Zimbabwean MBA1 Gives Perspective on His Homeland

In the U.S. and Europe, Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe is widely viewed as corrupt. He is regularly condemned by publications from the New York Times to the Economist and is often blamed for the country's widespread poverty. The case against Mugabe is well documented by Western publications and institutions. However, Terence Mukupe, an MBA1 from Zimbabwe, disagrees with the conventional wisdom of the West when it comes to Mugabe. In interviewing Terence this week, I heard a stark contrast from anything else I'd ever read on Zimbabwe.

Can you give us some historical context surrounding Zimbabwe's drive for independence in 1980 and Robert Mugabe's ascension to the presidency?
There was a situation whereby Zimbabwe had its own form of apartheid. Blacks had been segregated and forced onto non-arable land and limited in their careers and what they were allowed to do. Leading up to independence, there was a split amongst the freedom fighters (fighting against the white minority) along tribal lines. Mugabe came from the largest tribe, the Shona, and thereby inherited the presidency. The other tribe, the Ndebele, was led by [Joshua] Nkomo. Nkomo had a different style than Mugabe; he didn't have the same sort of aggression, and was more of a fatherly figure. To this day, people call him the father of the nation. He was to Zimbabwe what [Nelson] Mandela is to South Africa.

Shortly after Zimbabwe gained its independence, there was a civil war between the two tribes. Who and what started the civil war?
The minority tribe, the Ndebele felt aggrieved and decided to start the civil war, and the leader of their party, Nkomo, was exiled. They certainly were aggrieved, but whether it was right for them to start a civil war, I don't know. The Ndebele rebels were primarily formed by former members of the freedom fighters who were left out of independent Zimbabwe's military. When independence was won, one army had to be created. Because the Shonas were in control, they also wanted to control the army, and it came down to a power game. The rebel groups would use the civilians for logistical support; the government would try to root the rebels out, and innocent people became the casualties. The government came down hard on the Ndebele; later, the president apologized for all of the events of the civil war and said it was a bad time for all. The main complaint of the civilian minority population was that the government should have done a better job protecting them. The rebels would tell civilians that if they gave their identities to the government, then they would be killed. But then the government killed civilians as well for not telling them where the rebels were.'; paragraph[1] = 'What could have been done to avoid the civil war?
In percentages, whites are about 7-8 percent of Zimbabwe's population, Ndebele, the minority tribe, composes about 15-20 percent of the population, and the Shona are about 60 percent. (I am a Shona.) Immediately after independence, Mugabe included the Ndebele as part of his first government, and if they hadn't started the war, maybe it would have been better. Either way, things were divided along tribal lines so much that there would have eventually been a problem.

How did the civil war conclude?
During the time when Mugabe and Nkomo were freedom fighters, they used to be in the same political party; Nkomo was Mugabe's leader. In 1987, they worked out their differences in the civil war by merging their parties and forming a government of national unity where Nkomo was vice president. They put in structures whereby if the president is a Shona, the vice president must be Ndebele, and vice-versa. This ended the tribal rivalries in politics in Zimbabwe. Political clashes in Africa are always along tribal lines, and in Zimbabwe, we've become mature in that respect. I chose to learn and go to university in an area that was predominantly Ndebele; we can now do that.

Zimbabwe continued to be involved in regional wars well after the end of the war for independence and its civil war. Do you believe Zimbabwe's involvement in Mozambique and the Congo was justified?
From the time that we got our independence, all of our oil came from Mozambique. So we really had a vested interest in the outcome of the war; our participation was not a matter of choice. Our involvement in the Congo was more a matter of choice, but I believe it was the right thing to do.
You have to understand that Mugabe is a freedom fighter and doesn't believe in colonization. The quick history of the Congo conflict is that Congo's president upon independence was highly outspoken, not liked by the West, and ultimately killed by the Belgians, who then put in a puppet, corrupt government. A rebel group overthrew the puppet government, but the country was then invaded by Uganda and Rwanda for their own selfish interest in the mineral of the country. Because of Mugabe's freedom fighter convictions, he believed he needed to maintain the sovereignty of the Congo against being colonized by other African countries. Democratic institutions were on the way in the Congo if it hadn't been for the invasion.'; paragraph[2] = 'In Zimbabwe's mind, we accomplished our mission in the Congo as it was able to achieve democracy after the end of the war.

Do you believe then that life has improved for the average black citizen of Zimbabwe since independence?
Definitely, the black life has improved since independence, but I would say that we've gone through cycles. The peak of our prosperity was in 1995-1996; those were the most prosperous years for our country.

Since independence in 1980, Zimbabwe's GDP per capita has plunged from $950 to $600. Corruption and mismanagement by Mugabe are generally attributed to be the leading causes by Western governments and media institutions. Do you agree?
How do you measure GDP? It is a measure of output, but, at independence, all resources and output was catering to 100,000 white people. When independence came about, free education, health care, and other such social services were made free. This was a deliberate strategy that came at an economic cost. But in terms of literacy, we have the highest literacy rate in Africa.

What good is literacy if people still can't afford to eat?
When you say that people can't eat, you're thinking of an urban population. But when you talk about eating in Zimbabwe, you're talking about maize, and 75 percent of the maize comes from communal farmers. So the structure was such that when you're talking about GDP, you're talking about how well the whites were living. The basics are providing people with education, and then providing people with jobs. I don't believe that you can do that in the reverse order.

