Joseph Made should resign in shame  
TheStandardcomment

 

WE publish in our lead story today, proof of how Joseph Made, the minister of lands and agriculture, finally admits to a parliamentary portfolio committee on agriculture what many warned would happen: Hunger and starvation in the country as a result of the government's chaotic land reform programme.

 

This is a man who had stated at the outset of the fast track resettlement programme that it would be done in such a way that the nation's food production would not be affected. This is the man who had blamed everything, including the depletion of the national herd, on the droughts and floods. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

 

Hunger and starvation are taking their terrible toll. Zimbabwean agriculture has become a shadow of its former self and will never recover.

 

Made must view the situation with a sense of utter shame. How he sleeps at night, only God knows. The minister's long overdue admission has brought the shock of shame rather than the shock of surprise. It was only Made who seemed unaware of what was happening, living in a world of fantasy and fiction as he does. The majority of Zimbabweans already knew the true situation because they have for long been living and breathing the impact of shortages of various kinds: Maize meal, wheat, beef and dairy products.

 

The way Joseph Made fumbled for answers to questions from the parliamentary portfolio committee are an indictment of the judgement of those who appointed him in the first place. He staggered around like a man who suddenly realises that he has lost his script and is really reading some old sides from Kings of Kings-as if he had rehearsed too much. Clearly, the minister is an embarrassment and a disgrace to agriculture in Zimbabwe and the region as a whole.

 

Given what is happening on the food and fuel fronts, President Mugabe and the nation have passed the tragic point of no return. Nobody appears to be in the driving seat at the moment. How much practice does it take to plan a human sacrifice of your own people?

 

Any sane person in the position of the president and the minister of agriculture would have resigned long ago. When the fundamentals of life are either in limited supply or non-existent-food, fuel, money-what stops people from saying: "Out with the president and in with whoever can give us hope and life again." When you have lost the confidence of most of the country and with it, your ability to govern effectively, what makes you want to go on?

 

There was a time before and after independence when President Mugabe was viewed as 'good old Bob'-an icon, an admired and respected public figure. In many fora, where the President spun some of his finest oratory, food and drink went unsold because his listeners would refuse to leave their seats for fear of missing a spectacular Mugabe turn of phrase which they could tell their children and grandchildren about. Now, there is neither the food nor the drink-either they are not available or they are beyond the reach of many.

 

Even more bizarre is the recent law which forbids you to hail to the chief, to Bob and the Wailers, evoking that hot icon of reggae music Bob Marley. Amazing how things change!

 

The appalling tragedy that has now consumed Zimbabwe has changed all that. More than six million Zimbabweans are facing starvation. All the agricultural commodities are way down their 1999/2000 levels, costing the country billions of Zimkwachas.

 

The national breeding herd is below 50% of the level when Joseph Made assumed ministerial control over agriculture. The same applies to the maize crop, wheat and tobacco crops. What a pitiful return on the chaos that has been reigning for the past two and a half years!

 

Those who have mismanaged this process and issued false production predictions and poisonous ideas have clearly failed this country. And the situation must not stop at them merely eating their words. Not only will Made suffer the contempt of the members of the parliamentary portfolio committee on agriculture but will forever suffer the contempt of those who truly love Zimbabwe.

 

The government must be told in no uncertain terms that it is simply not true that "the land is the economy", but rather that it is the effective use of the land that is the economy. Anyone driving around Zimbabwe will bear witness to the fact that nothing is really happening on the former commercial farms.

 

If anything, the destruction and the desolation stares you in the face. To make matters worse, less than 50% of the so-called new farmers have taken up the pieces of land allocated to them.

 

This is Joseph Made's legacy: One gigantic mess. He must not, together with his colleagues and bosses, be allowed to get away with one of the greatest blunders in history: Sacrificing the people of Zimbabwe at the alter of power and greed.

 

At the beginning of the year, Made looked as if he had just flown in from the planet of the creeps with his incredibly stupid statement that there would be enough food in Zimbabwe. Now he is telling the parliamentary committee that he cannot make any predictions on the production levels of the so called new farmers.

 

Such a purveyor of evil has no business being at the helm of the ministry of agriculture. Do the honourable thing Joseph Made: RESIGN.
 

Zim Std

Barbours not quite what it was
eatingout with Dusty Miller

THERE's a sad dearth of restaurants in downtown Ha-ha-ha-rare (fun capital of Central Africa). Probably due to a sad dearth of people who can afford to eat out in the CBD, or anywhere else.

