Sunday 20 June 2010

Is Zimbabwe a normal country?

I noticed that the BBC couldn't resist taking a negative dig at Zimbabwe when reporting on the magnificent friendly between Zimbabwe and Brazil.

Concluding a piece on the game the BBC's Africa correspondent Andrew Harding wrote "It feels - at least today - like a refreshingly normal, happy country." This sentence suggests that Zimbabwe is normally not a normal country.

While we have our problems we are not the grotesquely abnormal monster that much of the ignorant Western media have convinced themselves we are.

The are many things about Zimbabwe which are much better than in most of the places that Andrew Harding would consider ‘normal’. For example, Zimbabwe has the highest literacy level in sub-Saharan Africa. Until a couple years back school enrolment of school going age children was also the highest. I am not sure about now but many parents are making tremendous effort to make sure their children get a good education.

Zimbabwe also has some of the best sanitation standards found in rural Africa. The Blair toilet we take for granted is a luxury in most countries. Here in South Africa the richest country in Africa, there is a big hullabaloo about toilets being installed for the first time in some parts of urban Cape Town.

The deep well with a hand-winch that we also take for granted in most of Zimbabwe is also a luxury for most in other parts of Africa. It provides clean ground-filtered water and is found at nearly all rural homesteads.

Most Zimbabweans enjoy housing standards well above those found in much of the region and the world. Most homesteads including rural homesteads have a solid burnt brick house with a cement floor, with many having at least two buildings (the traditional and culturally important kitchen hut, and a brick under asbestos 'bedroom').

Most of South Africa's blacks still live in substandard shacks (mukuku) with no sanitation at all. On the other hand, Zimbabweans can't imagine themselves living an entire lifetime in a chitangwena (a shack), but here in South Africa generations have lived and are still living in shacks.

If the same standards that were applied in Operation Murambatsvina (which was supposed to clear Zimbabwe of illegal and substandard structures) were to be applied in other parts of Africa, more than half of the populations would be left homeless. That estimate includes South Africa.

Many Zimbaweans actually have two homes, an urban home and a rural home (kumusha) a feature of our lives the we take very much for granted. However that feature is a very very effective social safety net. Zimbabweans can retreat to their rural homes when things are not going well in the urban setup. In the rural homes the Zimbabweans can live off the land growing what food they need. Relying on their own labour and effort, they even building their own houses using local materials.

This land-based self reliance is one of the important reasons why ownership and control of the land is such a big issue in Zimbabwe. The ability to grow commercial crops on land is a bonus. The real nity-gritty is the ability to grow one's own food.

The logic is simple. If someone grows food which you then have to buy it means you still have to find a job to get money to buy the food. If you can't find the job you go hungry even if there is plenty food. You will be forced to become a beggar. If you have your own piece of land big enough to feed yourself then you need a job only to improve your income flow and not as a basic means of survival. You will never become a beggar because with, access to land you have a chance to use your time to do something for yourself.

Outside of political violence we have extremely low crime rates. We have almost no problems with gangsterism. Contrasts that with supposedly normal countries like Jamaica where gangsters virtually run their own armies and polices forces. Contrast with countries like Mexico where gangsters routinely murder government officials. We don't have serious problems with hard drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Outside of political violence Zimbabwe also provides excellent protection and security for its citizens. It is difficult to imagine a crazed person driving around taking pot shots at people as recently happened in the United Kingdom.

Andrew Harding thinks Zimbabwe is not a normal country but he can walk around knowing that nobody would dare mug him in broad daylight in a crowded street. Such brazen muggings are a daily routine occurrence in places like Johannesburg.

Zimbabwe's politics have been nasty and atrocious for the past decade. As a result the western media have convinced the world, including some Zimbabweans, that they have the short end of the development stick. However a simple look at hard facts is enough to show that Zimbabweans enjoy much better lives than Afghanis, Iraqis, Jamaicans and the majority of black South Africans.

The truth is that based on the usual human development indicators, Zimbawe is more much more ‘normal’ than most of the countries which receive less negative coverage from the Western press.

Friday 18 June 2010

Land reform is not ill-conceived

I will never agree that land reform is ill-conceived. Yes it may have been mis-managed by Zanu-PF but land reform remains a necessity, not only in here but in our neighbour South Africa as well. Without equitable distribution of resources, our countries will be saddled with social imbalances that will be a source of conflict for generations to come.

