Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Biti: wrong diagnosis, wrong prescription

Biti: wrong diagnosis, wrong prescription
By: Itayi Garande
Posted: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:54 am

AN article by Finance Minister Tendai Biti, in The Herald entitled “It’s all about the Zanu-PF DNA” made for interesting reading as it was based on some confusing economic logic and a lack of appreciation for the history and struggles of the Zimbabwean postcolonial State.

It was a response to a previous article by columnist Nathaniel Manheru, whom he attacked for his writing style which he called “loquacious and prolix ... typical of university students of his generation”. He also questions Manheru’s economic logic at the same time making a bad job of explaining his own.

Manheru’s writing style is his own. We all have different writing styles; and they are important in a publication like The Herald as they break the monotony that we often find in anti Zanu-PF organisations disguised as independent media outlets.

Mr Biti’s economic argument is self-contradictory. He quotes writers like Amilcar Cabral and Franz Fanon out of context without taking a holistic look at their arguments; or appreciating the context within which those arguments were based.

Minister Biti, for example, quotes Cabral's ideas on the black middle class "its immaturity and indeed its capacity to reproduce itself through legitimation by whites and white capital", but fails to contextualise his ideas on national liberation.

Besides this critique of the middle class, Cabral also said that national liberation comes about “when the national productive forces have been completely freed from all and any kind of foreign domination”. He argued that the national bourgeoisie had to acquire a high level of morality in order to lead the national liberation struggle; that is a leadership that can articulate its problems and consequently fashion the goals and course of liberation.

Cabral also argues that the national bourgeoisie should help the proletariat to develop revolutionary consciousness through a wide range of political mobilization.

No one today argues that this process is taking place in Zimbabwe with the indigenisation and economic empowerment programme and the land reform programme.

In any case, Biti tried to compare two completely different struggles. The peasantry in Guinea which Cabral wrote about was not originally a revolutionary force, unlike their counterparts, for example in Zimbabwe and in China.

Cabral also expressed the urgency of a national liberation struggle saying cadres should not hedge, drag their feet, and watch the gains of the liberation struggle go back to colonial power.

In the post-colonial period this test was expanded to include those who actively participate in the emancipation and empowerment through education, gainful employment and enhancement of self-respect and personal dignity, those who were previously disadvantged -- the “wretched of the earth” in dire need of not just political and social emancipation, but also economic emancipation.

Minister Biti also make the fallacy of quoting Franz Fanon out of context; and of picking what is relevant to his line of argument.

While he is right to quote Fanon on his criticism of the national bourgeoisie, he ignores Fanon's ideas on the relationship of the national bourgeoisie with the colony (mother country). In the case of Zimbabwe, the bourgeoisie does not continue to serve the former mother country; but the interests of Zimbabweans.

The Zimbabwean State does not have a patron-client relationship with foreign capitalists "who count on its obliging compliance.” In fact the MDC-T advocates such a relationship. Zanu-PF has tried to reduce the demands, accumulation of concessions and guarantees by western capital and form a mutually beneficial relationship.

Minister Biti fails to recognise that some postcolonial States like Zimbabwe and South Africa also have a firm theory and practice of National Democratic Revolution involving unity or alliance among classes, especially between the working class and the national bourgeoisie.

Earlier writings of former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, express these ideas quite eloquently.

The land reform and the indigenisation programmes run against Fanon's "money-in-the-stocking mentality ... dominant in the psychology of these landed proprietors”. Zimbabwe's national democratic revolution aims to reduce class differences and increase social mobility by providing access to the means of production to those who were disadvantaged by colonisation.

Today Zimbabwe boasts some of the best middleclass businesses on the continent and some of the finest brains. If there was that "money-in-the-stocking mentality" the middleclass in Zimbabwe would not have been as bloated as it is today.

ON A MORE PRACTICAL LEVEL

Minister Biti starts his argument with the mistake that the empowerment programme is intended to benefit the “black middleclass” and “elites” and argues that these two groups are opposed to the programme. This is untrue, and in fact, these two groups, together with the working class (or the generality of the Zimbabwean population) are in agreement over the need for the policy; so there's no class conflict here.

Mr Biti talks of a “post colonial education system, which trains the African child to be a subservient seller of labour”. This is in fact a misunderstanding of the role played by the education system of Zimbabwe which churned out many doctors, teachers, engineers, lawyers, nurses, social workers among others who are benefitting countries like South Africa, Botswana, UK, to name a few. The country today even boasts the highest literacy rate on the continent.

