Might is not always right

THE world’s reactions to the latest attempts by Zimbabwe’s political masters to rectify what they insist are huge distortions caused by the country’s colonial experience have dropped off to barely suppressed yawns.

There they go again, this small number of inadequate people who so deeply envy the success that anyone else has achieved that they never stop hatching plots to gain control over their assets. If these politicians can think up
half an excuse to resent the very existence of those whose assets they want, they will turn the acquisition process into a national crusade.

Their basic assumption is that, by over-throwing the colonial government, they – the top politicians – could rightfully claim ownership rights over everything in the country. But as a few inconvenient laws stood in the way, such as property rights and civil rights, a few laws had to be changed or new laws written to overcome these handicaps. And if the targeted owners could claim the protection of the constitution, the answer was simple: amend the constitution.

Another assumption is that every Zimbabwean is either happy with the idea of latching onto the assets of others, or can be persuaded that, as the interests of important people are being well served by the process, it would not be their own interests to interfere. This distinction does separate the Zimbabweans who are grasping opportunists from those who feel an obligation to work for what they want. However, so far the assumption that none of them will raise objections to the process has proved fairly sound.

Even so, the important distinction between those who jump at the chance to take what they can get for nothing and those who feel they should work for the things they want to own has to be recognised. The vast majority of
Zimbabweans have a keen sense of what is fair and just, so the vast majority did not scramble onto the commercial farms to loot the homesteads, warehouses and workshops as soon as the ruling party declared that the farmers no longer enjoyed the protection of the law.

Of course, the few thousand who were delighted to make the most of the opportunity were more than enough to do a thorough job. Most of the farms acquired by the State have ceased to function and most of the looted items
also soon dropped out of use. Looters and scavengers do not often make good managers and producers.

The vast majority that did not participate in the destruction were keenly aware that what was happening was wrong. Now a very high proportion of them are even more keenly aware that they have been directly and severely affected. Even if their own source of income was a long way downstream from agriculture, they might be among the many that have lost their jobs.

They might also have shared the dismay of their children when their schools were rendered ineffective or when they failed to find employment, and they might have lost loved-ones when the hospitals ceased to function. And they will all have lost their life’s savings when the government’s post Land Reform behaviour destroyed Zimbabwe’s currency.

Unfortunately, the Zanu-PF-supported smash-and-grab brigade has responded differently to such setbacks. With no feelings of guilt or shame and with no expressions of remorse, they are now lining up to participate in the latest raid on the property of others. When asked whether they think a repeat of the process is a good idea, their answers show that they remain as selfish as ever and totally indifferent to the suffering their actions might be to
thousands or millions of other people. They remain a tiny minority, but their capacity for destruction is as intense as ever.

The architects of the previously damaging sequences dismiss accusations of failure with the blunt observation that “It was theirs, now it is ours. That is success”. If the subject of the disappearance of production is raised,
the questioner is accused of changing the subject.

Just how incredibly shallow their thinking is, and how unbelievably selfish and callous they are as people shows up particularly well when they defend the Land Reform policies. The loss of Zimbabwe’s commercial agricultural production was at the expense of 350 000 farm worker’s jobs and of the housing and security of their families, totalling nearly two million people. More than a million children lost their places in the schools provided by the farmers.

These farms were highly productive and they helped Zimbabwe acquire the reputation of dependable suppliers of valuable food and non-food agricultural exports. These export revenues, in turn, inspired confidence among international bankers, who showed this by extending generous lines of credit to Zimbabwean banks that could therefore offer considerable assistance to local businesses.

When the commercial farm output was cut to a fraction of former levels, forcing a loss of export earnings and also forcing Zimbabwe to import food that it had formerly produced in abundance, the country was soon unable to service its debts. Its debts remain unpaid – nearly US$6 billion – and the lost tobacco production alone would have been more than sufficient to pay it off.

Despite all that, believe it or not, the Zanu-PF heavyweights still believe that Land Reform was a glorious success. The few dozen party officials who enriched themselves in the smash-and-grab exercise could not care less about the welfare of the millions affected. As for the unpaid debts, they are now trying to argue that Zimbabwe should qualify for debt forgiveness!

The new schemes that they believe will legalise their right to acquire the property of others, this time in the form of the majority of their shares in their businesses, appears to have made a few of the Zanu-PF supporters concerned. Perhaps they have been persuaded that the effects on highly technical factories will be the same as the effects on highly technical farming operations, and the end result will again be a collapse.