Has indigenisation slipped off the radar?

via Has indigenisation slipped off the radar? | The Herald October 28, 2014

Has indigenisation and economic empowerment slipped quietly off the radar and its narrative changed? It would seem so, if developments (or lack thereof) in the past year are anything to go by.
The indigenisation and economic empowerment policy, which has since been crystalised into law, is the brainchild of the revolutionary Zanu-PF.

It was mooted to extend economic upliftment to the majority indigenous peoples by allowing, among other facets, locals to have equity in large foreign corporates and communities in whose localities companies operated to benefit from the operations through “community share ownership schemes”.

Youths would be empowered through a fund providing for loans on entrepreneurial projects.

On the other hand, workers would have employee ownership schemes, while another major provision of the policy is the reservation of certain sectors of the economy for exclusive participation of indigenous Zimbabweans.

It may be pointed out that the programme of indigenisation ties in with other revolutionary initiatives such as the land reform programme, and the very pursuit of national independence itself.

This is why the indigenisation programme was often referred to as the Fourth Chimurenga.

The question of where the programme is headed to is thus imperative — and this is because of two considerations.

First, the programme has not come to its logical conclusion; and secondly, it has lost its voice, its hype, and revolutionary force.

One could start by examining the latter aspect.

When was the last time that the country heard of the programme by way of serious policy discussion or implementation?

It will be recorded that the last time there was a serious discussion on indigenisation was in May, when Information, Media and Broadcasting Services Minister Professor Jonathan Moyo, announced that the policy would be amended and new models adopted.

It will be recalled that Prof Moyo tabled the Production Sharing Model and the Joint Empowerment Investment Model as the new vehicles through which the indigenisation policy would now be implemented.

There was animated discussion around the purported change of policy, with analysts and commentators proffering their opinions.

We were even surprisingly told that it was a victory for former Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono.

Two interesting things then happened.

Indigenisation minister Francis Nhema came out refuting the proposals saying that they represented the opinion of Prof Moyo not policy.

The Zimbabwe Independent weekly quoted Nhema saying, “I am not changing anything . . . It (Prof Moyo’s pronouncements) is an opinion. I cannot comment on that. I do not think it is fair.”

The paper further quoted Nhema telling chief financial officers at a meeting convened by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe.

He reportedly said: “The debate in the paper left a sour taste in my mouth. It was not the place to discuss it.”

(The paper told of “a disappointed Nhema” as he said these words).

The second incident came by way of the Politburo meeting that had been sufficiently worked up by these discussions.

It is understood that the Politburo tasked Nhema to relook into indigenisation and report back to the same authoritative body.

What has happened since?

Well, nothing, basically.

The talk around indigenisation as a major policy issue, has all but died it seems.

Factionalism is in season.

Indigenisation is generally being talked of in passing mainly as a perceived impediment to good foreigners, especially from the West, seeking to do business in the country.

There have not been major events or functions associated with indigenisation such as the setting up or inauguration of share ownership schemes or declaration of compliance by big companies.

The revolutionary fervour and urgency has dissipated, even when the programme of indigenisation has not come to any meaningful progressive juncture.

In other words, the ministry driving the revolutionary Indigenisation Chimurenga, is as anonymous and unobtrusive as anything insignificant one could think of.

This is rather worrying.
It should be worrying when a person like Temba Mliswa gets more national attention, for better or worse, than the person entrusted with

a whole phase of the ongoing liberation struggle.
At the time of writing, the Minister had not presented the changes to the policy and possibly law to both the Politburo and the nation.

Meanwhile, Nhema has become more identifiable with criticising how such vehicles as the Youth Fund and CSOTs have been run.

Thankfully, he recently agreed with banks to reform the disbursement of funds by recommending that there should be guarantors for youths wishing to get loans.

Nothing about the poor coverage of the loans themselves or the long time banks take to approve of proposals, if ever, before releasing funds.

Statistics have indicated that only 10 percent of the Youth Fund has been distributed.

There is little room for optimism that the figure will significantly improve.

On the other hand, Minister Nhema has been talking a lot about vocational youth centres.

That is what he thinks the unemployed youths of this country need and he has been heard suggesting that the same should be increased from the current under 10 000 number to 500 000 by 2018.

That is such a phenomenal spread of these good vocational training centres.

Only this solution does not seem to address the present challenges affecting the youth: there are thousands of university and college students, most of them with practical skills, who are currently doing nothing.

Will these need to be enrolled once again in the vocational training centres to ultimately find something to do?

Common sense would suggest that a deliberate, robust, expansive and coherent programme of creating employment and wealth is needed for young people.

This would entail creation of youth enterprises or cooperatives to make what is now known as small to medium scale companies.

They could be allocated funds and inputs, including land, to carry out their chosen activities.

It will be worthwhile to note that such small companies are a rising phenomenon and have been seen to benefit such emerging economies as India.

The youths have the energy and represent the future.

The sooner and more seriously Government takes them the better.

It is only imperative for the present minister to be seen to be doing something revolutionary and game-changing, which attributes are not showing through at the moment.

On the main, he should not seriously suggest that he is not revolutionary enough to build hype and pressure and ultimately success to something as sacrosanct as the Indigenisation Chimurenga.

If a revolution is not hyped, it is forgotten. If it lacks direction or purpose, it loses appeal.

Revolution is non-negotiable or lukewarm: in fact, lukewarm or tepid water revolts a system hence the body spits it out.