Barbour's was always reasonably good, with prices slightly top heavy, but at one stage I had morning coffee and/or afternoon tea there almost daily, with the odd breakfast, brunch or lunch as appetite, time of day and bank balance dictated.
Previous trip was Christmas when sundry refreshments for family home from overseas cost about $2 500 for five. Certainly much dearer than a previous meal when a good pal from The South-China Morning Post, Hong Kong said the only things to change at Barbour's tea-rooms in 30 years were prices and waiters no longer wearing fezzes. There are now a few more changes in the once almost Edwardian 'silver service' dining room.
Leather-bound menus have gone. They are now computer-printed 'landscape' on bond with daily 'specials' slips clumsily paper-clipped to it, the whole folded none too neatly. Mine lay coffee-stained and semi-crumpled on a table cloth which had seen better days. Menu states: Minimum charge between 12 - 2pm: $1 850. A fact blatantly ignored by staff and customers alike.
Appetisers included grapefruit cocktail or iced melon/paw paw in season: $220 each; egg mayonnaise salad $350; egg stuffed with fish and salad $380. Soup (cream of chicken) was very good: steaming hot, a full bowl, smooth, rich, herby, creamy, loads of huku. It came with an oddly coloured, over-yeasty roll in which too much baking powder was used and a minuscule pat of butter.
Soup ($400) was ordered "to be going on with". I'm not sure the first waiter understood the concept; a second cottoned-on, bringing the dish 10 minutes later. It's a long time since crisply starched well-laundered napkins graced Barbour's tables. They were replaced by flimsy tissues as standard, but now you must ask for them to be doled out as if waiters were parting with deeds to a farm: reluctantly.
A badly tuned TV played on the stage decorated to resemble a domestic scene. Assuming Alice Chavunduka's complexion doesn't periodically change from cerise to vermilion then turn an occasional puce, there's something definitely wrong with the 29" Philips set (available on the 2nd Floor at " a mere" quarter-of-a-million dollars.) When Paul McCartney's still boyish good looks flickered and his skin resembled that of a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, I decided to keep the $249 999, 99 in my pocket. Might need it for a bacon sandwich after Christmas.
Salads: with quiche Lorraine, pizza, cold meats, chicken and ham or pickled fish were around $1 300, as was cheese lunch special. Grills and entrees all looked good, especially T-bone or grilled rump "with fried potatoes" (chips) at $1 900: same price as pork spare rib/BBQ sauce, beef Stroganoff or leg of pork with apple sauce (daily special). I raised eyebrows at "grilled pork sausage with creamed potatoes" (bangers and mash) $1 300; the one I saw served boasted one medium-sized link.
Breakfast all day is possibly the best value. Bacon, sausage, two eggs, mushrooms, tomato, toast and marmalade is $1 050. Also look out on Saturdays when they often have wonderfully cooked tender liver. Other breakfast/brunch specials range from $250 (poached/scambled eggs on toast) to $950 for what have always been good rich creamy omelettes and chips (mushroom version usually A1). Burgers are around $800, separate chips $480! (One medium-sized spud?).
A daily special, hake and chips, was faultlessly cooked, but I thought $2 100 steep for one fairly small fillet in batter. Not at all well filleted, it was full of tiny bones.
Fish and chips great but: oval plate stone-cold, tartare sauce bland to the point of tastelessness, sliced courgettes not quite raw, tepid, watery: flat-cold in seconds. I've moaned here maningi times: good cooks don't serve hot food on cold plates nor vice-versa!
Puddings range from $210 for plain ice-cream to $850 (knickerbocker glory or fruit salad and ice-cream); strawberries and cream, $420; waffle with cream or ice-cream $370. Daily special was a slightly over-sugared apple crumble and cream ($480).
Barbour's isn't licensed, so a bitterly cold article of a mildly intoxicating nature was out of the question. One (or even a brace!) would have been welcome on a day too hot to lunch alfresco but comfortable under the restaurant's plentiful ceiling fans.
Soup, fish, pudding, tea cost a fairly hefty $3 100. The place was about 50% full, but not everyone ate a 'proper' lunch. Many didn't spend the so-called minimum.
One-and-a-half stars November 2002.
Terrace Restaurant, Barbour's, open shopping hours Monday to Friday and Saturday AM.

