Source: Where is our black elite to balance our politics? – NewsDay Zimbabwe April 16, 2018
HISTORY so far has shown us that it is not easy to simultaneously achieve democracy and economic growth. It is not impossible, but it is a tall order balancing the different interests at the same time. The strongest democracies in the world established their economic growth foundations during dark years of slavery and colonisation, before they achieved democracy. In the Western world, economic growth enabled democracy. Recent studies are projecting China to be next biggest democracy because economic growth will eventually breed democracy.
By Tapiwa Gomo
In Western countries, as systems of governance became empowered and people’s incomes grew, so did the balance of power between business, government and the people. Everyone is now accountable to someone with the SDtate playing the mediation role on behalf of the people. The government is accountable to the people and the business accountable to the government. These pillars established the platforms for the growth of democracy. Now, an African country such as Zimbabwe is made to pursue democracy with the hope that democracy will breed a vibrant economy.
We love democracy for all its nice packages. It has given human kind hope for retaining human dignity in the face of the marauding and profit-driven capitalism. People have a say in the management of their affairs. And it is the modern-day centrepiece of human liberation and there is nothing not to love about democracy. Democracy without economic growth is as bad as a dictatorship. However, the key question is how possible a poor African country such as Zimbabwe can achieve democracy in the absence of a vibrant economy without resulting in a dictatorship?
With the campaign trails on the peak, the loudest messages by political hopefuls to the electorate are promises of democracy and economic growth. Democracy guarantees freedoms and economic growth promises food on the table. Their convergences are the Biblical Canaan that human kind has always sought for decades.
There is little or no evidence to suggest that the two can grow simultaneously and yet this is what African politicians have been promising for more than seven decades. Are they, therefore, selling us a fib? Maybe because most politicians have mastered the art of lying, including the young ones.
Instead of responding to this question, I will attempt to discuss what I think is one of the missed opportunities for most African countries to make it possible to achieve democracy and economic growth — the black economic elite.
Notwithstanding that the wars for independence were triggered by the desire to secure control of the means of production, most African countries did not prioritise how they would ensure economic growth.
There were different policies, some radical, while others maintained the economic status quo. Angola and Mozambique opted to kick the settlers out of their countries. South Africa and Zimbabwe chose to maintain the economic status quo supposedly drawing lessons from Angola and Mozambique, though the Zimbabwe story later became a train smash after the chaotic land reform. The rest of the continent largely maintained the exploitative relations with their former colonial masters.
What lacked in most of these countries were policies on how to ensure locals became an integral part of their economies, which were in the hands of the settler. Attempts to pursue and establish affirmative action groups or the black economic empowerment models have been futile because they were nothing, but looting conduits for politicians. This explains why today — despite having produced millionaires — Africa has failed to establish a black elite with the power to ensure checks and balances on the politicians.
Take, for example, if we had a well-organised and powerful black business community in Zimbabwe, the land reform would not have happened the way it did. The first line of protest would be the same black business community, whose interests were risked by chaos that befell the agriculture sector. They could use their power to tilt the political pendulum to save the economy.
Instead, the emerging black entrepreneurs which largely filled the banking sector stood akimbo as they watched the baseline of their business interests burning under their watch. To demonstrate how they lacked power and spine, they left the protests to students and labour unions to fight the battles on their behalf. Neither of these are stockholders. Were they oblivious that their business was dead without the agriculture industry and that there would be no labour without them? Or maybe they were simply captured by the same politician.
This is where our story has differed from that of the settlers. They were organised, with their businesspeople well-protected and at the core of their agenda. Every aspect of politics — be it education, security, defence, religion among others — was about economic growth. Their business community enjoyed respect and protection. This is why when the settlers moved to Africa to invest in the continent and establish countries that we see today, they were well-organised.
They were groups of investors that were financially backed by their home governments and banks to ensure a well-supported economic growth. The objective of their success in investments was not limited to profits but to the bigger picture — economic growth. That group of investors remains intact, well-managed and coordinated as the centrepiece of all political agendas.
