese exports was partly propelled by family-based businesses which significantly contributed to the country's gross domestic product.
The family-produced products are usually quality-controlled and affordable, which make them very competitive on the international markets.
While the consumption of these products is now international, it initially targeted local markets.
As the world grapples with recession today, China is turning to its rural residents as a reserve market to help revive growth as demand flags among the wealthy international markets which have long gobbled up the country's exports.
In its latest efforts to spur domestic consumption, China's government recently announced plans to create jobs, lower distribution costs and improve the quality and availability of products sold in rural areas.
Domestic consumption contributed about 39 percent of China's GDP for the first nine months of last year, according to official Chinese statistics.
Some lessons can be drawn from this approach.
An economy can also be sustained by what we call marginalised communities if we allow them to play a part.
Secondly, this demonstrates the importance of a strong local market which can sustain the national economy in times of distress like global recession.
With the steady growth of rural incomes during China's three decades of market-oriented reforms, foreign companies have moved in recent years to tap that demand by building distribution networks in smaller Chinese cities.
For some of the foreign companies, rural sales overtook urban sales.
In the Zimbabwean context, it is generally assumed that for this to be achieved there is need for the marginalised to have access to capital, which is often a major problem for many families thereby constraining on increasing economic activity.
In my view, most of the marginalised people lack assets which are acceptable as security for loans.
But the majority of our people possess land and houses which are not formally registered to qualify for loan security. Measures can be put in place to ensure their assets are registered.
This economy needs to move with its people for the people towards sustainable development.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 The Herald. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