Zim Std  
MDC must come clean  
sundayopinion By Thandi Chiweshe

 

THE Movement for Democratic Change is a loose coalition of diverse civil society and interest groups within Zimbabwe.

 

It groups together: farmers, farm workers, industrialists, workers/trade unionists, students, intellectuals, the unemployed, women, rural and urban people. This unlikely mix of people has nevertheless arisen to become one of the strongest political forces in the country since independence.

 

The major (if not the single), uniting factor amongst the various groups that make up the party, is their commitment to ensuring a change of government. But is this an end in itself? Is this enough grounds on which to build a real 'Movement for Change'? Is a simple change of government enough of a vision around which to unite and mobilise people? In the last two years, the MDC has gained political space, particularly in urban local government arenas. Bulawayo, Chegutu, Chitungwiza, Masvingo, and Harare, are now led by MDC mayors. People are beginning to ask what this new leadership represents.

 

Zimbabwe is in a huge political and economic mess. Anyone who comes to power after the current regime needs to have clarity of vision as to how he/she will change the situation. What exactly is this change that the citizens of Zimbabwe and the world at large will see when the MDC comes to power?

 

The change required in Zimbabwe goes beyond the retarring of roads and provision of food for the people. There have to be fundamental changes in power relations across the board; between the rich and poor, those with property and those without any, women and men, black and white and so on.

 

The skewed allocation of power and resources based on race, class and sex is one of the key issues at the heart of our national crisis. The change people want therefore goes beyond merely tinkering with the status quo and replacing one elite group of mostly black males, with another.

 

If the MDC is to become the champion and harbinger of change, it needs to have a new and clearly defined vision, based on a positive value system, principles, and a participatory and people empowering political culture.

 

The MDC is made up of extremely divergent groups, both practically and ideologically. What is the ideological basis for 'coalescing?' Some of us on the sidelines can clearly see that the cracks are beginning to show in the coalition.

 

The recent expulsion of Munyaradzi Gwisai is an indicator of the cracks. Gwisai, for all his problems and inadequacies, has made his ideological position on many key issues very clear. Coming as he does from a socialist-leftist school of thought, Gwisai has stood firmly for the rights of workers, property ownership issues, and the land question. At the other extreme are the Eddie Crosses and the white industrialist/capitalists and their black colleagues. Needless to say, the gap between where Eddie Cross stands and where Gwisai stands is just too yawning. Without glorifying the man, Gwisai at least has some very clear principles and some vision of where he wants the poor and marginalised people of this country to go. The same cannot be said of many within the MDC leadership.

 

The fact that many of them come from a trade unionist background does not mean they have carried the same ideological bent they had when they formed the party. The MDC's economic policy and fumbling on issues of race are indicators of that fact. The Gwisai issue shows the lack of a uniting ideological framework around which the MDC is built. It points to the need for the MDC to define its ideology both internally and externally.

 

What does the MDC stand for as opposed to against? What is it that will continue to hold the MDC together the day after Mugabe is dead or out of power? So far, the tensions between the various forces making up the party have been managed because the common enemy is yet to be defeated.

 

But what is it that will make a farm worker speak the same language as the farm owner? Whose interests does the party hold dearer, that of the industrialist or the simple shop floor worker? What is the MDC's position on the rights of women?

 

To date, the party has shied away from ideological questions because they are potentially divisive. The need to present a united front against Zanu PF has been the overriding concern.

 

However, it is now time for such debates to take place. To postpone them is to postpone the inevitable. Postponing has also allowed the power elites within the party to dictate party positions and entrench their hold. This is true of those who currently have financial, property, racial and patriarchal power.

 

If the MDC is not to suffer the same fate as the MMD in Zambia, it has to define who and what it stands for sooner rather than later.

 

Defining a set of values allows the MDC to discriminate on whom it admits within its ranks. Again, an example is in order: Towards some of the last few elections we have seen several former Zanu PF people striving to join the MDC. Some have, in fact, been admitted. Yes, many of us have held Zanu PF cards at some point in our lives, but what is it about the MDC that makes it not simply a different version of Zanu PF?

 

To protect itself, the MDC needs to have a set of criteria for membership. It should, for example, not allow those with known records on genocide and corruption, to hold leadership positions. In this way the party will not be accused of detesting a particular individual just for the sake of it but will be recognising as having something they hold dear as a party..

