The people of Zimbabwe must
decide their own future
Earlier this
week, we were in Zimbabwe together with Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo
and Bakili Muluzi of Nigeria and Malawi respectively. We went to Harare
to discuss with the Government of Zimbabwe and the opposition Movement
for Democratic Change (MDC), what we might do to contribute to the resolution
of the problems facing this sister African country.
Even as we publicly communicated this simple message
about the purpose of our visit, there were some in our country who insisted
on imposing their own agendas on us. Accordingly, they pretended to know
everything about what we would say to the political leadership of Zimbabwe,
raising unjustified expectations that reflected their wishes.
This manner of proceeding has bedevilled the general
understanding of the situation in Zimbabwe, as well as our response to
this situation.
These same detractors, who have their own partisan agendas,
which they dress in the language of high-sounding principles, are firm
in their conviction that we have some divine right to dictate to the people
of Zimbabwe what they should do about their country. They seem to believe
that if we issued some instructions to the political leaders of Zimbabwe,
as determined by themselves, this leadership would meekly obey what the
baas across the Limpopo would have told them. Precisely because we are
South African, we know the reasons why.
Our own experience as a movement tells us unequivocally,
that no lasting solution to the challenges that face Zimbabwe can be found,
unless that solution comes from the people of Zimbabwe themselves. It
tells us that no Zimbabweans with any pride in their country, and respect
for themselves, will accept that another should determine their destiny.
We remain convinced that the people of Zimbabwe must
decide their future, together with their entire leadership. For our part,
we will never treat Zimbabwe as the tenth province of South Africa.
To ensure that we are best positioned to give such assistance
as may be required by the Zimbabweans, we will continue to follow developments
in Zimbabwe with great care, and make our own assessments without fear
or favour.
We will continue to interact with the entire political
and other sectors of the leadership of the people of Zimbabwe, excluding
no one.
As we did before and immediately after the 2002 Presidential
elections in Zimbabwe, we will continue to encourage both ZANU-PF and
the MDC to sit together to agree on a common response to the pressing
challenges their country faces, as we did again earlier this week.
We were pleased and inspired that the leadership of
Zimbabwe itself holds the same view. Accordingly, we hope that all obstacles
to the resumption of the dialogue between ZANU-PF and the MDC, if any
exist, will be removed, so that the talks can begin.
Certainly more than we, the Zimbabwe leaders understand
the very difficult situation imposed on their people by the economic crisis
that is gripping their country.
Zimbabwe can only extricate herself from this crisis
in conditions of political stability. She would be best placed to take
the difficult decisions she has to take, if her political leadership acted
together, responding to a common national emergency, in the interest of
all the people of Zimbabwe. Fortunately, the leadership of our neighbouring
country is sensitive to this requirement, for all to act in unity to achieve
the common good.
In the heated atmosphere that surrounds the issue of
Zimbabwe, the tendency among some of us to pose as high priests at the
inquisition, hungry for the blood of the accused, as though to condemn,
demonise and punish, constituted the very essence of solving the most
difficult problems, has taken root. In this situation, as in war, the
truth soon becomes a casualty.
From its very beginning as an independent country, Zimbabwe
took the correct position that it had to address the issue of the legacy
of colonialism and white minority domination in the socio-economic sphere.
As we all know, this virtually quarantined the critical matter of land
redistribution, because of agreements reached during the independence
negotiations in London. These sought to counter-balance the principle
of black liberation with the protection of white property, inserting into
the political settlement the racist notions of black majority rule and
white minority rights.
Beyond this, the new democratic state worked to advance
the socio-economic interests of the liberated majority. This focused on
meeting the needs of the people, changing the state machinery to reflect
the new political reality, and encouraging black participation in the
economy and society in general, so that the majority joined their white
compatriots as actors for development, rather than mere consumers and
employees.
To advance these objectives, the Government of Zimbabwe
ploughed considerable resources into the area of education, from the primary
to the tertiary levels, with dramatic and measurable successes. Similarly,
significant state expenditures went into the area of health in both urban
and rural areas. This resulted in such positive developments as an increase
in the proportion of those immunised rising from 25% to 86%, and an increase
in life expectancy from 55 to 59 years.
State expenditures on rural development, food security
and nutrition, impacting on the majority in the country, resulted in the
small farmers' share of marketed maize rising from zero in 1980 to more
than 70% in 1989.
During the fiscal year 1990/91, the civil service wage
bill accounted for 16.5% of the GDP. This high burden on the economy was
caused both by the rapid expansion of state services to the people and
the drive to achieve equal pay for equal work between black and white
civil servants. Central government expenditure on the social sectors during
the same year amounted to about 13% of the GDP.
