Opinion /
Zimbabwe is not, should not be a chicken bus
20 Sep 2015 at 12:34hrs | Views
My Two Cents When we were growing up, "chicken" buses were the popular mode of transport especially to the rural areas. A "chicken" bus is a colloquial English name for a colourful, modified and decorated bus. The reference to "chicken" arises from the fact that buses usually have travellers occasionally transporting live animals. Some called it "gumba-kumba", that which takes everything along.
The buses carried anything that fitted and anyone who cared to travel on the noisy and crammed interiors. It was common to find others drinking their favourite opaque beer while the driver negotiated the terrains. And who can forget the smell of bananas and boiled eggs and that ever-crying child!
A ride on the chicken bus was thrilling and yet dangerous at times. This is where doctors and professors of every subject were found; they knew everything! Those who will be yelling instructions at the driver perennially and those who would be lecturing others on various subjects, economic or otherwise. It was all there!
Debates were unstructured and uncoordinated. You are allowed to shoot from the hip, interject willy-nilly and even hit below the belt! Anything goes and anyone is welcome. However, a different set of life was learnt, flying out of Zimbabwe many years later. Travellers are "vetted", and one is not allowed to be a nuisance while on board. Dressing changes and you cannot carry your live chickens on board!
Tough change indeed!
Such is the lesson we must embrace as an economy. Zimbabwe is not and should not be a chicken bus. For many years we have parroted the gospel of "foreign investors" being the best catalyst for economic development. We have taught ourselves that anything that comes from outside our borders is an "investor". Like the chicken bus, we have taken on board some fairly unknown entities in their countries of origin and given them a seat on the top table. Some who we hear later are criminals or facing some sort of legal action in their countries.
We have not yet defined what we mean by "investor" in this country. Is it about size of the entity or person? Is it about colour? Is it about the size of the purse being touted? Do we call one an investor based on the number of connecting flights they picked?
What really is an investor by Zimbabwean standards? Do we mean some foreigners coming to make a few bucks here and packing up in the dead of the night leaving? In fact only leaving proof of dug holes as is the case along the Zvishavane-Shurugwi area.
Or are we talking about someone who will come and establish shop and employ a certain number of our folks?
Zimbabwe must and needs to define the term investor. Set parameters, set yardsticks and standards of what and who qualifies to be an investor.
The danger with adopting the chicken bus approach of embracing everyone without measurement is that we end up entertaining holiday-makers or some Eastern European warlords or arms dealers who want to clean their money disguised as investors. There have been reports of such people.
It is critical that at least we have a working definition. Does Zimbabwe have an investor policy, whatever it may be called? It is fundamentally important that a country gets the right type of investors who are in it for the long term and who also have a social benefit. Who create jobs, build infrastructure in the process truly unlock value. FDI brings capital, technology and skills. In addition, new investment projects also create employment.
There should be a difference between a technical supplier (eg Huawei) and an investor. We should be able to categorise these. In 2014, Singapore became the 5th largest recipient of FDI based on its deliberate well defined strategy when dealing with foreign investment. Part of the strategy involved making Singapore the easiest country for doing business: favourable lending to foreign investors, a simple regulatory system, tax incentives, a high-quality industrial real estate park, political stability and the absence of corruption make Singapore an attractive destination for investment. This shows that, to a large extent, the Asian country made a conscious decision when dealing with foreign investors.
Do we have any document that describes these critical issues?
That will help us decide on the size of the investor suitable for Zimbabwe. Should we target the multinationals or should we go for the businesses that will make this country their first port of expansion into the region? Should we be chasing for Walmart or for Pick'n'Pay?
Such a document would define the ones we should be chasing after.
We do not need another Chiadzwa episode in our lives. Mutare was neither a hive of activity nor has it benefited in one form or the other besides being a point of transit or stopover for people driving towards the diamond fields. In the MENA region there was some tangible infrastructure development from oil revenues. Chasing after every Tom, Dick & Harry does not mean we are promoting foreign direct investment inflows.
Receiving dodgy business delegations and celebrating them also makes accountability and review of performance as a country difficult in the long run. At the tail end of some of the visits they ended up at one of the world's wonder, the Victoria Falls. Fine, they also tasted some chunk of our natural tourism.
They came, they saw, they went . . . and most of them forgot!