 

Recent events in Kenya are illustrative of the kinds of problems that the MDC is facing. Several high ranking members of Moi's Kanu have defected to the so called opposition. Should this be a cause for celebration or alarm? Should Kenyans simply be happy that George Saitoti and Mwai Kibaki are now clothed in opposition garb? I think not. The only reason these men deserted Kanu was because their presidential ambitions were thwarted. It is not that they have any ideological or principled differences with Moi. All these men want is to be in power. They are not interested in bringing about real 'change' in ordinary Kenyans' lives.

 

What is it that a George Saitoti brings to the opposition? What did he fail to do during the many years that he was vice president that he is now going to do for the people of Kenya, now that he is leader of the opposition? He will not be prosecuting those who violated human rights that's for sure! This, for me, illustrates the kind of dangers the MDC faces. There will not be a shortage of Saitotis and other opportunists in Zimbabwe.

 

The MDC must protect itself from them. In the short term it may gain many new members, but in the long term, it will lose its credibility and the capacity to stop the culture of impunity, corruption and human rights violations that pervades our nation.

 

Talking about cha-nge is easy, living it is a huge task. We have already seen how true this is in the Mudzuri saga. In brief, Mayor Mudzuri of the City of Harare defied orders from the top echelons of the party not to occupy any part of the Mayoral Mansion, built by the former spendthrift Zanu PF mayor. The way this issue played itself out at the Council level is perhaps something that will never be documented.

 

Mudzuri could not understand why some objected so passionately to his moving into the house. I remember having a very heated discussion with one of his supporters who pleaded: "But he is the Mayor for heaven's sake! He should live in a house that befits his status! What is wrong with him driving a Merc? You want him to drive a Mazda 626?" I tried to argue that the MDC needs to create a new political culture. This would involve changing the way people see all politicians, (as self interested corrupt individuals), and build a new confidence that there will be some change.

 

I tried to show how this could be done through simple things such as; the kinds of cars that the party leadership will drive, the way the leadership relates to people, flying economy class, and staying in modest hotels.

 

Needless to say, the person was totally scandalised by my suggestions. When all was said and done, the MDC had nothing against which to hold Mudzuri accountable. There was no party policy, values or principles, which the man could have been said to have breached. The whole sorry saga was reduced to personal attacks, with some arguing that some within the MDC were jealous of what the man had achieved. When there are no principles, we resort to the personal.

 

When there is no commonly shared value system, we each resort to what we think is best, and if anyone challenges us, we simply say they don't like who we are.

 

Zimbabwe is in need not just of a new government, but a new (political), culture. Many of the little things many of us do, show just how much we have imbibed Zanu PF culture without question or hesitation. For the moment, what many citizens want are probably different faces in State House. But that is only in the short term. In the long term, people will want to see real practical change.

 

Another challenge the MDC would face would be how to deal with the global forces that surround it and Zimbabwe. It is a fact that within the African region, the MDC is trailing behind Zanu PF in the ideology and values stakes. Mugabe speaks to values that the old nationalists understand. When he puts himself up as the champion of the poor and the landless he is applauded by the poor, and the landless the world over. To whom does the MDC speak? The party has to work hard to gain the kind of foothold that ZANU PF has built over the years in the country and outside. Even with all its mammoth failures and problematic history of misrule, it is a fact that ZANU PF knows how to speak for itself. It doesn't matter that they are telling lies.

 

Internationally, the MDC faces the challenge of dealing with the Northern, (former colonial, neo-colonial, self interested, capitalist), interests which have supported its fight against Zanu PF. How it reconciles domestic expectations with regional and international forces will be the major test of the MDC's ideological strength. When the party eventually does come to power, it will have to side with either the capitalist North and its privileged cousins in the South, or with the poor and marginalised. What for example is the MDC's position on privatisation of services in the urban areas? On what conditions will the party accept a new Structural Adjustment programme?

 

All of these questions demand firmer ideological positioning. There is no half way position. The questions demand a more comprehensive discussion and clarification beyond a party manifesto. A manifesto is only a grand spelling of the (largely external) things that you will do.

