Are the ruthless hierarchs of the ruling Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe finally facing up to the fact that Zimbabweans are going hungry? With Amnesty International releasing yet another report about the worsening food crisis, there were reports this week that the Zanu-PF politburo was preparing to debate the issue. Typically, more pressing bureaucratic matters swamped the agenda. But the fact is that it is becoming harder and harder to pretend that all is well, and that reports of staple maize shortages are a devilish contrivance of neo-colonialist Britain.
The World Food Programme says growing numbers of hungry Zimbabweans are now approaching it directly for food. Of course, the United Nations agency cannot help them, because of the government’s heartless insistence that food aid is unnecessary as all Zimbabweans are well fed. (The main source of such claims is Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, who earns a fat salary and shops in South Africa.) In addition, Bulawayo’s city health department reports an increasing number of deaths in the district from starvation. Moyo has tried to dismiss this as Movement for Democratic Change propaganda, but the council points out that it is merely reflecting information from government clinics and hospitals.
In April German-funded research forecast a maize production shortfall in Zimbabwe of between 600 000 tonnes and 900 000 tonnes this year, rendering up to eight million people vulnerable. Just last week the country’s largest seed producer told the Zimbabwe Parliament that a paltry 28 000 tonnes of seed was available to the market, compared with the 100 000 tonnes needed to meet demand. The fertilizer shortfall is even more dire, at almost 300 000 tonnes.
Moyo is fond of claiming that the silos of the state-run Grain Marketing Board (GMB) are full — and there are, indeed, reports that the GMB purchased about 250 000 tonnes of grain last year, which it did not release on to the market, despite severe maize meal shortages. This has probably been topped up by further purchases this year. But Amnesty doubts the stocks are sufficient to see Zimbabweans through the 2004/05 harvest. There is also the question of cost. Because of the massive job destruction that accompanied President Robert Mugabe’s resettlement programme, and hyper-inflation, many people simply cannot afford the going price of Z$20 000 for a 20-litre bucket of maize.
The government’s denial is rooted in a refusal to admit that its chaotic land “reform” programme and economic mismanagement are in any way responsible. But there is a more sinister motivation. Amnesty and other organisations have repeatedly charged that Zanu-PF is using maize as a political weapon, selling it only to those who can produce party cards and denying it to opposition supporters. The rejection of external food aid is similarly calculated to concentrate all food stocks in state hands, increasing the government’s scope for manipulation.
The dilemma it faces, however, is that shortages and falling stockpiles may, in time, undermine its ability to keep the party faithful fed. Zanu-PF does not want to face an election by a hungry populace. It is this that may explain why food is suddenly starting to surface on the party’s agenda.
A beginning, not an end
The excellent work of civil society lobbyists has sought to highlight the miserable lot of poor children forced to pay school fees. Harrowing tales have emerged of pupils being forced out of school for paltry amounts. Fee exemptions have not worked because teachers under the burden of tight budgets have increased pressure on learners to pay.
Expulsions, and the embarrassment and marginalisation they cause, have made a mockery of the dream of free education that permeates the Freedom Charter and other African National Congress policy documents.ÂÂ
Now the lobbyists’ work has found an ear: this week the Department of Education announced limited relief in the form of increased assistance to the country’s poorest schools. Minister of Education Naledi Pandor will put the meat on the bones of the proposals in the months ahead.
As we have campaigned for the scrapping of school fees and better access to education, we welcome the move. But proposals fall short of measures required for a meaningful impact.
They cover not even half our schools, and therefore of children defined as poor by Statistics South Africa. Subsidies to wealthy schools will be cut and diverted to the poorest institutions, meaning that Gauteng and the Western Cape are likely to lose out. To make an impact, what is required is a bigger fiscal pie, not a different way of slicing it.
And the roll-out plan is too slow. Due for implementation in 2006, it leaves 15 months before relief is forthcoming.
It will take agile footwork on Pandor’s part to ensure bureaucrats make the system work. Teachers already complain of bottlenecks in regional departments where textbooks and other essential items are snared in red tape — now the departments must identify schools for exemption. Affordable transport and the scrapping of uniforms also need to be addressed.
The proposals are only the beginning of the journey toward free schooling for the poor. Realising the Constitution’s pledge of “basic education” will require a bigger education budget. It will also require civil servants infused with the spirit of Batho Pele (People First), rather than Batho Moraho (People Last).