Mawere responds to Gono on indigenisation
on May 16, 2013 at 1:16 pm
By Mutumwa Mawere
In 1980, President Robert Mugabe was alive to the link between national
unity, peace and progress and his words at independence sought to provide a
guide as to what was to be expected. As we look back, we are compelled to
review the progress made during the last 33 years.
Mugabe said: “Let us rejoice over our independence and recognise in it the
need to dedicate ourselves to national unity, peace and progress.”
It is ironic that the forthcoming elections will be fought on the basis of
which party can deliver the promise of shared prosperity when in 1980 this
was the primary objective.
Notwithstanding, debate on indigenisation still rages on, but the divergent
views on how best to approach the financial sector exposes the glaring lack
of leadership on this key and fundamental public policy issue.
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) governor Gideon Gono has expressed
unhappiness about what he describes as the “one-size-fits-all” approach to
indigenisation and economic empowerment.
In an article entitled ‘Reckless indigenisation disruptive to economy’, Gono
seeks to advance his position that the approach to indigenisation that has
so far been pursued by Indigenisation Minister Saviour Kasukuwere is
reckless and disruptive to the economy.
Gono has a record that speaks volumes about what he believes in and it is
important that the opportunity that he has opened by joining the battle of
ideas on what matters to the future of Zimbabwe is taken advantage of.
Gono makes the point that he has some valuable experiences that inform his
worldview why the financial sector ought to be treated with caution and why
Kasukuwere’s “one-size-fits-all” approach to indigenisation of the financial
sector is considered by him to be inappropriate, disruptive and dangerous.
It is significant that Kasukuwere is a member of Mugabe’s Cabinet and
although Gono and he were both appointed by Mugabe, it would appear that
Gono’s statement above, if taken to its logical conclusion, would seem to
suggest that it is aimed at Mugabe who has failed to rein in Kasukuwere.
Although Mugabe to whom the attack by Gono seems to be aimed at, has not yet
weighed in fully on his vision regarding the kind of reforms that need to be
undertaken in the financial sector in order to advance the cause, what is
now clear is that after 33 years in office, clarity on what needs to happen
remains elusive at the top of the political chain.
Gono’s argument in support of indigenisation of a different kind in the
financial sector is betrayed by an acceptance that the need for
indigenisation is long-overdue and desirable.
If this is the starting point of his worldview, then it cannot be argued
that there should be any “sacred cows” for doing so would easily permit
confusion. Surely, if ownership is an important variable in asserting the
inclusive agenda, then one cannot then advance the argument of sector
exclusion.
One must accept that each enterprise is unique and, therefore, must be
understood and if shareholding restructuring purely to address perceived
historical commercial injuries is bad for the financial sector, it cannot be
good, for instance, in the mining or any other sector.
It is evident that the arguments that Gono seems to be advancing are
premised on the belief that while indigenisation is good, it is disruptive
only where he is involved in.
He makes the point that: “Any deals that foreign banks in this market
voluntarily or involuntarily enter into and sign-off without prior approval
will remain ‘deals on paper’ — basically null and void” as if to suggest
that the buck stops at him which would place him as a de-facto President of
the financial sector.
In any functioning constitutional democracy, one would expect Gono and
Kasukuwere to have ventilated their strong views in appropriate foras, but
alas it would appear that such platforms no longer exist in Zimbabwe.
The indigenisation law was enacted in 2007 and one would naturally have
expected that prior to its enactment, the direction and approach of the
program ought to have been thought out so that the legislation would have
made the exception that Gono is proposing albeit after the establishment of
a Ministry of the same government that he is serving and a Minister having
been appointed who remains a rising star of the party and a leading advocate
of indigenisation.
Why would the President choose to remain silent while two bulls in his camp
are fighting for attention?
Gono believes that indigenisation is only poisonous if applied to the
financial sector and that shareholding ought not to be the critical focus
and yet his principal, Mugabe, is clear that ownership is important.
Gono maintains that: “Like any national programme, the indigenisation and
economic empowerment programme must be implemented in a manner that respects
the entire legislative mapping of Zimbabwe as represented by various pieces
of legislation on our books that seek to create checks and balances against
potentially domineering legislative elephants in the living room, so to
speak. The following are some of the critical pieces of legislation and
regulatory frameworks to be respected: Banking Act, Chapter 24:20; Reserve
Bank Act, Chapter 22:15; Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection
Agreements; Competition Act, Chapter 14:28 and Corporate Governance
Framework for Parastatals of which National Indigenisation and Economic
Empowerment Board is part of.”
Gono’s tenure has been controversial and he is not, therefore, the
appropriate messenger to talk about corporate governance, separation of
powers, transparency, checks and balances, and, more importantly, about
domineering elephants.
If he understood what he is asking Kasukuwere, then surely his actions at
the helm of the RBZ would have been different. There are too many corporate
corpses that were victims of Gono and he probably set the stage for what he
is now blaming Kasukuwere for.
The RBZ under his control assumed a life of its own and the reach of the
bank was extensive. The RBZ became a state within a state. The concern about
the dangerous role that the RBZ had assumed informed the crafters of the
Global Political Agreement to call for the dismissal of Gono.
It would appear that Gono has now reinvented himself during the tenure of
the inclusive government and his boss, Tendai Biti, is now his best friend.
Gono caused so much pain to indigenous entrepreneurs that must be told lest
history is rewritten while we remain silent. Some of us have personal
experiences that can add value to the debate that Gono now wants to be part
of.
Under Gono, the RBZ became a little police establishment of its own. Former
Police Commissioner Henry Mukurazhizha was recruited by Gono and the wounds
caused are too fresh to be forgotten.
It is instructive that even Biti and the MDC-T are no longer asking for Gono
to be relieved of his duties. Gono did not respect the entire legislative
mapping of Zimbabwe and he was simply not accountable to anyone. The
legislators did not have a clue as to how the RBZ was acting in the name of
the State. The address of the Ministry of Finance had effectively moved to
the RBZ.
All ministries were reporting to the big elephant and we now learn that even
the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission was part of the value chain.
Perhaps Gono should begin by telling the nation how he managed to ignore the
entire legislative mapping with impunity. What he described as a “casino
economy” was realised under his watch and the abandonment of the local
currency was really an indictment on his actions.
If the approach to indigenisation is faulty, then one has to locate the
genesis of the fault lines. One cannot point a finger at Kasukuwere without
pointing the same finger at Gono and many others who have created their own
states within the State of Zimbabwe.
One can naively assume that Zimbabwe is a unitary state, but in reality each
office bearer operates as if there is no accountability.
Gono would agree that the RBZ is part of the legislative mapping that he now
speaks, but even in his piece it would appear that investors should know
that in the final analysis it is a bigger elephant in the room.
Mugabe, who turned 89 recently, thanked Gono for the gift of 89 cattle. What
we do know is that Gono knows how to manage the political processes to the
extent that accountability is usually the problem.
The participation of Gono in this important debate is welcome and should
allow for an honest assessment of his record with a view to establishing
whether he has played any part in creating corporate violence and disorder.