 

Values and principles are about what is inside of us, what we really think and hold dear is what is important. It is not about what we do "for those people out there". Rather it is about who, we are and how we want to relate to those people out there, whoever they may be. It is our way of seeing and interpreting the world and what we want to do with that world and its peoples. It is on a set of core values and principles that the MDC can craft consistent policy alternatives and positions both nationally and globally. That way, its leadership and members can be held accountable for their actions at every level. Ideology is the glue that will hold the MDC together. Without it, the party is a loose grouping of self-interested individuals wanting to access power. Values and principles will signify the extent of transformation that the party is prepared to bring about. The Zimbabwean crisis demands a transformative vision. The "come yee all who have problems with Zanu PF" approach to building a party is no longer good enough. Our problems with Zanu PF are different depending on our race, class, sex and other factors. Therefore, the solutions we seek are quite different too. The 'together as one' image that the party wants to present is patently false. The ideological and other divides in our society are too deep to be smothered over by a slogan. It is time to spell out the Change.
 

Zim Std

Let's agree to differ
By Chido Makunike

Pauline Henson's article 'Shocked by Makunike's hurtful analysis' (The Standard, 17 November 2002) wasn't too impressed by my thoughts on Learnmore Jongwe, which is alright.

The point of sharing ideas is not just to reflect each other's ways of thinking, but to broaden our perspectives and look at issues from fresh angles that might not immediately present themselves to us.
At the beginning, she congratulates me for being "often challenging and thought provoking, helping people to think for themselves ...in Zimbabwe where we are force fed through the state media...with hate-filled propaganda".
Pauline Henson then takes me to task for emphasising a different aspect of the Jongwe story than she would have done, and of holding an opinion on it that did not quite coincide with hers she feels I should have been more understanding and forgiving about the fact that Jongwe stabbed his wife in the face repeatedly. After all, the law itself makes allowances for a crime of passion, she points out.
As I said at the beginning of my Jongwe article, I have been quite surprised by the number of people who have been willing to downplay the magnitude of Rutendo's murder by Learnmore for various reasons, whether to do with traditional gender roles, politics, or because "we are all fallible and subject to irrational behaviour under the influence of strong emotion", as Henson puts it.
Well yes, but most people have enough self control to avoid getting so irrational and emotional that they will kill someone, particularly their spouse.
Despite Jongwe's political brilliance, for which I gave him credit, after murdering his wife in a fit of rage, he could no longer fit my understanding of the concept of 'hero'.
If that "aligns me with the ruling party and its cheap sensationalising of issues they believe will bring shame on the opposition", then that is an unfortunate misreading of all that I have stood for and written about over the years. A calm rereading of my 3 November 2002 column will not show any "condemnation" of Jongwe.
Sure, I did speculate on what the killing and his subsequent behaviour said about his strength of character. I consider that to be fair political comment. This is, after all a man who seemed sure to occupy high political office in Zimbabwe. I am interested in trying to really understand him, the way we should have really tried to understand Robert Mugabe when a lot of us blindly adored him in the early days.
I do this to Zanu PF and government officials all the time, and although I have been insulted, snubbed and given dirty looks for it, my "right" to do it has never been questioned.
In the wake of the widespread disgust and despair at the levels to which Mugabe and Zanu PF have brought Zimbabwe, are we naively starry-eyed in the way we look at opposition politicians, what I call the 'messiah complex,' in which we regard them as infallible angels who any day now, will strike their magic wands and lead us into the promised land? This attitude has a lot to do with how we got stuck with a deeply unpopular clique of rulers we can't seem to get rid of.
Instead of respecting them while watching them like hawks, constantly keeping them on their toes in all their words and actions like is done for the rest of us, we lionised them, letting them live according to a different, less exacting standard because they were the 'liberators' and we were in awe of them. One of the underlying themes of my writings has been how dangerous this is, and how we need to adjust our attitudes away from this mind set.
Zanu PF is violent, incompetent, corrupt and entrenched not because its politicians are intrinsically different from those of the MDC,or from you and I, but because we allowed conditions to develop in which they saw they could get away with it. Now that we have belatedly seen the light, it is not so easy to kick them out of office.
Looking at all politicians-whether in the ruling party or in the opposition-with a sharply critical eye is part of any man's contribution to helping change things, even at the risk of raising the ire of some readers.
I am deeply political, but non-partisan, and I certainly have no desire to be blind in support of anything or anyone.
 