Minister Biti wants us to believe that “The education system does not allow us to have bigger horizons other than being a teacher, nurse, doctor or accountant” as if these are not honourable professions themselves.

Mr Biti fails to understand the role of the post-colonial State by again declaring that it has “failed to create a mature middleclass and indeed for that matter a black bourgeoisie”. The “creation of a middle class” is a process achieved through tertiary education, attaining professional qualifications (academics, lawyers, engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth), a belief in a set of value systems based on ownership and security, lifestyle and cultural identification; among others.

How does a State “create” this; if not by education? Today, Mr Biti boasts a middleclass lifestyle courtesy of that same State he criticises.

He then justifies that “failure to create a middleclass” by referring to legal battles involving the likes of Strive Masiyiwa, Nigel Chanakira, James Makamba, Shingi Mutasa, Nicholas Vingirai, Julius Makoni, James Mushore, Mutumwa Mawere, Mthuli Ncube and Jeff Mzwimbi, whose specific circumstances and relationships with the State are as varied as their business interests.

Minister Biti’s economic logic of the 1930s is that development is measured in terms of GDP only. He makes a somewhat troubling comparison between the GDPs of Europe and those of pre-independence African countries; not accepting that these two economies were inextricably linked during colonialism. Rhodesia, before the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, was a "province" of Britain.

The honourable minister also implies in his argument that Rhodesia's Ian Smith was better at sanctions busting than President Mugabe. This is a bizarre comparison; not least because the Smith regime, despite a UN Security Council resolution 216 had the support of the Western world. US maintained relations with Smith and Portugal pursued a middle ground path and gave active behind-the-scenes support to the racist minority regime.

France and Portugal supported Rhodesian War effort from 1965-1979. Crucial clandestine missions kept Rhodesia afloat, especially in the area of air power and industrial development.

The details are outlined in the book "Winds of Destruction" by PJH Petter-Bowyer.

Rhodesia was not only a battleground of Moscow and Washington, it was also a remarkable cauldron of intrigue, violence and power play that often overflowed national borders.

Smith received a lot of secret funding from the US opposed to the spread of socialism. Bishop Abel Muzorewa (as Zimbabwe-Rhodesia prime minister in October and November 1979) continued bombing Zipra bases in Botswana and Zambia -- a continuation of the war between Moscow and Washington.

"Rex" beef was exported to Switzerland throughout the sanction years. The Cold Storage Commission also exported unmarked beef to Portugal and the United Arab Emirates. Bata shoes were exported to Europe as well as many African countries. Lever Bros exported soap, cooking oil and many other products to our neighbours, including Tanzania and other "frontline countries" all of which helped pay for Rhodesia's military operations.

Minister Biti also somehow thinks development is defined by how many Strive Masiyiwas, Nigel Chanakiras or Shingi Mutasas we have in Zimbabwe; not the improvement in standards of living of the generality of the Zimbabwean people (all classes).

Minister Biti has referred to the Zimbabwean economy as a “subsistence economy” or an economy where we “gather whatever we eat”. In such an economy, GDP will not necessarily be a measure of, or will underestimate, economic development.

Official GDP statistics do not include the black market – a significant part of most subsistence economies. The unofficial market today is a significant source of the US dollar.

Mr Emeka Anyaoku, former foreign minister of Nigeria in 1997 said, "Economies are a means, not an end. Governments and industry of today, never mind tomorrow, need to know how our ecological and social assets are performing, just as much as our economic ones.”

Other measures like the Ecological Footprint, the Human Development Index and GDP per capita – are better measures of level of development.

Minister Biti quotes Dr Ibbo Mandaza, who in line with Fanon, suggests that the post-independent Zimbabwean State is not intellectually incompetent and that it "was inherited by peasant teachers and headmasters who simply could not understand State craftsmanship and therefore maintained the status quo of conformity”. This is not only a misunderstanding of the post-colonial Zimbabwean State; but also a failure to realise the efforts made by that State post-independence.

Zimbabwe managed to develop skilled civil servants by not immediately elevating them to top posts; but by developing their experience through the “Understudy Programme”. Agricultural colleges, women's co-operatives, State resettlement areas ("minda mirefu") and agricultural extension services were developed helping Zimbabwe, not Rhodesia, achieve the "breadbasket of Southern Africa" status and improving the livelihoods of majority blacks.

