Bad politics has stifled the data economy for years

CHRIS CHENGA 

Cumulatively, President Mnangagwa has been on a global investment roadshow for what is nearing to be a year now. Notable traction has been evident in the interest created, with numerous audiences that had switched off at some point to the Zimbabwean story paying closer attention again. It is no small feat to take up estate in publications such as the Financial Times, New York Times, and more recently The Guardian. President Mnangagwa is quoted in the latter as saying that he desired a vibrant opposition that holds his party to account. Was he being sincere? Maybe. Was he being a politician? Sure he was. But he has an indisputable point!

Notwithstanding, as an entity obliged to communicate out a sentiment about an economy, Mnangagwa has done relatively well to re-acclimatise Zimbabwe to global business, compared to other nations that have been challenged by the arduous transition back from pariah. He set out to incite interest, this he has done. Furthermore, he has moderated tensions that long made interfaces between Zimbabwe and global business uneasy – until business just ultimately quit on convening with the embattled nation. It cannot be contested that these fresh relations are to the benefit of the nation’s entirety, that all can capitalize on. Mnangagwa, can, and should be allowed to earn political points for this.

But, the hard work does not end there. A sentiment may have indeed been fostered, but it preempted its own articulation. What does Mnangagwa mean when he narrates that the economy is “open for business”? Well that is not for him and his administration to answer alone. This is where the nature of Zimbabwe’s national politics could either elevate or hinder the country’s future prospects. It was incumbent on President Mnangagwa to have incited interest from business, but a unity of purpose should now underline the arguments and discourse in national politics which will in turn articulate the sentiment of a country that is truly open for business. As global business has been enticed to pay attention to the economy, it is the quality of national politics which expresses the business potential within the country.

This should be done by politicians on opposing ends infusing the data economy into their contests, and allowing the data economy to grow credibility to global business. Every policy and reform contest in national politics should result in an intentional outcome that is empirically argued and supported by facts and data. The risk appetite that informs business impulses in the economy has to be calculated from empirical facts and data. This was the motivation behind the conception of shadow cabinets beyond parliamentary seats in other countries; a nation derives benefit when contesting parties argue national policy and reforms at a high standard of technical diligence typically informed by the data economy.

Unfortunately, the data economy in Zimbabwe has been stifled by politics for years; both from the repressive tendencies of past administrations and the posturing habits of opposition. National politics in Zimbabwe has been detrimental to the economic understanding and communication of the business environment. While the last few months have opened opportunity for an elevated standard of national politics, remnants of the superficial fact and data barren banter remain. All contesting politicians must enhance their economic literacy, or rely on adept referrals on subject matters. They can do this by relying on the data economy. As the data economy informs national political battles, national politics will naturally portray a sentiment of a nation that is literate and versed for business. A global audience can then interpret our business environment from the high quality arguments and discourse in national politics.

For decades, our national politics portrayed incumbents with little incentive to understanding business circumstances, battling an opposition that understood no better but sought merit in being the bravest, loudest heckler. It remains a huge business turn off which many visiting investors, or those who rely on scrolling the internet. This is why Mnangagwa did well for himself, and the nation as a whole, by accosting a vibrant opposition in his Guardian piece. He is very aware that it is exactly the phase in which his global roadshow, inseparable from Zimbabwe’s prospects, are now to be determined. Not just by exuding a more erudite administration of his own – that is inadequate – but, he also needs a complete contesting body of parliament. A true opposition, with the nation’s fortunes at heart, would be self-aware to its role in articulating our open for business sentiment, and it would graciously shake hands with Mnangagwa on this gesture. A mature political class must understand that in instances, a win-win is when national interests are achieved, but an opponent can score more points from that outcome.

Now, there may be many interpretations of a “data economy”, but in context, one can refer it to that part of our economy which deals with data collection, data computation, research, and professional interpretation. Indeed what Zimbabwe is trying to be before it becomes a middle income country by 2030 is to be an emerging, or frontier economy for investment. Mnangagwa has omitted that step. An emerging or frontier economy can only be ripe for investment when it can articulate its data economy. For instance, when investors speak on these economies it is data such as what amount sectors such as real estate contribute to GDP. This is readily available data in economies such as Egypt and Turkey, which is not a coincidence that they lead investment inflows into that sector. Nigeria is leading infant health care investment due to its data on population growth, mortality rates, and other metrics that create real investment projections for that sector. Kenya attracts IT investment because of an intentional strategy to create data for sector. Where is Zimbabwe speaking from a position of data? And this has been the disappointment since President Mnangagwa’s first global seminar; he has not been accompanied by any representatives from the data economy. But, opposition cannot claim any substantial legitimacy to global business because it has failed to upend Mnangagwa’s administration with any contesting representatives from the data economy of its own, who know and can articulate a firmer understanding of why an opposition led government would be better for business.

It is time matters of monetary policy such as cash shortages, foreign currency competitiveness, and such are engaged from facts and data. Politicians must implore banks and finance professionals, along with academia to offer their work for public evaluation. Costs of doing business such as utilities must be address from facts and data. Sectorial analysis must be comprehensive and used to explain deplorable outcomes such as the Cholera outbreak, not the equally embarrassing political banter that followed days after the first outbreak and showed the world that neither party was healthcare competent. Global institutions operating in Zimbabwe will not be as honest to share this, but quite often Zimbabwe is perceived as a nation lacking the intellectual, professional, technical competence to create a competitive economy. This is all conveyed by our shallow national politics. Fortunately for Zimbabwe, and to Mnangagwa’s credit, space for more factual and data erudite contestations has been created. Global business waits to see if it will be filled, and if the commitment is there, the data economy shall be the first point of global investment into the economy.

It is time national politics engages our economy from plausible facts and data; not merely the activist spirit of protest or the repressive tendencies of governance. Neither will articulate that the nation is open for business, and that means we would all lose.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button