Social and wealth distribution imbalances did not start being sources of conflict only in Africa but since time immemorial. You may be aware of conflicts precipitated by social imbalances such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution.

Mr Ncube, you definitely are not going to deny that the current land distribution imbalances were created by unjustifiable and virulently racist and discriminatory policies of colonial governments in their various forms. It is ill-conceived to call land reform ill-conceived.

I believe you may also have witnessed what happened to the fortunes of farmers who were marketing their produce around Boka auction floors. I am sure you will agree with me that they became the centre of economic activity. Is that a bad thing?

The improved economy of farmers at household level will eventually lead to an improved national economy. We have the problem that many people and indeed the government are trying to force the agricultural economy to follow the same patterns as when we had highly centralized and few commercial farmers. The simple logic that due to change in demographic patterns, agricultural economic patterns will of necessity change is lost to most.

The mere change, and disruption associate with the it, of agricultural economic patterns is interpreted as abject failure of land reform by some. In addition, the disruption caused by excessive government control of agricultural marketing (price controls, marketing restrictions, monetary mismanagement) is completely ignored as everything is attributed to the mere act of land reform.

Surely the improvement in agricultural fortunes that was witnessed this year would not have been there of white ownership land was the only and necessary ingredient for agricultural success. The only thing that has changed is that excessive government control has been removed.

Secondly while economic and monetary mismanagement, particularly during the Gideon Gono era, may have considerably lowered our standard of living over the past decade, I believe you are being unnecessarily negative by calling life in Zimbabwe "pathetic existence" as if we have the worst conditions in the world.

What would you call life in Somalia, Darfur, Iraqi, Afghanistan, DRC and even Kyrgyzstan. Having had the opportunity to travel throughout the region, our standard of life is higher than in nearly all neighbouring countries. By standard of living I mean standard of housing, access to sanitation, access to education facilities and having reasonable infrastructure such as roads and clinic buildings.

For example the minimum standard of housing most Zimbabweans enjoy (a round ‘kitchen’ hut with an asbestos roofed 'bedroom' by the side), is higher than the standard of housing the most South African blacks have (a tin shack). What we often perceive as a lowering of living standards is merely a reduction of access to disposable cash.

I believe responsible journalism should encourage Zimbabweans to build on what they have rather than dupe them into believing that they have the shortest end of the stick. Such negativism encourages Zimbabweans to think life is much better elsewhere. As you may be aware many of them then cross our borders into countries like South Africa were many face much worse living conditions than they would have faced at home. They also place a strain on the service delivery in those countries resulting in xenophobia.

I have never supported Zanu-PF having build my political consciousness during the ZUM days. However I will never bad-mouth Zimbabwe in order to spite Robert Mugabe as you seem to be doing.

Gono is incompetent. Period!

Calls for Gono’s departure are reaching a crescendo with the editor of the Zimbabwe times being asked to provide a platform for publishing allegedly incriminating evidence against him. Many seem to want Gono to go because he can't work with Biti, or he is a member of the JOC.

My view is that Gono should go simply because he is hopelessly incompetent. He is totally ignorant and has survived this far because he is working with equally ignorant if not more ignorant people. Anybody  with a single molecule of knowledge in their brain would have realized that Gono was leading us up a creek a long time ago.

He has absolutely no idea how to interpret simple economic data and fit it into a simple economic model. Instead of using numbers to model the economy he tried to force the economy to model numbers. That is a completely wrong approach to simple Mathematical modeling which is the basis of scientific analysis including econometrics.

Gono would set a number such as an exchange rate and then try and force the economy to conform to the number he had set. This was simply wrong. You derive your formulae and numbers so that the numbers reflect certain physical characteristics of the situation you want to mathematically analyze. Taking measurements from the physical situation you then calculate your numbers. You don't set your numbers and then try and force the physical situation to change to conform to your numbers.

Let me try and put it very simply. Suppose you want to measure how much meat you can harvest from a herd of cattle. You know each cow weighs about 250kg and has 4 legs. You then come up with a device for counting the number of legs as cows walk past. If you count 8 legs you know you have 2 cows and a potential 500kg of meat. The model is very simple. The numbers in the model are derived from physical characteristics of the cow. Four legs equal one cow yielding 250kg of meat. Eight legs equal two cows yielding 500kg of meat.

