AT a ‘Meet the People’ rally by the First Lady Grace Mugabe at Rudhaka Stadium in Marondera two weeks ago, a youth leader who had taken to the podium to chant some slogans and greet the people after being introduced, took the opportunity at the platform to plug in there what a huge number of Zimbabweans are battling to figure out in their communities, homes, workplaces and anywhere else in between: what really is Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-Asset)?
“We hope Amai (Grace Mugabe) will be able to explain to us what Zim-Asset is all about,” the zealous and daring youth said. That it is an economic programme meant to resuscitate the country’s economy, most people understand albeit vaguely. But beyond that, not much is else has been tangibly understood by the general masses.
Not much notice, however, was paid to the youth leader’s appeal during the rest of the rally. That request, of a very pertinent economic nature, as is normally the case in present day Zimbabwe for anything economic, was drowned out by the politics of the day which found cheap, rampant and contentious expression in the gammatox versus zvipfukuto sloganeering and positioning. This genuine question, paled in significance next to the Mazowe Crush catch phrase which was fast gaining traction far ahead of longer-term bread and butter issues.
And yet the question lingers: what really is Zim-Asset? The only other reference which was made to the blueprint during that Rudhaka rally was when the First Lady, lambasting Mashonaland East ZANU-PF chairman, Ray Kaukonde accused him of, among a number of allegations, “just going to the people and reading out the Zim-Asset document” verbatim, which in and of itself points to challenges faced in unpacking the programme.Yet it has been 13 months since the economic blueprint was launched. And the questions linger on.
Four major problems hang around the blueprint’s neck like an albatross.
1. The generality of the people are still struggling to decipher exactly what the programme is about and as such this therefore presents challenges for them in terms of finding their place in the big picture of the programme; and identifying practical means of how to harness any contribution they may have towards it at the grassroots level.
Ministers, Members of Parliament and other party functionaries have been, as per ruling party directive, mentioning the name of the blueprint at any public fora they address the public. But the dragging in of the Zim-Asset word, and dropping it in as often as they do, without the general masses’ lucid appreciation of the programme that is meant to be a panacea to the country’s economic woes, has generated more heat than light.
“In line with Zim-Asset …”; “In line with Zim-Asset …”; “In line with Zim-Asset.,.” has been parroted numerous times. But even though party functionaries chanting this phrase have started to sound like a broken record; the appreciation in the general masses has continued to be elusive. More so when projects that were started long before the blueprint was launched are all of a sudden dusted up, dragged in and juxtaposed on the programme.
This has confused more than it has clarified as the masses have failed to understand what is encompassed under the blueprint. Is it any and all projects whatsoever or only those undertaken after the programme was launched?
While the branding of the programme as expressed in the widespread mention and reference to it, has been remarkable such that the majority of people know there is such a programme as Zim-Asset, the corresponding or resultant unpacking of the import of the blueprint has not be in tandem.
For the most part, people get that this is a programme meant to address the country’s economic meltdown, but how and what exactly it is, is still to be widely appreciated. This has over the year raised concerns on how practical the programme is.
“It is almost as if Zim-Asset describes a fictitious country,” says economist John Robertson. “It is not a plan; it is a description of a destination, with no steps – no journey of how one gets there.”
2. The blueprint has to date failed to attract funding. “I do not believe that Zim-Asset will help the country. It is a statement of intent which just hangs in the air. It is unfundable and unimplementable,” says Jameson Timba, a party stalwart in the Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Timba was also a minister in the office of the Prime Minister during the government of national unity. Needing a total amount of US$27 billion, the blueprint is yet to find any substantive takers outside the measly contribution that can be gleaned off the near broke Treasury. The country’s friends from the East — the Chinese — though they have undertaken to support Zimbabwe in infrastructure and other capital projects, they have not come forth with cash funding to inject into Zim-Asset.
3. The programme’s failure to directly link to or engage with centrepieces of the country economic revival has been another hurdle. At the heart of the country’s economic restoration is industrial production which needs to be buttressed by exports. Without the industry’s manufacturing a significant amount of products, export capacity stays dwindled and foreign exchange earnings remain elusive. The country’s debt overhang can ill be serviced. Yet, even with Zim-Asset in place for a year, the latest CZI’s Manufacturing Sector Survey, which was released earlier this month showed capacity utilisation had slid further down from 39,6 percent last to 36,3 percent this year. This signifies, without a doubt, that as far as manufacturing is concerned Zim-Asset is yet, if ever it will in its lifetime of 2013 -2018, to make impact on industry.
“There is absolutely no connection between Zim-Asset and anything — much less business or industry. CZI (or any such bodies) cannot refer to Zim-Asset their reports or surveys,” Robertson said.
4. One major challenge for Zim-Asset is its dependence on variables beyond its control. With a chunk of Zim-Asset relying on commodities to bring in the much needed currency and commodity prices being determined by global trends which of late have been suppressed that has had a negative bearing on the outcome for the blue print.
Economist, Chris Mugaga, bemoans vague action points in the blueprint as well as its inability to attract funding. “Lack of precise action points and clueless aspects on how to fund the blueprint remains an Achilles heel,” Mugaga says. In any case, Mugaga adds, the country does not need blueprints but instead the right leadership to run the economy.
“This nation is not necessarily in need of a blue print but rather people who can carry vision of the nation on how to improve the lives of ordinary people in a non partisan cum non political way. The day, the Zimbabwe government will appreciate that there is no short cut to economic prosperity is the hour they will stop churning out blue prints and concentrate on choosing the right leaders to manage this economy in a comatose state,” he said.
Mugaga also says other issues such as lack of enough numbers of technocrats among the legislators as well as the ruling party’s preoccupation with succession politics ahead of the ZANU-PF congress in December have had an adverse effect on Zim-Asset implementation.
“It is unfathomable to expect implementation of Zim-Asset at this hour due to the succession drama in ZANU-PF since last year when (President) Mugabe won the election,” Mugaga said adding, “Secondly because not less than 80 percent of our parliamentarians are not technocrats therefore they will seek economic advice from politicians and not technocrats. All that add to the policy inconsistence in every budget statement announced in Zimbabwe renders Zim-Asset a mere joke.”
Robertson agrees, “We are not going anywhere with Zim-Asset.”
newsdesk@fingaz.co.zw