Stembile Mpofu
Within the last few w e e k s Zimba – b w e a n s have exchanged more information about the behaviour of bees than they have about fuel queues and availability of cooking oil. This is as a result of Acie Lumumba’s exposé of what he referred to as the ‘Queen Bee’ cartel. He described the cartel as having achieved State Capture by providing money to individuals in strategic positions within state institutions and the political arena. He revealed that directors within the Reserve Bank were responsible for allocating huge amounts of foreign currency to this cartel ostensibly for the purchase of fuel some of which did not reach the country but was paid for. As days have passed unofficial information about the size and intricacies of this network have emerged. The allegations being that the web engulfs the mining, banking and agricultural sectors, government ministries and even the army. The veracity of these claims has not been established, however when one examines different events that have occurred over the years the claims are not easy to dismiss as being without some merit.
As the Zimbabwean public has watched the various events unfold, it has become clear that the toll of the cartel’s al leged activities on the economy has been devastating. The country’s wealth is said to be serving a select few and the majority of the citizens are left to fend for themselves in an impoverished environment. Diamonds, gold, silver and money have been siphoned out of the country through illicit means with the proceeds of their sale benefitting a few select individuals within the system. Sitting at the centre of all these activities and deriving the greatest benefit is of course the alleged ‘Queen Bee’ who is said to control individuals in strategic positions within government institutions, political parties and the private sector by sharing the spoils.
The details of these activities have left most Zimbabweans angry, shocked and baying for the blood of those implicated in the scandals. This is an understandable reaction given the extent of the suffering the cartel’s activities have caused. However, an objective examination of what is happening in Zimbabwe will show that in many countries in the world these types of arrangements between the politicians and the business sector are the order of the day. One could easily argue that they are the inevitable result of the political systems that are in use in various countries across the globe. The extent to which these nefarious activities affect the economic fabric of a country is determined by the ability of a country’s economy to absorb the negative aspects of State Capture. It also depends on the ability of the political players and individuals within state institutions of a country to exercise a high level of integrity and restraint when dealing with those in the business sector.
What must be realised and accepted is that the political system of electoral democracy forces political parties to depend on the business sector for their existence and survival. A political party without links to business partners willing to provide sponsorship will not survive. Political parties do not generate revenue. They will therefore need business partners to provide the funding for election campaigns, the dayto-day running costs of the political party and expensive goods like vehicles and air tickets for travel. In return their partners expect special access to business opportunities once the political party takes up the reins of power.
We can therefore conclude that Zimbabwe’s current ‘Queen Bee’ saga is one that should be seen in the light of this global challenge. It will be important to note that as we witness this battle against the alleged dominance and corruption of the ‘Queen Bee’ cartel, we also realise that the suppression of this cartel may result in the emergence of a new one. This is because the root cause of this problem is systemic as opposed to being an individualised one and this is why we see examples of state capture across the globe.
No better illustration exists of this than the relationship between the Clinton Foundation its donors and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Details that emerged during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign revealed many questionable deals involving the US State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure. These deals were singled out because the deals’ benefactors coincidentally made donations to the Clinton Foundation (a philanthropic foundation set up by Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton). Most notable was a deal flagged by the International Business Times in 2015 where they carried out an analysis of state department spending under Hillary Clinton’s tenure (October 2010 – September 2012) against that of a similar time frame during the Bush Administration. They found that $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales were made to 20 countries that had coincidentally made donations to the Clinton Foundation.
This amount was almost double the amount of sales that took place during a similar time period during the Bush administration. Interestingly countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar were approved to purchase arms while being chastised by the US government for corruption, violence against political opponents and human rights abuses. They all also made generous donations to the Clinton Foundation. With the fight against ISIS raging in the Middle East it will be possible to argue that increased weapon sales to allies in the region may have been in America’s interest. However, this scenario demonstrates that the principles of fairness, justice and transparency embodied in the precepts of democracy are dispensable when politics/business interests are at play. It may also point to the fact like in any business transaction those who have invested in an organisation expect a return on their investment. Those who invest in political parties and politicians are not investing in democracy but in a vehicle that will work to ensure that their business interests are taken care of. The current case of the murder of the Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul illustrates this point. We have seen widespread condemnation of this act by governments across the world but very little tangible action censuring the behaviour of the Saudi government. The reason is simply that the billion dollar weapons Industry benefits from weapon sales to Saudi Arabia. It has been clearly stated by members of the US Senate and Donald Trump himself, that the murder of Jamal Khashoggi will not affect the business relationship the US has with Saudi Arabia. Sanctioning Saudi Arabia would hurt US arms manufacturing companies as the withdrawal of multi billion dollar contracts would provide an opportunity for China and Russia to take up the space. Another huge issue that makes it impossible for the US to retaliate is the fact that Saudi Arabia currently holds a minimum of $166,8 billion in US Treasury Securities as reported by the US Treasury Department in July 2018. Any sanctions placed on Saudi Arabia may result in them retaliating by selling off these securities, the effects of which would have a debilitating impact on the US economy.