What Gono did with the exchange rate was that he decided that he would define one leg as one cow. He apparently thought that his model would now make eight legs equal eight cows therefore in the end he would get 2000kg of meat!!! Lost to him was that mere definition does not change the physical characteristics of a cow. If one American dollar is worth a thousand Zimbabwe dollars, decreeing that one American dollar be worth a hundred Zimbabwe dollars will not change the physical characteristics of the economy.

The exchange rate is a function of the balance of payments. How much you are producing and selling outside versus how much you are importing by and large determines the value of your money relative to other currencies. If you are producing too little and importing too much your currency devalues. It is a very simple model to understand even without going through Mathematical calculus that real economists use to make accurate predictions of economic trends.

If you reduce production by hindering producers, for example through price controls, at the same time increasing imports by importing all kinds of luxury goods, cars and even simple to make things like scotch carts and ploughs, your currency devalues massively. Setting the exchange rate at some number won't help an iota. It doesn’t matter whether you throw bones, consult tarot cards, peer inside crystal balls or climb up rocks barefoot to come up with the number. The exchange rate is modeling the physical characteristic which is exports versus imports. Its real value will always depend on the balance of payments not wishes of people.

Setting the exchange rate was wrong. Price controls made the situation even worse. To go back to our analogy of a herd of cows, price controls were like splitting the legs of cows into two halves hoping that as each cow passed, you would then count eight legs, and then claim to have 4000kg of meat from two cows. Of course you will discover that after cutting their legs the cows bleed to death leaving you with no meat at all!

After imposing price controls our producers bled to death leaving Gono and the government without a tax base at all.

While many people argue for Gono’s departure based on his political affiliations and his relationship, or lack thereof, with certain politicians, I am of the opinion that the major reason why he should depart is his lack of performance.

To put it simply it doesn’t matter whether Gono is a member of Zanu-PF, the MDC or even the Democratic Party of America. The reason why he should depart is his incompetent management of the monetary system, as well as destructive interference in other areas where he had absolutely no business poking his nose into, such as agriculture.

There are many who defend the governor by claiming that he couldn't have done anything as he was under political pressure. Gono was and is employed to advise politicians correctly, not for HIM to be advised incorrectly by politicians. There are some basic principles of econometrics that cannot be changed by politics, and if he didn't know how to put those across to politicians, it is further proof that he was incompetent. 

Who is in control

Honourable guests at the State House, for the swearing in of Zimbabwe’s cabinet, were treated to the biggest circus ever witnessed in diplomatic circles. While that may be amusing, it is however a strong indictment of Zimbabwe’s political leadership.

Clearly politicians are so pre-occupied with acquiring positions of power that the do not care about the dire circumstances the country is in. They do not care about the burden they are imposing on the tax payer and the debilitating consequences of that burden on the ability of the state to deliver essential services to the taxpayer.

The ease with which both sides are quick to add ministers of state on the burden is a big condemnation on the government, as well. Clearly both sides are more concerned with fitting as many of their cronies as they can, on the gravy train. That the country needs to save money seems to be totally and hopelessly lost to them.

If there are any doubts as to who is in control, I think recent events should have made it clear. Firstly human rights activists and MDC supporters under detention have not been released. One man promised that they were not going to spend a day more in prison. Well that day passed and more days are still passing and they are still firmly in jail. Can we therefore say the man who made the promise is in control?

Secondly arrests of opposition figures have been continuing. Roy Bennet is eating sadza with pumpkins in Mutare as we speak.

Tsvangirai seems to be suggesting that Bennet was incarcerated at the behest of rogue elements apposed to the unity deal. I submit that Bennet is in jail because Mugabe wants him there. Which police officer in Zimbabwe would keep a man in jail at the behest of, say Chihuri or Chiwengwa, in the face of a clear and unequivocal message from Mugabe that the man should be released?

The arrest of Bennet is clearly a message to the MDC to tell them, ‘Look here guys, we now have you by the balls.’ It is also a clear message to everyone that Zanu-PF are still in control.

The party’s bigwigs turned up in extra numbers to be sworn in as ministers because they are not prepared to make way for each other. If anybody believes that such people are prepared to easily make way for the MDC, then that person is still happily suckling at their mother’s breast.

It is also fallacy to believe that these people have turned against Mugabe, or that the latter has turned against them. When lions growl at each other it doesn’t mean one of them is now friends with the zebra.

The bottom line is that the route to true freedom for ordinary Zimbabweans has not yet been charted. The supposed captains are too busy charting their own routes to power.