Opinion / Columnist
No policy confusion on indigenisation
21 Apr 2016 at 10:37hrs | Views
It dies hard among politicians and political analysts that where ever there is a revolution there is always a counter revolution. The government introduced the Indigenisation and Economic Policy to deliberately empower the historically disadvantaged indigenous Zimbabweans, and to grant them ownership and control of the country's means and factors of production.
This would enable them to be significant players in the mainstream of the country's economy. However some agents of regime change are trying by all means to derail this policy.
The indigenisation policy has been clearly been distinguished into three economic sectors, namely; the Natural Resources sector, Non-Resources sector and the Reserved sector. It has been highlighted that these sectors are to be approached differently, in terms of the implementation of and compliance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Policy. However some political malcontents have decided to go against the policy.
It is alleged that a critical look at the statement signed by President Robert Mugabe is proposing to exchange the 51% shareholding threshold for value in the form of wages, taxation, community ownership schemes and procurement programmes. It is also alleged that regulations forcing foreign owned firms are to transfer a 51% stake to black Zimbabweans will no longer apply to existing business in the natural resources sector where government does not have 51% ownership.
It can be deduced that the interpretation of the so called think tanks is based on the agents and advocates of regime change. It is also quite interesting in that the so-called think tanks are not investors at all but they are only out there to criticize government policies that tend to promote black empowerment.
The policy is clear and there is no disfunctionality, confusion and incompetence in the government as alleged. In fact the policy is as revolutionary as the land reform and the liberation struggle itself. This means it is open to attack by forces not only opposed to ZANU PF, as a revolutionary party but also as a government that has done a lot to change the status quo ante of a previously colonized African nation.
The ideal situation to come from a policy such as indigenisation is an empowered black majority that can lay claims to the means of production in the national economy. Serious investors in the likes of Aliko Dangote, are not scared of the indigenisation policy. Mega deals worthy many billions have been signed between the government of Zimbabwe with Russians, Chinese, and the Japanese. We hope and trust that these deals will come into fruition.
The parliament should try to accelerate all the legislation that is aimed at promoting indigenisation. On the other end the line ministries should implement the policies as has been clarified by President Robert Mugabe in order to end the confusion and profusion being manufactured by the enemies of the state.
This would enable them to be significant players in the mainstream of the country's economy. However some agents of regime change are trying by all means to derail this policy.
The indigenisation policy has been clearly been distinguished into three economic sectors, namely; the Natural Resources sector, Non-Resources sector and the Reserved sector. It has been highlighted that these sectors are to be approached differently, in terms of the implementation of and compliance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Policy. However some political malcontents have decided to go against the policy.
It is alleged that a critical look at the statement signed by President Robert Mugabe is proposing to exchange the 51% shareholding threshold for value in the form of wages, taxation, community ownership schemes and procurement programmes. It is also alleged that regulations forcing foreign owned firms are to transfer a 51% stake to black Zimbabweans will no longer apply to existing business in the natural resources sector where government does not have 51% ownership.
It can be deduced that the interpretation of the so called think tanks is based on the agents and advocates of regime change. It is also quite interesting in that the so-called think tanks are not investors at all but they are only out there to criticize government policies that tend to promote black empowerment.
The policy is clear and there is no disfunctionality, confusion and incompetence in the government as alleged. In fact the policy is as revolutionary as the land reform and the liberation struggle itself. This means it is open to attack by forces not only opposed to ZANU PF, as a revolutionary party but also as a government that has done a lot to change the status quo ante of a previously colonized African nation.
The ideal situation to come from a policy such as indigenisation is an empowered black majority that can lay claims to the means of production in the national economy. Serious investors in the likes of Aliko Dangote, are not scared of the indigenisation policy. Mega deals worthy many billions have been signed between the government of Zimbabwe with Russians, Chinese, and the Japanese. We hope and trust that these deals will come into fruition.
The parliament should try to accelerate all the legislation that is aimed at promoting indigenisation. On the other end the line ministries should implement the policies as has been clarified by President Robert Mugabe in order to end the confusion and profusion being manufactured by the enemies of the state.
Source - Stewart Murewa
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.