The government's lack of respect for white property rights is often blamed for the lack of foreign investment in the country and the fall in Zimbabwe's agricultural output. Even if the government wanted to redistribute the land, wouldn't it have been better to purchase the white land at market prices?
The first constitution signed after independence said that the government was required to buy the land to do redistribution and the government did not have the resources; it was enshrined that for 10 years, this piece of the constitution couldn't be touched.'; paragraph[3] = 'The government tried to talk to the white people to find some agreement where they would give up only some of their land. Whites rightfully felt that they owned the land and needed to be compensated. I understand their perspective, as it was their great-great grandparents and not them who had confiscated the land; their sense of belonging, having not confiscated the land themselves, was justified. The government told the whites that there was no way that taxpayers could compensate them for their land; if so, it would have meant that the black people would have been using their own money to purchase back the land that rightfully belonged to them.

But wouldn't Zimbabwe have fared better in the long run from an economic standpoint if it had taken on credit to pay the white landowners fair market value?
If you look at this from an economic standpoint, you'll always get it wrong; it's a matter of principle. Donors were prepared to give the government money to buy back the land, but only in the form of credit. Britain and America promised Zimbabwe's government at independence to provide money for land buyback, but their guarantees were not fully honored. Ultimately, Zimbabwe has to service that credit, and that is at the cost of the black taxpayer.
The issue was equity. There was no way blacks would be empowered as long as the land question was not properly addressed. Dispossession of the land was at the root of the drive for independence. You cannot go to a freedom fighter and say to him, "Wait for the agricultural output that a white farmer is going to produce so that you can see the economy is doing well." There had to be a physical transfer of the land. You cannot have 10 percent of the population controlling 85 percent of the land.
Having said all this, the government, in as much as they had a genuine reason for wanting the land - their execution strategy was too revolutionary. They could have had a better thought-out strategy of repossessing the land without disrupting the agricultural output of the country. But at the end of the day, it was something that had to be done.'; paragraph[4] = 'Why has Botswana succeeded in growing its economy while Zimbabwe has failed?
Botswana on paper has fantastic economic figures, but if you go there, it has no infrastructure comparable to Zimbabwe's. Does it have any industry? No. All the money comes from diamonds, and if the diamonds run out, what's going to happen to them? There's no farming, no industry. So tell me, are they really better off?

One of the things that has strangled Zimbabwe's economy is the long-time maintenance of a fixed exchange rate with a high black market premium. This made dollars available cheaply to those connected with the government but made exporting unprofitable. Why was this system maintained?
Look at it this way. For 99 percent of emerging markets, imports outstrip exports, so you need support for the balance of payments. With the land redistribution, all of our external credit lines were cancelled, so there is a serious shortage of foreign currency, leading to the black market and pressure on the domestic currency.

Isn't the right answer to float the currency?
The exchange rate might change, but it wouldn't have changed the scarcity of hard currency. In absolute terms there would still be a shortage of FX. Our problem is not about the exchange rate but availability of FX.

Another source of the economic decline was the price controls imposed by the government. Why did the government impose these controls?
What fueled the black market in Zimbabwe was bank speculation. The thinking behind the bank behavior was that the government was suppressing interest rates below the inflation rate so that there were negative real interest rates. In order for them to preserve their capital, they had to move their money into commodities, leading to such speculation. As an example, one of the banks bought into the largest brick company in the country and stopped a year's production in order to speculate on prices. In a situation where you have monopolies controlling the supplies of commodities, you can't talk about floating prices. So the price caps were necessary as a temporary measure. Both the exchange rate and price caps have since been removed. Now, only increases in prices basic commodities (primary inputs) must be justified to the government.'; paragraph[5] = 'If you believe that all these economic policies were ultimately the right choice, on what do you blame Zimbabwe's poor economic performance?
The combination of the arrogance of the president [Mugabe] and the arrogance of Tony Blair. These two arrogant presidents are really headstrong, and because of their behavior, ordinary people suffer. Tony Blair did more harm than good. He should have just stayed out of it. Because of his actions, maybe Mugabe hit the panic button.

Mugabe's 2002 election was widely reported to be rigged. Do you disagree?
I don't believe that the 2002 election was rigged. Everyone who wanted to vote had a chance to vote, and it was the largest turnout ever. The question is, who is the international community? If the African Union and the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific States) declared the elections free and fair, and, on the other hand, the European Union declared that they were not free and fair, then you wonder, who is the international community that should be valued the most?

Do you believe that Mugabe is corrupt, and, if not, do you believe he can be an effective leader for Zimbabwe?
I don't believe that he is corrupt, and I do believe that he can be an effective leader. Before the land question came up, he was the darling of the west. Once that came in, it took on a racial tip instead of looking at the facts on the ground. I don't think you can become a bad leader overnight.

What do you think of Zimbabwe's future?
I think it's on the right track, and, if only people could leave us Zimbabweans to decide our destiny, we'd be fine. We don't need people to tell us what to do, and if people could just see what's on the ground, they might think differently. It's not as if whites are on one side and blacks are on the other; that's what the Western media would want people to believe. We've always been a peaceful country and I believe God is on our side.