To meet the needs of the people and alleviate poverty,
the independent state decided to adopt measures that would keep the cost
of living relatively low, to ensure better mass access to essential goods
and services.
In essence, this was done through a system of subsidies
financed through the state budget, which has been maintained for two decades.
As a result of this, during the fiscal year 1990/91, the subsidies to
the public enterprises absorbed a staggering 3.7% of Zimbabwe's GDP, since
these were required to supply goods and services below cost, to guarantee
a tolerable standard of living for the people.
These extraordinary expenditures could only be sustained
by running a large budget deficit and through foreign borrowing. In other
words, this could only mean - live now, pay later!
By the end of the first decade of liberation, total
public sector debt stood at 90% of GDP. In Fiscal Year 89/90, central
government interest payments comprised 6.7% of GDP. By 1987, foreign debt
service payments had risen to 34% of export earnings. Capital to finance
economic growth began to dry up. Private investment in an overwhelmingly
capitalist economy, contrary to blatantly false assertions about a socialist
Mugabe government, dropped to less than 8% of GDP in 1987, compared to
an already low 12% in 1985.
By the end of the first decade of independence, it was
clear that the growth path chosen by the government of Zimbabwe was unsustainable,
despite the objective declared not long after independence, of growth
with equity. Even as early as 1984, less than five years after independence,
the government of Zimbabwe had to appeal to the IMF for assistance, resulting
in a counter-productive structural adjustment programme, the belt-tightening
that any banker will demand of a borrower in dire straits.
Contrary to what some in our country now claim, the
economic crisis currently affecting Zimbabwe did not originate from the
desperate actions of a reckless political leadership, or from corruption.
It arose from a genuine concern to meet the needs of the black poor, without
taking into account the harsh economic reality that, in the end, we must
pay for what we consume.
Persisting ideological blindness to this reality is
evident in our own country, where some who call themselves the unique
representatives of the poor, have been seeking to oblige us to follow
the same policies that led to the economic crisis in Zimbabwe. We have
refused to do this. We will continue to do so.
To come out of this crisis, the people of Zimbabwe will
have to make serious sacrifices and take a lot of pain. This has been
demonstrated by the sharp increases in the prices of petroleum products
and the resultant rises in transport costs, as the government has reduced
the unaffordable fuel subsidy.
All this communicates a message that is perfectly clear.
It is that the longer the problems of Zimbabwe remain unresolved, the
more entrenched poverty will become. The longer this persists, the greater
will be the degree of social instability, as the poor try to respond to
the pains of hunger. The more protracted this instability, the greater
will be the degree of polarisation and generalised social and political
conflict.
To respond to this, the state will inevitably have to
emphasise issues of law and order, even as it has ever fewer means to
address the needs of the people. As it responds in this manner, the less
will it have the possibility to address anything else other than the issue
of law and order. The more it does this, the greater will be the degree
of the absence of order and stability.
None of this will happen because there are demonic people
in Harare harbouring evil hearts, with no concern other than the exercise
of power and the personal enjoyment of its benefits. The internal logic
of various processes in human society compel all of us to be carried along
by events, to destinations we may not have sought.
In this regard, the people and leaders of Zimbabwe are
neither more nor less human than anyone among us. As has happened with
us at various times, they too will have to break the vicious cycle.
I am certain that they will sit together as Zimbabweans
and Africans, to listen to and hear one another, and take the difficult
decisions that will say, practically, that none among them was born to
impose an intolerable burden of suffering on the people of Zimbabwe. The
rest of us have an obligation to work with them as they strive to overcome
their immense difficulties, faithful to the spirit of human solidarity.
As immediate neighbours we have no choice in this regard.
As patriots who occupied the same trench of struggle with the people of
Zimbabwe when we, together, battled to end white minority rule in our
region and continent, we have no choice but to lend a hand to the effort
of the people of Zimbabwe to enjoy the fruits of their hard-won liberation,
of independence, freedom, democracy, peace and stability, and prosperity.
Righteous and self-serving indignation, and the attitude of superior rectitude
will not give us this outcome.
Our greatest and most enduring strengths as a movement
and a people derive from our humility, our respect for others, our commitment
to principle, our love of Africa, our commitment to serve the interests
of the poor of the world, as best we can, our refusal to abandon what
we believe in because of battle fatigue. These we must never lose, simply
because some among us tell us to act in an arrogant and superior manner
towards another human being who lies by the roadside in pain, bleeding.
 |
