Zimbabwe‘s Political Environment a Major Hindrance to Development Effectiveness

As highlighted in various Regional and International agreements and initiatives, development effectiveness is attained based on various key pillars, among them, country commitment   (political will), availability and efficient use of resources (human and capital) and cooperation in doing business (trade).

Zimbabwe as a developing country had vast of potential since its independence in 1980 from the colonial rule. It is sad to note that Zimbabwe was once a bread basket of Africa, ironically it has turned to be a basket case.

The victory that brought Zimbabwe to a new dispensation of independence was pinnacled with hope of a better and a sustainable economy. The emergency from an environment epitomized by suppression in form of colonialism gave Zimbabwe a clean slate to do better in national development.

It is however important to hail the immediate post independence era in which policy formulation was directed towards critical economic issues such education for all, eradication of poverty, employment, consolidation of good foreign policy and regional integration. The post independence era ushered with it names such as the Bread Basket of Africa among other ululations directed towards the economic strides that emanated from a promising economy. 

The 1990s was characterized by various happenings that shaped the events, among them the adoption of Economic Adjustments Programs, the troubles brought by the Land Reform Program, the rise of the opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and the gradual collapse of the economy due to reduced agricultural activity and compensation payouts to War Veterans and increasing isolation by the International Community due to cited governance and human rights issues.

To investigate the previously mentioned points, Zimbabwe political environment plaid a major role in crippling its glamor towards effective development. Amidst a challenging domestic and international environment, the Zimbabwean government has faced numerous challenges in implementing the country’s development agenda.

The politicians enacted unfavorable policies that limited foreign direct investment. The Zimbabwe Indigenization Policy was said to be at the center of government to acquire sustainable growth. However, the policy has been criticized for lack of clarity and its vampire nature that scare away foreign direct investment (FDI). The policy compels foreign owned firms with a minimum capital of $ 500,000 to cede 51 percent of the shares to locals.
Apart from policies, since year 2000 the ruling party ZANU PF has been accused of political violence and gross human rights violations, especially towards national elections, this has contributed to the increased isolation. The International community in the likes of European Union and USA imposed sanctions in Zimbabwe.

As noted in the Report on Global Process of Development Effectiveness (2014), the Western countries partnered in efforts to mount pressure on Zimbabwe to improve the political, human rights and governance state within the country. The United States promulgated the punitive Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) in 2001, to curtail development aid and impose sanctions against the country. Western donor nations and organizations similarly halted economic aid to and investment in Zimbabwe. In October 2000, for example, the World Bank announced that it would extend no more loans to Zimbabwe.

Similarly, in 2002 the EU imposed restrictive measures on Zimbabwe through targeted sanctions, travel bans and arms embargo under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. The country was not able to access capital in the form of direct overseas development assistance, foreign direct investment or cheap international credit, which deepened crisis. Confronted with these numerous challenges, Zimbabwe adopted the Look East Policy (LEP) by focusing on China, indigenization and black empowerment policies. China, guided by pragmatic realism, embraced the LEP, stepping in to fill the gap left by the West.

 As the Government of National Unity ended in 2013, the ruling party has assumed government and in the past year has been faced with internal factionalism that has seen a series of events which threaten development effectiveness and international relations. As cited in the Zimbabwe, Country Report on Global Process of Development Effectiveness (2014), the parliamentarians who received support in their communities for development projects from the American Embassy under the Ambassadors Special Grants Program are being fingered as sell-outs an part of a complex conspiracy for regime change.

The report further stipulated that, political violence has since re-surfaced. With corruption scandals besetting the ruling party, allegations abound of the involvement of Western countries in a supposed plot to assassinate the President while removing individuals that were seen as conservative and moderate. The political in-fighting has further divided an already polarized country and CSO engagements with government at national and local levels are increasingly seen and labelled as tantamount to implementing Western interests.

The official discourse on aid is embedded in the socio-economic and political history of the country which has triggered key events over the years.

The relationship between most aid agencies and the government has been very volatile, with aid agencies criticized for meddling in local politics and being drivers of the regime change agenda.

In this vein aid agencies have been viewed by the state as largely representing the interests of their donor countries rather than being genuinely philanthropic and are treated with suspicion.

It is against such a background that in 2002, the government suspended operations of several aid agencies. Since then, relations between the International aid community and the government of Zimbabwe have been characterized by mistrust. It has been observed that there is a general misconception about aid in Zimbabwe where most politicians see aid as an end in itself rather than a means to an end, with the end being poverty alleviation and socio-economic development.

To this end, Official Development Assistance (ODA) in Zimbabwe is fraught with lack of transparency, making it highly vulnerable to corruption by politicians who use it for their own vested interests like gaining political mileage at the expense of national development interests. 

At the Second High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (2005) it was recognised that aid can be a vehicle to produce high impacts. The Paris Declaration was endorsed in order to base development efforts on first-hand experience of what works and does not work with aid. It is formulated around five central pillars:  Ownership, Alignment, Harmonisation, and Managing for Results and Mutual Accountability.

The year 2008 saw the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness an even greater number and wider diversity of stakeholders endorsed the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). The AAA both reaffirms commitment to the Paris Declaration and calls for greater partnership between different parties working on aid and development. In this regard, Zimbabwe continues to isolate itself through patronage politics.

The political instability attributed to the hovering of 146 % of GDP in external debt, the current external debt is estimated to be 10.7 billion. Zimbabwe’s domestic debt stood at $1,171 billion as of November 27, 2014 when Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa announced his 2015 budget, with $264 million of that being in Treasury Bills issued mostly to banks and cash-rich companies for budget cash flow support.  Sadly, 75 percent of the 2015 National budget which is pegged at $ 4 billion is gobbled by the pubic service wage bill at the expense of capital projects in form of infrastructure development.

Apart from the challenges being faced by Zimbabwe in development effectiveness agenda, there is room for improvement and claim the lost status, this can be done by ensuring a political environment that is conducive for investment, address policy inconsistency, ensuring the respect of human rights and the rule of law, collaborating with CSOs and International partners for the causes of poverty alleviation among other.

Notes:  CSO contribution to the Global Process of Development Effectiveness: The Zimbabwean Context (NAYO, 2014)

OECDE, Better Policies for Better Lives, http://www.oecd.org

Misheck Gondo is a Policy and International Relations Expert. He is the  Regional Youth Coordinator for SADC-AAYC.