We must see gains of development indaba

Obituaries
AN impressive panel of speakers appeared in the press at least 10 days before the November 7 Economic Development and Financial Indaba held in Harare recently.

By Jonathan Maphenduka

AN impressive panel of speakers appeared in the press at least 10 days before the November 7 Economic Development and Financial Indaba held in Harare recently.

A good number of them I knew as experts in their own fields spanning many years. Two of them came from embassies of China and the United States, adding an element of drama and rivalry (I hoped) in their expected contributions.

The burning question, however, is: will the recommendations of the panellists result in a dramatic shift in government policy, which is dictated by self-preservation rather than pragmatic accommodation of potential foreign investors and financial markets necessary for recovery of the country’s floundering economy?

Many people have an expectation, which is that the indaba will not turn out to be another talk-shop affair to flatter government. This must be a serious opportunity to influence change in many areas of governance.

Otherwise it will not have helped the country move forward. Just now the government’s policy has landed the country in an isolation ward, if you like, to await inevitable death.

Is the government, however, open to such persuasion? Well, it remains to be seen.

As we all know, very little if any economic investment is coming from China and US right now, for one reason or the other. This is worrisome, especially in the case of China, which has historical friendly relations dating back to the days of the liberation struggle.

China loses no opportunity to boastfully declare its mutual friendly and inter-territorially relations with Zimbabwe. So what is inhibiting the flow of Chinese investment into Zimbabwe? Is China merely indulging in public relations to flatter this country with low-value comfort by playing to the gallery?

Spokesmen for the Chinese government have been known to declare (in private conversation) that Zimbabwe suffers from lack of discerning leadership. Given this scenario one, therefore, can hardly blame China for its apparent reluctance to invest in the country.

There must be good reasons, therefore, why Chinese investment in this country is low and waning compared, for example, to Zambia, South Sudan and Ethiopia in that order.

I have found myself expecting Zimbabwe to be concerned enough to want to find out why its friend is wary and reluctant to invest in this country.

There, is a telling Ndebele saying which says one should “smell your own armpits” to find out if their smell is not repulsive and driving away your friends.

Zimbabwe needs to adopt an inward-looking policy in this regard to examine its own short-comings instead of relying on self-righteous propaganda-orientated approach which presently is the bedrock of its foreign policy.

I was in the United States of America in 2014 when the president, Barack Obama announced his government’s investment of US$7 billion in the Inga-Hydro Power Station in the Congo before African heads of state gathered in Washington for this occasion.

The only head of state who was not invited was Robert Mugabe and his minister of information Jonathan Moyo politicised the occasion as a “non-event” to please Mugabe and insult the US for funding a project that would light up the dark continent of Africa.

The then South African head of state Jacob Zuma announced that the republic would be ready to take 50% of the scheme’s total yield when completed.

Such calculated insults as attributed to Moyo only help to accentuate and heighten tensions between the United States and the poor country, which is Zimbabwe.

Similar outrageous statements, challenging the US by declaring that Zimbabwe was born out of a war of liberation, have been heard from some leaders of the war veterans association under President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s administration.

Can we cultivate friendly relations with a super power by challenging it to a battle by making such misguided statement?

China as Zimbabwe’s friend was favoured to invest in the modernisation of the Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company some years ago but the deal fell through for unknown reasons.

Then a consortium of Indian investors came, but also left. There must be something fundamentally wrong with our business ethics, which drive away potential investors, even those we like to portray as our historical friends.

We have — if you like — smelly armpits! We need to take a long look at our shortcomings and order an honest clean up.

An interesting development, as I remark in an earlier analysis, Russia (another hallowed historical friend) has granted Zimbabwe a loan to purchase, among other things, Russian rolling stock and railway wagons.

Although I am not privy to the terms and conditions of this deal, it is somewhat and clearly burdensome because we have works (equipment), engineering capacity, equipment and unutilised infrastructure to manufacture some of our requirements in Zimbabwe to re-equip our railway system.

This leads to one and only one conclusion: the deal appears to be a design to spite those we blame for alleged economic sanctions against the country.

But how often do we pose and honestly search our conscience to find out what the cost of establishing a business undertaking is in this country where corruption driven avarice defies all control?

How many intending investors are we losing due to a variety of inhibiting practices that are disgusting to a potential investor, and this includes those we tout as our friends?

One of the most inhibiting factors against foreign investment in this country is the black empowerment craze instituted by the Mugabe regime, which demanded that blacks (who must be members of the ruling party) should be majority shareholders in a foreign business undertaking, without paying anything for the shareholding.

l Jonathan Maphenduka is an author and political analyst. email: [email protected] Phone: 263 772 332 404.