Zimbabwe@40

Development, Democracy and Transformation

Lloyd Sachikonye, David Kaulemu, Lloyd Sachikonye, David Kaulemu

• Publisher: Weaver Press
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781779223944
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia africana

Zimbabwe @ 40 is a celebration of the country's four decades of independence and statehood. Forty years is a relatively short period in a nation's life, but it is a formative period: what lessons can be learnt from the successes and failures, challenges and opportunities of the last 40 years? What should be avoided in the next 40? Lloyd Sachikonye and David Kaulemu have assembled a distinguished team of scholars to address these questions, and the book focuses on issues that characterise the country's development trajectory: the linkage between values and institutions; defects in its democracy; the 'curse' of mineral and agricultural endowment; the impact of migration; and the social exclusion of women and young people. The book is written from a depth of commitment to a just, peaceful and prosperous Zimbabwe, and represents a 'work in progress', reflecting the continuing research, evaluation and dialogue that each of the authors is engaged in, and signalling the nature and direction of future such work. As the editors conclude: 'None of the chapters are pessimistic, nor are they negative about the country. They are realistic about the gravity of the historical moment the nation faces and the high moral, political and economic mountains we must climb before we can see the Promised Land. Yet they are full of hope - they are convinced that we have not come to the end of history.'

1

Introduction
Zimbabwe at 40: development, democracy and transformation

Lloyd Sachikonye and David Kaulemu

1. Introduction

Zimbabwe attained 40 years of independent statehood in 2020. This provides a useful vantage point from which to reflect on the trajectory of its development, and social and political transformation. A time span of four decades may not be a very long stretch in a nation’s history, yet for an independent state inaugurated in 1980, these have been momentous decades in laying the foundation stones of development and governance.

While there have been many scholarly studies on how Zimbabwe has evolved over these four decades, there is no unanimity on why the processes of development and democratisation have proved more protracted, formidable and elusive than originally anticipated (Mandaza 1986; Cliffe and Stoneman 1989; Sachikonye 2012). While some analysts (Chipika and Malaba 2017; Mukonori 2012; Moyo, Helliker and Murisa 2008) refer more to historical legacies and colonial origins and restrictions imposed on the post-colonial nation-state, others (Mkandawire 2001) blame the current global relations. Still others (Sachikonye 2012) blame it on political leadership, systems of governance and economic strategies taken by post-colonial leaders. A comprehensive explanation must include all these factors.

Debates have continued over the challenges, and proposals for their resolution, and on the prognosis of the opportunities that ought to be adopted (Bratton 2014; Murisi and Chikweche 2015). These have been framed around various conceptual approaches to development and governance, and strategic policy choices. This book is part of a bigger project initiated by the International Development Institute (IDI) in 2019¹. The project includes forthcoming thematic Monographs and Policy Briefs.

2. Objectives of the book

This book attempts an insightful review of the experiences that Zimbabwe has undergone during the past four decades, with the hope of drawing salient lessons for theory, policy and practice. These lessons relate to the development and governance nexus, and to challenges, constraints and missed opportunities (Bratton and Masunungure 2011; Raftopoulos 2013; Shumba 2018). Rooted in a deeper understanding of the multifaceted, multi-layered and protracted process of this nexus, the book takes a longue durée perspective of the country’s trajectory to date.

The broader project on which the book is based seeks:

• to contribute to an analytical review of Zimbabwe’s experience in development and governance during the last 40 years, and draw relevant lessons for democracy and social transformation; and

• to research socio-economic development with a view to influencing national debate on key development, governance and transformational issues through public symposia and related forums.

3. Background

The period from1980 to 2020 spans a number of epochs in Zimbabwe: the liberation and independence transition; reconstruction in the 1980s; neoliberal adjustment in early 1990s; and globalisation and developmentalism in the 2000s. Like elsewhere in Southern Africa, these processes took particular forms and orientations. Although these were dizzying years during which progress was made on many fronts, regression occurred on others (UNDP 2004) Nothing was preordained. Various options existed, and certain choices that had long-term significance and consequences on the nature and status of Zimbabwe as a nation-state were made. Decisions made then continue to influence prospects for development, democracy and social transformation. These decisions are ideological, and also influenced by how the political leadership negotiates them.

