Zimbabweans learnt or were supposed to have learnt from the fast track land reforms of early 2000 that, radical reforms work better when there is national consensus and with popular participation of stakeholders. The consternation surrounding the indigenisation agenda is a classic example of what happens when national leaders are guided by power and force rather than national consensus.
Let us try and unpack how the indigenisation agenda came about. It was during the Zimbabwe s worst economic performance in history, one is tempted to believe that the idea was to explain poverty among Zimbabweans in terms of historically skewed ownership of resources by non-black Zimbabweans.
After all, Zanu (PF) had constantly argued that the economy was being sabotaged by non-black Zimbabweans who created artificial shortages which resulted from price controls mainly. We all know that the truth is far much more than that.
Now, the crusade for indigenisation wanted to create an impression that they are only implementing a law that was made by the previous parliament. However, the difficulty the indigenisation crusaders face is that the policies and regulations that they gazetted are only known to a few people and there is serious suspicion about what it is all about because most stakeholders were not consulted.
Zanu (PF) unilateralism
Indigenisation minister Saviour Kasukuwere has not been the best person to sell the indigenisation agenda because of history with the indigenisation crusade, how he undermined consensus building by suggesting that nothing will change in real terms.
The problem with the Zanu (PF) side of the inclusive government forcing through radical reforms like the indigenisation agenda against national consensus is that, like AIPPA and POSA, no-one will even look at the positive side of the reforms.
There is even a real danger that once people suspect reforms to be opportunistic and ruinous, there will be what I will call the leprosy effect whereby no one other than the originators would want to be associated with the idea, and the beneficiaries will be limited to a small clique that will be the usual suspects.
Prof Jonathan Moyo is widely discredited as the godfather of AIPPA and POSA no matter how much he explains that the responsibility for the ideas lied elsewhere.
The current constitutional reforms is another issue that will require national consensus if the resultant document is to have a lasting legacy otherwise its life span will be as long as the people who sponsored it with a potential for immediate constitutional reforms once power shifts.
The Kariba draft might be a starting for Zanu (PF) but insisting on it becoming final document (constitution) will create a leprosy effect on the document and backfire on Zanu (PF). I can see anything that people do not want in the draft constitution being called Kariba and songs will be composed against it.
There also appears to be attempts by Zanu (PF) to divide people on the citizenship issue. Let us face it; most Zanu (PF) leaders support dual citizenship, because like most Zimbabweans, they have relative in the Diaspora. It appears that the intended target of Zanu (PF)s thinking on the dual citizenship issue are the unrepentant hard core white former Rhodesians.
Never stop trying
The current Zanu (PF) leadership will have to trust Zimbabweans to be able to make defend the country at all times regardless of where they are in this global village. While there is consensus on land reforms being necessary, we have to move on and work out some consensus with our white colleagues on how to rebuild our country.
As a country, we need to move on in the same direction and this requires consensus mobilisation and exemplary leadership.
Times have changed, what was acceptable when it was Rhodesia cannot be tolerated in 21st century Zimbabwe and indeed certain practices that were tolerated prior to the inclusive government will have no place in the Zimbabwe that the MDC formations and Zanu (PF) sought to be build when they signed the global political agreement (GPA) on 15th September, 2008.
It costs the nation more to force radical reforms. Failure to negotiate for national consensus and strong-headed leadership will complicate Zimbabwe s fragile political, economic and social recovery.
The good things is that, hardliners are always in the minority and when one of them goes, the rest will collapse like a deck of cards and they will rue the missed glorious opportunities to make Zimbabwe work again. For those who care about Zimbabwe , they should never try stopping and never stop trying.
Post published in: Economy