CHRIS CHENGA
The UK is going through an egg in the face moment; a regrettable instance where the emotive politicization of Eurosceptism misled public discourse, distancing citizens from pragmatic resolutions to dealing with what, in many cases, are legitimate socio-economic reservations of European integration. At least there seems to be a drawing towards an inevitable epilogue that brings finality to a prolonged play of farce, which could have otherwise been one of substantive inquiry on the always evolving implications of integration.
Sometimes socio-economic reservations are desirable, if listened to by responsible ears of problem solving intent. Such a scenario can augment a society’s understanding of how to improve its socio-economic circumstances. Pensive and material skepticism as expressed by citizens, and articulated by responsible politicians, can direct nations towards better local and foreign policy making whereby internal interests keep continuous compatibility and competitiveness to always moving global dynamics. The UK had almost missed this opportunity, perhaps as it presents itself as opportune as well for the ideologues and demagogues of limited global curiosity. Many UK observers are now increasingly hopeful and would be relieved to see the UK shift its reservations towards pragmatic resolutions that improve European integration, rather than the retrogressive path of Brexit.
Zimbabweans felt that relief at the inception of “Operation Restore Legacy”. It whisked through many urban cities as people marched in jubilation to the ending of a farce, which besides the infamy of “Asante Sana”, really needed no epilogue. Economic commentators, who have played second fiddle to political entities, were truly hopeful that moment would have been a stepping stone towards better political discourse and future contestations between the active political divides which inform voting citizens.
After a prolonged play of naked emperor, one that held onto relevance and power by sustaining a patronage system hypocritical to its purported ideals, it seemed the new dispensation had reached an acknowledgement of the charade. Benefit of the doubt too was given to an intellectually and legislatively lethargic opposition. Maybe the nation could realize its own egg in the face moment, finally awakened that emotive politicization had done nothing but make the nation’s public discourse regress, depriving citizens off global intellectual integration and economic participation.
Yet, today, politics still misinforms many of our socio-economic matters. Maybe the problem is society’s primed expectation for political entities to lead public discourse. Many of these political entities are off pace to the rest of the world; a rapidly evolving global economy in fact. Thus, our public discourse is stuck in conventions behind time. Indeed this is what happens when the politics of theory, of which gate keepers are ideologues and demagogues, is dominating social perceptions. A nation loses touch of ever moving real life worldly interaction. This explains numerous misgivings in Zimbabwe about regional and global integration.
One does not have to interrogate our political entities much. Simple observation of their perceptions towards Bretton Woods institutions tells a lot. How is China a funding alternative to the IMF and World Bank when China’s own developmental institutions are pursuing governance and lending structures modeled to be standardized to the Bretton Woods institutions, and China itself campaigning for a greater share in IMF/World Bank shareholding quota? A perception of alternatives is an illiterate political notion. Or, in 2018, how can structural adjustment programs be pegged in reference to an ESAP program of 1990; dated well before mobile devices and the internet were conceivable platforms of business. These are still influential perceptions in Zimbabwe’s discourse today.
Consider a society that still perceives globalization in references of neo-liberalism; ideologies that existed well before the digital age. The global economy is so intertwined today that reference of liberalism is a redundant consciousness. Since the advent of the internet, let alone on personal or business platforms, the very means of economics itself became liberal. The notion of borders is merely regulatory than interactive, and so are the nationalist dividends of such means of economy. This is just an ideological example of how stagnant and redundant political establishments of limited curiosity have lost compatibility and relevance in today’s global economy. In Zimbabwe this is resembled in dormant policymaking such as SI 64. Sure, there may be nothing theoretically wrong with it, but as a cornerstone industrial policy in 2018, it shows limited inquiry into strategic policymaking in today’s integrated regional or global economy.
What is a local brand, and for it to warrant protectionism? 80% of the iPhone is industrially assembled in China, yet it is an American brand. The value added in an iPhone’s retail price, of about 40%, occurs after assembly and is in administrative economic activity in the United States. This is a basic, but perhaps nuanced, example of how industrial policy can easily diverge from capital formation, which is more important and requires much more thoughtfulness when crafting trade and integration policy. One doubts Zimbabwe’s extensive thoughtfulness in its policy making. A simple policy such as S.I. 64 exudes a rudimentary perception of globalization. To what benefit does it do to shut out a “foreign” brand to protect a “local” brand, without for instance, weighing industrial contribution versus capital formation of whichever brand ends up with shelf license? With thorough analysis, one may find that a Zambian brand with local supplies or components may actually yield higher capital formation for the Zimbabwean economy that an outright ban.
This example eases into the matter of sanctions. With increased global integration, capital flows are hardly as direct as they were a couple of decades ago. Such is the pervasive nature of licensing, franchising, and intellectual property. Furthermore, consider the means of listing on capital markets across jurisdictions. Entities can operate and dilute capital across jurisdictions. For example, Zambia has one of the highest concentrations of developmental finance in Africa. By increasing integration with Zambian supply chains, of which many Zambian entities are capitalized by low interest long term developmental finance, the Zimbabwean jurisdiction can smoothly and legally, go around direct monetary sanctions. This is the same with South African supply chains. Geo-politics students will notice that since globalization, sanctions have been of more harm to nations that do not get along with their immediate neighbors. Such simple cognizance has never emerged in our political discourse, because influential political entities are detached from real global business. This is why sanctions, have been more of an issue to Zimbabwe itself than potential business partners. It can be argued that Zimbabwean sanctions have been harder on the nation, not through exclusion, but from our own misgivings of regional integration. This is why Zimbabwe remains pariah to multinational companies. It is not because of sanctions per se, but simply because our very audible and emotively politicized public discourse exudes an illiteracy to globalization and how it operates from an industrial and financial perspective.
Perhaps it is becoming apparent just how many socio-economic topics that are in Zimbabwe’s public discourse are guided by misinformed narratives. The root cause is the illiterate nature of our politics. The new dispensation once gave Zimbabwe hope. It came in with the promises of new references of public discourse; references that were more literate, inquisitive, open minded, studious, and more importantly, at pace with the rest of the world. But, it is still evident in our public discourse that we indeed missed our egg in the face moment. Zimbabwe remains a nation where ideologues and demagogues to dominate public discourse; regrettably influencing our understanding of the socio-economic circumstances that result from global interaction.