Consider the conjuncture in 2020. The economy had regressed into a recession with inflation at about 785% in mid-July. Unemployment in formal sector was above 90% (Sachikonye et al. 2018). The proportion of the population living below the poverty line was well above 70%. National domestic and external debt amounted to approximately US$18 billion with arrears rapidly mounting. This economic crisis frustrated official national development plans including Zim Asset, a flagship plan for the period 2013 to 2018 and the Transitional Stabilisation Programme (TSP) of 2018 to 2020 (GoZ 2013, 2018). Occasionally the crisis exploded into strikes and violence as during 2016 and 2019 (PACT 2016; ZHR NGO Forum 2019). A crisis management approach appeared to have been the main mode of economic policy giving rise to uncertainty and unpredictability. Corruption reached endemic levels in both public and private sectors (TIZ 2016, 2018; Auditor General 2019).

Nor were conditions on the governance front much better. Following an interregnum of a Government of National Unity (GNU) between 2009 and 2014 in which a semblance of dialogue and cooperation across the party divide was possible, there was a reversion to polarised politics and intraparty factionalism (Raftopoulos 2013; Sachikonye 2017). The election process remained contested during the 2018 poll leading to opposition claims of rigging and violence in August of that year (ZESN 2018; EU 2018; Motlanthe Commission 2018; ZEC 2019). Efforts to organise a national dialogue have been constrained by the non-participation of the largest opposition party emanating from the narrowness of what is imagined and understood to be national dialogue. The general politicisation of national issues has meant the exclusion of civil society, churches and nongovernmental organisations from national dialogue processes.

In addition, various approaches have been advocated with respect to past mass repression during Gukurahundi in the Matabeleland provinces and parts of the Midlands. There is no clarity over which approach and process would allow investigations of what happened and who was responsible, or over issues of justice and restitution. It is clear from this experience that the definition of Zimbabwe as a nation-state is not yet as inclusive as it should be and that the social transformation needed to realise the inclusiveness is yet to happen.

By mid-2020, for economic and political reasons, Zimbabwe was not a settled society at peace with itself. The historical eras cited above cannot be repeated. The windows of opportunity opened after liberation and the Cold War as well as the industrialisation waves of the 1960s to 1980s are perhaps gone forever. Opportunities presented by early globalisation may be disappearing. The global, regional and national environments are seldom static, and it was a weakness of the leadership in Zimbabwe not to have recognised and acted on these realities early on. In reflecting on Zimbabwe at 40, and thinking forward to Zimbabwe at 50, issues of key moments, turning points and windows of opportunity should be explored in structured ways. The contributions in this book point out how the nation can take advantage of these, by:

• Widening the national social imaginary in order to build the foundation of a new inclusive nation and heal the wounds of the past.

• Encouraging an inclusive national development that addresses past injustices and inequalities, especially against women and the youth

• Reaching out to all Zimbabweans in the country and those who have migrated, and to those who have been marginalised, impoverished, ignored and sometimes demonised in order to solicit for their full participation in national development.

• Re-engaging with the international community in order to contribute to the building of a just and prosperous global economic, political, cultural and environmental system that is able to support the aspiration of Zimbabwe’s national development.

4. Shifts in discourse: from the 1980s to 2000s

Notably, within a span of 40 years four sets of discourse related to the above-mentioned epochs have animated debate about strategy and policy on development and governance in Zimbabwe. These shifts have had both external and domestic sources and dynamics. They have influenced thinking in policy and academic circles, and also in the media and wider society.

First, during the liberation struggle and independence transition phase, the key discourse related to the link between development theory, capitalism and socialism. Colonialism was viewed as the precursor of underdevelopment. Through suppression of the majority and expropriation of their resources – land and labour amongst others – there occurred enclave development or economic dualism that resulted in the prosperity of a minority of settlers and impoverishment of the majority of subjects (Kanyenze et al. 2011). Defined as underdevelopment, this process was eloquently spelt out in key texts of that era (Frank, 1967; Arrighi 1973; Rodney 1972).