Zim Standard

Review of 2003 budget Part 1  
By Rongai Chizema Intermarket Research

 

THE minister of finance and economic development, Dr Herbert Murerwa, presented the 2003 National Budget on 14 November, exactly five years since the Zimbabwe dollar tumbled against trading partners' currencies.

 

On that fateful day (14 November 1997), the local unit lost glamour and succumbed to market sentiment, losing 75% of its strength against the US$ to trade at 1US$:Z$45. To date the US$ remains fixed at Z$55, and on the parallel market it has depreciated to Z$1 800. Signs of abatement remain slim especially given a strained supply situation.

 

The economy has been deteriorating since 1997, at the same time becoming increasingly isolated as confirmed by the absence of the IMF and other multilateral and bilateral donors in our development equation. The country's recession has become more pronounced, with national output estimated to have declined by 19.3% over the last three years, all of which have recorded negative real growth rates.

 

The budget was therefore cast against a steep fall in GDP (11.9%), waning business confidence, weak export capacity (that has implied foreign currency bottlenecks), falling savings and investment capacity (estimated at less than 9.2% of GDP), hyperinflationary environment and mounting poverty (75% of populace live in abject poverty).

 

Given the foregoing, the minister's task was to come up with measures to turnaround the economy and at least put it back on a recovery mode. The following are some of the measures introduced by the minister to redress these problems;

 

2003 Budget Highlights

 

* Dual interest rate policy to assist productive sectors and penalise consumptive borrowing. Meant to contain money supply hence combat inflation that hit 144.2% in October.

 

* Broadening the scope of price controls to keep inflation at bay.

 

* Closure of Bureau de Changes and raising the foreign currency surrender system from 40% to 50%. The balance (50%) to be surrendered to the RBZ for centralised management.

 

* Tax relief for monthly incomes of $15000 or less.

 

* $31.9 billion to wrap up Agrarian Reform.

 

* $1billion for distressed companies and $1.5 billion for small businesses.

 

* Duty relief for buses, spare parts, and sales tax relief for passenger cars.

 

* Increase in the tradable duty free certificate levels from 5% of FOB value of exports to 10%.

 

The above measures are aimed at redressing the prevailing economic imbalances and hence revive the economy. The minister openly acknowledged that our economic situation is way off the African mark. At a time when most economies are expanding, ours has been consistently declining since the year 2000.

 

During the year 2001 the average growth rate for the continent was 4.3%, with only 16 countries recording GDP growth rates of less than 3%, down from 27 in the year 2000. African economies also recorded declining budget deficits and money supply growth rates, with average outcomes of 2.6 % and 12.3% respectively. At the same time the number of countries with growth rates exceeding 3% increased from 26 in 2000 to 37 in 2001.

 

It is quite apparent that over the last few years, African economies have increasingly become more stable, and economic management has been aimed at sustained growth. The Zimbabwean scenario is therefore way off the continental trajectory. It is quite clear that the economy has a challenging period ahead to at least replicate the African scenario. Even taking a regional view, the table on inflation figures confirms how far off we are from the regional standard as regards price stability.

 

We therefore attempt to evaluate the budget on the basis of a few deliverables, that is, restoring domestic and internal business confidence, slowing down economic decline and restoring incomes. Without necessarily following the aforementioned logic we will trace the bottom-line as putting the economy back on a recovery mode.

 

Business confidence

 

Domestic business confidence has tumbled over the years owing to deteriorating economic fundamentals and negative perceptions surrounding the land reform program embarked on by government since the year 2000. Business confidence had already started declining as early as 1997, when it became apparent that the domestic fundamentals had become lopsided, and the local unit crashed against trading partner currencies.

 

Overseas development assistance (ODA) has dried since then, with the IMF virtually taking a wait and see stance. It is against this background that the minister acknowledges in the 2003 budget that foreign capital inflows have fallen from US$502 million in 1995 to net outflows of US$347 million in 2002. At the same time, external arrears have accumulated to a total of US$1.3 billion this year, owing to our incapacity to generate sufficient foreign currency.

 

Economic reforms

 

Restoration of business confidence in this respect therefore warrants landscaping the factors that compounded its decline. Government embarked on the Economic Structural Adjustment Program during the period 1991-1995, which ushered in a liberalised business operating regime. The major challenge during the period was the issue of huge fiscal deficits that averaged 10% of GDP. Though inflation was an issue, it was still within manageable levels.