The British find themselves in a similar quandary as the US because the Saudi’s are a major customer for the British weapon’s industry. In 1985 the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher personally lobbied to seal the Al- Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985. The deal saw British company BAE supply 100 fighter jets worth 43 billion pounds to Saudi Arabia.
The deal was considered controversial from the start. It later emerged that BAE overcharged for the equipment in order to create a slush fund to pay “commissions”. The negotiating team, whose main middleman was the Prime Minister’s son Mark Thatcher, received an amount of 240 million pounds. Mark allegedly received an initial payment of 12 million pounds for his mediatory role, a role said to have been facilitated by his mother. Investigations into the deal were first suppressed in 1992, when the government withheld a report from UK National Audit Office detailing their findings on contracts signed pertaining to this deal. Later in 2006 Prime Minister Tony Blair, leader of the Labour Party, intervened to stop an investigation by the British Serious Fraud Office into the deal. Both investigations were suppressed on the grounds of protecting national security and the protection of Britain’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. In 2010 BAE was eventually sentenced to a fine of $400 million by a US court for “deception, duplicity and knowing violations of the law”. According to the investigation carried out by the US government, BAE was not found guilty of bribery and would thus not be blacklisted for any future contracts. The murky arm’s deals continue to this day with recent reports showing that Britain has for the last five years been selling missiles to Saudi Arabia under what is being described as an opaque licensing system used to move sensitive weaponry to Saudi Arabia. In 2005 allegations of graft followed former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder when after his tenure as Chancellor he accepted a lucrative job with Russia’s State controlled Gazprom, a gas pipeline company. The controversy was not that he had accepted the job but that two weeks before leaving his position as Chancellor he had signed a $6 billion pipeline deal for a gas link between Germany and Russia. From these examples it becomes clear that political parties in government are first and foremost facilitators of business interests. That the political system is one that is used to install the players in particular positions that then allow them to transact. The question is then, in the absence of an overhaul of the political system that produces this relationship between politicians and business, what can be done to mitigate its negative effects on the economy of a country and its moral values and integrity. In the case of Zimbabwe, election season will be upon us before we know it and political parties will need sponsors for their campaigns. Perhaps by then the ‘Queen Bee” cartel may not be the dominant player but there will be others fighting to take its place. What must be done to ensure that the relationships that exist between political players and their business counterparts do not have as detrimental an effect on the economy as they have had over the last two decades.
Firstly it will be important to make those individuals who have committed illegal acts accountable for their actions. Apart from their prosecution and incarceration the proceeds from their actions must be forfeited to the state. It will be important to demonstrate to those who will replace them in those positions that such acts have harsh personnel consequences.
In its bid to mitigate the dominance of the alleged “Queen Bee” cartel Zimbabweans witnessed a government-sanctioned exposé by Acie Lumumba. It is clear that public scrutiny and the public outcry was instrumental in shaking up the cartel. This level of scrutiny of public officials and state institutions must be formalised. A process must be set up that allows the public to interrogate the actions of public officials. A possibility is to give more prominence to the Auditor General’s report. It should be given the same level of prominence as the national budget. It is in fact a sister document to the national budget as it reports back on how budgeted funds were utilised. An adverse report for any state institution should result in the perpetrators being brought to book.
Apart from putting in place laws that govern how and where political parties receive their funding, there should be laws put in place to ensure multiple players are involved in any one enterprise. As we have seen with the alleged “Queen Bee” cartel the country can be held to ransom if one entity is the sole supplier of a strategic commodity like fuel. A competitive business environment must be created whereby companies are forced to offer the best possible deal for the country.
Finally the country’s political leaders must commit to putting the interests of Zimbabweans at the fore in all their actions. This will serve to guide them and provide balance when they consider their financial needs as political parties versus the economic needs of the country.