Do we have a mechanism for follow ups after the said investors have returned to their places of origin? Are we keeping tabs on the 50 delegations that Economic Planning and Investment Promotion permanent secretary Dr Desire Sibanda was talking about this week?
Obviously they do not board our prized chicken buses back home!
While we entertain them and open up our armpits to them and set the top table for them, we return to our chicken bus approach.
Tomorrow we shall embrace many more and the cycle is repeated often-times.
Let us break the cycle. Be selective in whom we prefer and vigorously pursue after them. Not every one!
Everyone is not an investor and an investor is not everyone!
The buses carried anything that fitted and anyone who cared to travel on the noisy and crammed interiors. It was common to find others drinking their favourite opaque beer while the driver negotiated the terrains. And who can forget the smell of bananas and boiled eggs and that ever-crying child!
A ride on the chicken bus was thrilling and yet dangerous at times. This is where doctors and professors of every subject were found; they knew everything! Those who will be yelling instructions at the driver perennially and those who would be lecturing others on various subjects, economic or otherwise. It was all there!
Debates were unstructured and uncoordinated. You are allowed to shoot from the hip, interject willy-nilly and even hit below the belt! Anything goes and anyone is welcome. However, a different set of life was learnt, flying out of Zimbabwe many years later. Travellers are "vetted", and one is not allowed to be a nuisance while on board. Dressing changes and you cannot carry your live chickens on board!
Tough change indeed!
Such is the lesson we must embrace as an economy. Zimbabwe is not and should not be a chicken bus. For many years we have parroted the gospel of "foreign investors" being the best catalyst for economic development. We have taught ourselves that anything that comes from outside our borders is an "investor". Like the chicken bus, we have taken on board some fairly unknown entities in their countries of origin and given them a seat on the top table. Some who we hear later are criminals or facing some sort of legal action in their countries.
We have not yet defined what we mean by "investor" in this country. Is it about size of the entity or person? Is it about colour? Is it about the size of the purse being touted? Do we call one an investor based on the number of connecting flights they picked?
What really is an investor by Zimbabwean standards? Do we mean some foreigners coming to make a few bucks here and packing up in the dead of the night leaving? In fact only leaving proof of dug holes as is the case along the Zvishavane-Shurugwi area.
Or are we talking about someone who will come and establish shop and employ a certain number of our folks?
Zimbabwe must and needs to define the term investor. Set parameters, set yardsticks and standards of what and who qualifies to be an investor.
The danger with adopting the chicken bus approach of embracing everyone without measurement is that we end up entertaining holiday-makers or some Eastern European warlords or arms dealers who want to clean their money disguised as investors. There have been reports of such people.
It is critical that at least we have a working definition. Does Zimbabwe have an investor policy, whatever it may be called? It is fundamentally important that a country gets the right type of investors who are in it for the long term and who also have a social benefit. Who create jobs, build infrastructure in the process truly unlock value. FDI brings capital, technology and skills. In addition, new investment projects also create employment.
Do we have any document that describes these critical issues?
That will help us decide on the size of the investor suitable for Zimbabwe. Should we target the multinationals or should we go for the businesses that will make this country their first port of expansion into the region? Should we be chasing for Walmart or for Pick'n'Pay?
Such a document would define the ones we should be chasing after.
We do not need another Chiadzwa episode in our lives. Mutare was neither a hive of activity nor has it benefited in one form or the other besides being a point of transit or stopover for people driving towards the diamond fields. In the MENA region there was some tangible infrastructure development from oil revenues. Chasing after every Tom, Dick & Harry does not mean we are promoting foreign direct investment inflows.
Receiving dodgy business delegations and celebrating them also makes accountability and review of performance as a country difficult in the long run. At the tail end of some of the visits they ended up at one of the world's wonder, the Victoria Falls. Fine, they also tasted some chunk of our natural tourism.
They came, they saw, they went . . . and most of them forgot!
Do we have a mechanism for follow ups after the said investors have returned to their places of origin? Are we keeping tabs on the 50 delegations that Economic Planning and Investment Promotion permanent secretary Dr Desire Sibanda was talking about this week?
Obviously they do not board our prized chicken buses back home!
While we entertain them and open up our armpits to them and set the top table for them, we return to our chicken bus approach.
Tomorrow we shall embrace many more and the cycle is repeated often-times.
Let us break the cycle. Be selective in whom we prefer and vigorously pursue after them. Not every one!
Everyone is not an investor and an investor is not everyone!
Source - the herald
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.