Indigenisation: Setting the record straight

UPON reading Psychology Maziwisa's reply in last week's Independent newspaper to my recent articles on Zimbabwe's indigenisation and economic laws, my initial reaction was to ignore it and thus accord it the contempt that it blatantly deserved.  That is not to say that Maziwisa is not entitled to his opinion (even when he is wrong!), but that entitlement does not include a right to misinterpret, misrepresent and insult without foundation. 

However, despite the deserved scorn that should be accorded Maziwisa's response that was the immediate sense imbued by his diatribe, this columnist has since received many calls and e-mails to place on record the many falsehoods that constitute the Maziwisa tirade, hence this response.

First, Maziwisa's contention that my expressed views are "a campaign to champion the selfish desires of the privileged few over the real and urgent needs of the common man" is devoid of foundation. For 53 years, since 1958, I have vigorously advocated the need for, and the importance of, Zimbabwean indigenisation and economic empowerment.  However, it always has been, and remains, my conviction that achieving that must be pursued in a manner which:
 
Economically empowers the majority of the populace, instead of only the favoured, politically-connected few, and thereby ensures economic wellbeing for the masses and not the oligarchy. Indigenisation and economic empowerment must be the vehicle of improving the wellbeing and lot of an overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans;

Stimulates and grows the Zimbabwean economy, instead of subjecting it to even greater emaciation and contraction than is already the case;

Is pursued in a just and equitable manner which has unequivocal, absolute respect for human and property rights and which accords with international laws and norms, and with the Zimbabwean constitution and laws.

Maziwisa demands that this columnist should "condemn the police and the government for pouncing on the poor and the vulnerable … (and to) denounce the municipal police for dispossessing black impoverished vendors".
 
He is clearly imbued with selective hearing and reading, for this column has often done so, such as after government's appalling and horrendous Operation Murambatsvina, and after many other such instances.  On the one hand the poor and the vulnerable must keep, comply and conform to Zimbabwe's laws, but on the other hand the authorities must apply those laws with compassion, understanding, and without unjustified harshness, cruelty and destruction of property.

On specifics, Maziwisa's contends that "government's plan to enjoy 51% control of all mining activities currently in the hands of foreign companies is a step in the right direction", and that "a share of 49% anywhere is a hell of a lot".
 
The hard fact, the world over, is that holders of 49% of the shares in any enterprise are totally subordinated to the whims and determinations of the holders of the other 51%.
 
That investors should fund 100% of the capital, the technology and expertise in the development of the mines, and having sustained all the start-up risks and costs be reduced to minority status without say or ability to protect that which they have invested in is extremely unjust and unrealistic. Government refers repeatedly to partnership between the existing mine owners and the intended indigenous ownership, but a 51%-49% relationship is not partnership; it is subordination and subjugation!

Maziwisa then virtually implies that there is legitimacy to theft, if it is perpetrated by government.  He states that "debate about what constitutes fair compensation" is a joke, and "this is no time for jokes".  He continues by contending, "Suffice it to say if anyone receives a cent as reparation, Harare would have demonstrated a show of considerable magnanimity!"

How can any government of integrity conceivably justify expropriating assets, developed by the investment of billions of dollars, without fair and equitable compensation? How can any government, other than one devoid of good character and probity even contemplate doing so?  Admittedly, Zimbabwe's government seeks to justify such action by contending that more than fair compensation has been given by virtue of the existing investors having had recourse to Zimbabwe's mineral wealth.

In pursuing that specious contention, government conveniently and studiously disregards the fact that the mines not only sustained very considerable cost in accessing the minerals but, in addition, have paid considerably for the extracted minerals by way of prescribed royalties, licence fees and taxation. In addition, the nation and the fiscus have benefited markedly from the substantial downstream economic activity generated by the operation of the mines.

Maziwisa compounds his devious and misrepresentative attack on this columnist by repudiating the contention "that foreign investors will feel inhibited by the empowerment law", and by alleging that that contention "is as mendacious as it is deceitful.  None of the foreign investors in this country has expressed an intention to pack his bags and leave the Zimbabwean treasure behind."

However, I never ever suggested that existing investors have voiced intent to withdraw.  What was stated, and is now categorically reiterated, is that potential foreign investors who were contemplating investment in Zimbabwe, be it in mining or in any other economic sector, have been almost wholly deterred from pursuing the possibility of such investment.
 
They have, progressively since February last year, and especially so in the last few weeks, become more and more convinced that such investment would be parlous, with the threats of expropriation looming ever greater and possible compensation for expropriation being minimal.

Maziwisa concludes by suggesting that this columnist "is promoting a peculiarly nasty agenda".  My agenda is, first and foremost, to do whatsoever possible to promote constructive programmes to alleviate the intense poverty, misery, suffering and distress of most Zimbabweans.

Moreover, for over half a century I have argued that for that agenda to be achieved, an indisputable requirement is wide-ranging, meaningful, and just indigenisation and economic empowerment.

Maziwisa's contrary intentions as to my agenda prove that although his first name is Psychology, he is in critical need of a psychologist!