This is the role that was played by the developmental State until the World Bank/IMF sposored Economic Structural Adjustment Programme was introduced as the favoured model, with disastrous results.

Mr Biti makes a somewhat interesting relationship between political power and economic development; running into problems of causality. He says that Zanu-PF has been concerned only by retention of power. It is not a crime; every political party seeks power, and retention of it. The Zanu-PF agenda though is wider than that and is national democratic agenda; with land redistribution highest on the agenda, followed by efforts in education, health, etc.

The country today boasts the highest literacy level in Africa. The minister himself is a product of the Zanu-PF government’s free education programme; primary, secondary and university education.

The minister also thinks that somehow retention of power is directly linked to level of development. It is not plausible to suggest that a more equitable distribution of power will lead to more equitable development.

In fact Minister Biti contradicts himself by then quoting China as a success story. The Chinese Communist Party has been in power for a long time having seized power in 1949. It developed China into a global powerhouse that it is today. It also did so, not on the basis of a neo-liberal blueprint from Washington, but through inward-looking.

Before he joined the inclusive government, Minister Biti advocated a free market economy based on his much hyped RESTART programme, where he advocated the "liberalisation" of Zimbabwe’s economy (together with Eddie Cross). As minister he makes suggestions that Zimbabwe should have a Diamond Act, taking power from private enterprise. Such an Act would increase the role of the State (through the Ministry of Finance) – the same State the minister is saying is dysfunctional.

How does that idea reconcile with his neoliberal reasoning in RESTART? And how about other minerals in Zimbabwe? Do we need a Platinum Act, a Gold Act, a Copper Act, a Nickel Act and so forth?

Minister Biti’s very confusing argument does not end there.

He talks of corruption and cronyism as if they are concentrated in the State only.

The case against Africa Consolidated Resources, which Minister Biti a while ago suggested should be settled out of court, was about corruption; not by the State, but involving a private enterprise.

If it was not for the oversight of the Ministry of Mines, the State would have lost huge revenue from diamonds.

The minister should also debate the fact that De Beers and other companies took part in thwarting progress of the postcolonial States in South Africa and Zimbabwe. The company, for example, was "prospecting" for alluvial diamond deposits for 15 years!

In fact Zimbabwe has the Prevention of Corruption Act and an Anti-Corruption Commission. Many government ministers lost their jobs after the Sandura Commission report of 1989 because of corruption over the Willowvale Motors scandal.

The minister concludes his piece, in a rather odd fashion – by discrediting everything that he had mentioned before. He says: “Africa’s new rulers suddenly found themselves in control of a State which was not in control of its own resources” and were mere gatekeepers. So how could they have performed well if they were mere gatekeepers?

While he admits that resources were held by Western businesses, he fails to admit that the State was battling to have access to those resources; otherwise it would have been deemed dictatorial. The State lost a lot of revenue as many westerners remitted their profits overseas, banked offshore or produced cash crops that did not feed the people.

By agreeing that the State was a mere gatekeeper, Minister Biti agrees that the indigenisation and economic empowerment programme was necessary; and that land redistribution was inevitable.

So why is he opposing the same law and policy now; and why does he want the State to continue as a gatekeeper, or a spectator in economic affairs of Zimbabwe?

Why does he want Zimbabwe to be declared a HIPC when it is so rich?

In the Zimbabwean case, the government is battling with shaking off the gatekeeper role via various policies – indigenisation, land reform (including fast track land reform, and government compulsory acquisition of farmland), education, etc.

Minister Biti's economic logic is symbolic of the struggles that his MDC-T party goes through in defining a real agenda for Zimbabwe.

Unfortunately, that logic is premised on a flawed appreciation of Zimbabwe’s economic, social and political history; and is a hotch-potch of economic isms and schisms. It has nothing to do with "the Zanu-PF DNA" if anything like that ever exists.

________________________________
Itayi Garande can be reached via itayig@hotmail.com

Labels: AMILCAR CABRAL, FRANZ FANON, ITAYI GARANDE, NATHANIEL MANHERU, NEOCOLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM, TENDAI BITI, ZANU-PF

posted by MrK @ 8:11 AM