It is heartening to see that the African National Congress and the government are speaking out on Zimbabwe. Less heartening, however, is some of the analysis. Perhaps the worst distortion is the comment by ANC spokesperson Smuts Ngonyama that the main source of economic problems in Zimbabwe is ”subsidies”. This reinforces a suggestion by the president that the root of Zimbabwe’s economic woes is excessive borrowing in the 1980s to finance expenditure on education, health, welfare, etc.
This is a convenient and self-serving analysis viewing the past through free market spectacles.
The economic problems of Zimbabwe are complex but not related to subsidies or borrowing. Historically, there is the legacy of colonialism which laid the foundation for heavy reliance on raw materials and white economic domination. Just because Mugabe has manipulated these issues in a reactionary and opportunistic fashion does not mean they are not real.
The real descent into poverty began when the Zimbabwean government put in place its Gear-style economic plan in 1990. Prices skyrocketed, costs of services escalated and the benefits which had accrued to the urban and rural poor since 1980 began to whither away. This was intensified by the kleptocracy and militarism of the Zanu-PF government. Since the scandal known as Willowgate in 1988, it has been common knowledge that self-enrichment is a way of life for political leaders. This self-enrichment reached new heights with the country’s military venture into the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of Congo. While Zimbabwe’s involvement cost more than US$1-million a day, military and political leaders reaped the benefits of ”conflict diamonds” and other minerals. The domestic side of this militarism is the mobilisation of war veterans.
Mugabe turned the war veterans, once a voice of progressive reform, into a reactionary vigilante force by buying them off. First he gave them massive payouts and lifetime pensions, then the promises of land. From there the descent into hell of the farm invasions is well-known.
To ascribe economic failure in Zimbabwe to ”subsidies” or ”excessive borrowing” is facile. The logical conclusion from such a view is that the solution lies in free market policies. But Zimbabwe followed the free market approach rigorously in the early 1990s. The result was increasing poverty and inequality. These economic conditions spawned the mass mobilisation and general strikes of the late 1990sand ultimately led to the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change.
Zimbabwe, like South Africa, needs an economic policy which prioritises the problems of the majority employment, land, education, health, and housing. These problems will not be addressed by a lean and mean state which eliminates subsidies and slashes all borrowing.
Free and fair elections followed by a free market will move Zimbabwe from the frying pan into the fire. The recent history of Zambia is ample evidence that ousting old-style nationalist authoritarians does not guarantee progress for the majority. Terri Barnes and John Pape, Claremont