 

Beyond this phase the Zimbabwe Program for Social and Economic Transformation was implemented from 1996-2000, with focus on consolidating the gains of economic liberalisation. The only constraint ZIMPREST encountered was the fact that donors did not provide any funding. In 2000 the Millennium Economic Recovery Program was launched. This program never took off, due to a lack of coherence on whether the economy should continue on liberalism or perhaps pursue a compromise which places less emphasis on markets. The failure to implement the MERP program marks the turning point of steeper falls in business confidence. Since then economic events have not helped either to build or sustain business confidence.

Zim Std

  
After Iraq, Saudis may be next  
americannotes By Ken Mufuka

 

THE Saudis are the largest producers of oil, and as such, they have fuelled US and Western industrial machines for the last 50 years.

 

Officially, and this has been confirmed by the US State Department, they consider themselves "US partners." The trouble is, as they should have known from an Arab idiom, 'If one shares his bed with a camel, what happens when the camel turns at night?'

 

It is my suggestion that the US is now reviewing that partnership.

 

The two straws that broke the camel's back are these: Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi nationals. This suggests that Saudi Arabia is a fertile breeding ground for anti-American religious extremism, called Islamism. This has been traced to the Wahabi sect of Islam, which considers itself the keeper of the sacred shrines of Saudi Arabia.

 

It seems that American contact with the Saudis, their military bases there and their overwhelming cultural influence in the Middle East, their influence on Arab women feminists and the aggressive nature of the Americans is considered unsettling by most Islamists.

 

The suggestion here is that the Saudi government should clamp down on Islamists - some kind of censorship. It is interesting that the Americans are suggesting measures that are unthinkable in the US itself.

 

Last Tuesday, evidence surfaced that Princess Haifa al Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US was supporting, through her charity, two students who were sympathetic or close to two hijackers in California. This method of argument, in Saudi Arabia, is described as trying to feed two camels with one straw. It is far-fetched.

 

Naturally, Arab students are likely to know each other and in any event, nobody in his wildest imagination could have imagined the September 11 hijacking of a plane and its crashing into a building. Nevertheless, the Saudis are being demonised. Demonisation of a nation or its leader, as we now know, is a prelude to regime change.

 

American religious leaders have joined in the fray. The Reverend Billy Graham, (the son) has been quoted as saying that Islam is an evil religion. Reverend Jerry Falwell, an extremist evangelist, said that Islam is trying to take over the world. He also suggested that the prophet Muhammad was not above child marriages (called paedophilia here-a dirty word).

 

The juicy part in all this is the cultural bias of these famous Americans. The Christian religion has for the last two thousand years been trying to take over the world. That is, in the crusades, the Spanish conquistadors slaughtered millions of American Indians in the name of Christ and the great missionaries wanted Africa for Christ.

 

Intellectuals are baffled by Islam and have resorted to calling it anti-modernist, which is a taboo word here where innovation and progress are worshipped. Islamism does ask the question which these sinners refuse to address: What does it profit a man if he gains all the material world and loses his soul?

 

One great intellectual, Franics Fukiyama has asked: "Can any good come out of radical Islam?" The great debate is centred on Islam's alleged "intolerance, undemocratic tendencies and totalitarianism."

 

Stanley Kurtz, a Hoover Institute think-tank fellow finds Islam's "ethos of self sacrifice cultivated in complex networks of kinship honour", most disturbing. It is this self-sacrifice ethos that has been the bedrock of Muslim suicide bombers.

 

What all these intellectuals fail to see, which I can see very clearly as an African and an outsider, is the unsatisfactory nature of urban western civilisation.

 

After all my material accomplishments in the last 30 years, I am faced by the constant provocation of having to substantiate my identity on a daily basis, even my humanity. Without my friends Fabian Mabaya, James Nemerai in Masvingo and my nieces Mrs Minah Mandaba, I feel but a reed whistling in the creek. I feel as if I have no soul.

 

These sinners here are completely unable to understand what the Islamists are talking about because their very modernism has removed religious symbols from their language. Now you will say: "Ken you are going too far. What about the reverend Jerry Falwell? Surely he understands religious symbols?" My answer is this. He understands the inner soul only to an extent.

 

American religion has adopted secular and business symbols, charitable deeds are explained as an investment in earthly happiness-the very idea that Martin Luther tried to eradicate from the Roman church.

 

Mr Falwell is as much a millionaire businessman as he is a Christian in that order.