Within the new state elite, socialism was viewed as a key potential pathway to equitable development. Like liberation movements of their era, the Zimbabwean liberation movements subscribed – albeit in varying degrees – to socialism as their ideological framework for the national development progress (Banana 1989). The new state would be a central actor in that process despite the serious crisis that socialism as an ideology and strategy was undergoing from the 1960s to the 1980s. However, the collapse of the socialist economies in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by 1989 weakened the socialist paradigm as a rival to capitalism.

Second, with the eclipse of socialism, two major discourses arose to argue for shifts in development policy and governance practice. Firstly, the neo-liberalism that revived and reinforced the argument for capitalist-based development, and inspired the formulation of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) in most African countries. SAPs entailed sweeping economic reforms to provide incentives to private firms and investors while reducing the role of the state in the economy (GoZ 1991). Having adopted its version of structural adjustment called ESAP in 1990, Zimbabwe soon experienced deindustrialisation and a slow-down, provoking criticism from both labour and capital (Gibbon 1995; ZCTU 1996).

The discourse on economic liberalisation was accompanied by a donor-led insistence on political liberalisation, euphemistically termed ‘good governance’. Preconditions for development aid included adopting elements such as constitutional reform, rule of law, regular elections and fixed presidential terms, which partly influenced the outlook of civil society and the fledgling opposition movement (Raftopoulos and Sachikonye 2001; Tengende 2001; Masunungure 2004). This could be said to have had the unintended consequences of causing austerity and inspiring opposition to the government that would culminate in a full-blown crisis at the end of the 1990s. It appeared that the Zimbabwean state and society were not equipped to deal with economic reform challenges and embrace significant democratic reform simultaneously (UNDP 2008). It is a challenge that has not yet been satisfactorily resolved in 2020.

A third discourse related to globalisation, a process that went beyond the confines of Zimbabwe and Southern Africa. It was framed in neoliberal terms and cast in optimistic tones that implied that every region and country would benefit. They only needed to open up their markets and embrace new technologies. Yet the reality did not confirm this rosy aspiration and outcome; while some regions and countries would have a head start under globalisation, others would be marginalised. As the years went by, globalisation would later encounter some backlash even in capitalist heartlands, yet it would remain dominant as a process and discourse.

Finally, the discourse on the developmental state has been quite influential in some circles, including in Zimbabwe in the 2000s (Edigheji 2010; Kanyenze, Jauch, Kanengoni, Madzwamuse and Muchena, 2017). Initially, a concept closely associated with the rise of Japan and so-called Asian Tigers, it was subsequently extended to explain the meteoric rise of China to an economic superpower status. It pivots on its central role in the developmental process, its functional and symbiotic relationship with the private sector, and massive investments in human capital development (UNECA 2014). Poverty reduction rates have been phenomenal in developmental states like Botswana and Mauritius. It is our observation that this discourse is still playing out in Southern Africa, witness key and frequent reference to its concepts in developmental plans of states including Zimbabwe (Shumba 2018).

Since these various discourses have influenced development thinking in policy and academic circles, there is need to explore their relevance and impact on specific development and governance processes within the broad context of the Zimbabwe at 40 project.

5. Concept and process of development

The concept of development, and the spread of its use, has been traced to the post-war period in the 1940s. It was associated with US President Harry Truman, who used it to distinguish between ‘developed’ countries (mainly in the West) and ‘underdeveloped’ ones (largely colonies and ex-colonies in what became known as the Third World). In that context, development was equated with economic growth and a modernisation process that entailed industrialisation, urbanisation and the application of technology.

In contemporary usage, development is primarily associated with economic growth. However, while growth is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for development. There are instances of growth that have not been accompanied by broad human and social development. Development transcends growth to include the expansion of human capabilities, and social, cultural and political development. Whereas growth relates to market productivity and increases in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), development entails policy interventions to improve the social and political well-being of people.

The evolution of development as a concept includes several landmarks. In the 1990s, the notion of human development encompassed not only income growth but also indicators of health, education and the expansion of human capabilities. This found expression in the Human Development Index (HDI) that sought to measure the richness of human life rather than richness of the economy in which human beings live (Steiner and Dembowski 2020). Another landmark, also in the 1990s, was the notion of sustainable development: that future generations must enjoy the same opportunities as people do today, and that business activity should not damage the natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Sustainable development rests on pillars of social inclusion, environmental protection and the long-term viability of business.

Finally...