Tapiwa Gomo is a development consultant based in Pretoria, South Africa
COMMENTS
Spot on Tapiwa! But how do you expect business to participate in nationalistic mafia whose sole purpose is to plander national resources with the efficiency of a bee? The state institutions, including gov’t ministries, parastatals and even social NGOs are staffed with peasantry type’leadership’ They flound their dark alley purchased degrees as proof of their credentials for leadership yet they’ve never achieved anything other than giving instructions to place landmines on a road.
They’re crude in their outlook and their strategy has been to ensure there will never rise an intelligent, Industrial black middle class that may be threat to their political base.
Ever wondered why RAM and ED are more comfortable going to China and other capitals to pitch for investment back home but ignoring Strive Masiyiwa whose investments already provide a large source of gov’t revenues?
There is a whole machinery of bureaucrats and state Security apparatus created to thwart any possible rise of astute business people into positions of political power.
Where is our black elite to balance our politics?
What? We all know the answer to that question.
They are working hard making a decent living in South Africa, Botswana, the UK, Canada, USA, Australia, Zambia, New Zealand…along with many, many other countries.
They are busy working hard to support their families in their new countries and grasping every spare dollar to send home to help support their extended families in Zimbabwe.
And of course always praying for a honest and truly democratic Government in Zimbabwe so that they can come home again, work hard and survive there. And of course rebuild Zimbabwe, after all these many past years of madness.
I think that is what the author means by those in the diaspora taking an easier way out rather than acting as a strong force within the country in order to rein in the mad policies of the politicians.I am not judging but what we have is exactly the result of the above .And of course the likes of the AAG never had any intention other than to strip out the assets of those industries targeted and this hasn’t stopped.
China is moving towards autocracy. There might be economic success but there won’t be democracy. Look at Rwanda. It is naive to expect the bourgoeisie to take to the streets. That is the role of students and workers. The bougeoisie have too much to lose but they will come and pick up the the pieces. Remember Ken Saro Wiwa?
I might be off topic but I think there are three main reasons why we do not make it. (1) Our motive for being in government is to loot what exists not to create new wealth. Unlike the settlers who came here fully aware that they had to process the raw wealth to usable goods (set up mines, clear the land, etc) the elite who took over power after independence always coveted the finished product (the white man’s house, his company, his mine, etc). (2) Our political system is too bloated for democracy to be workable. As a result the proportion of people who sit around “to decide” are too many compared to those who actually roll up their sleeves to do the required work. Picture this: the US has a population of 326 million and 100 Senators, i.e., 3 million people per senator. By contrast Zim has 16 million people and 80 senators, i.e., 200,000 people per senator. So what we are calling democracy is nothing more than “jobs for the boys”. Our governance institutions are set-up not for wealth creation but for consumption. (3) There is no threshold for political office. One does not have to make it first before qualifying for political office – just make the loudest noise and you are in. So those who work hard and gain valuable knowledge to lead end up being led by those who have no clue how things work in the real world. That is why our leaders always dash to successful countries for help without ever looking at their own people. Having done nothing themselves they cannot believe we can do it.
These three reasons combine to ensure that those who have nothing to lose and nothing to offer ALWAYS get political office. As long as this remains the case we are doomed. I believe if set-up properly democracy, or rather inclusivity, offers a greater chance for success than the extractive and dictatorial systems that most of our countries operate under. Even under colonialism there was substantial democracy among the settlers, it’s just that we Africans were not part of it.
Congratulations Mazano. These have been my thoughts for quite a few years now, but I could not have put it as clearly as you have just done.
All your three reasons are right on target, but number three is one that I have been pondering ever since our independence in 1980. Suddenly we were being led by people with no real work experience, and as a result never valued hard work, or hard workers. Or led often by people that we knew from school, or even from our extended families, who we knew would fail in leadership roles because of their complete lack of any work experience. But even worse still, they did not know, that they did not know…if that makes sense.
Congratulations.