|
Back to Index
Budget
Media
Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Weekly Media Update 2004-47
Monday November 22nd - Sunday November 28th
2004
LACK of interpretative
skills resulted in most of the media failing to go beyond economic
jargon and simplify acting Finance Minister Hebert Murerwa’s $27,5
trillion budget proposal for 2005 for the benefit of their audiences.
For example,
instead of giving a clear breakdown of allocations to each ministry
and carrying out a comparative analysis of the current figures against
those allocated last year, most media simply rehashed Murerwa’s
budget statement, which buried such pertinent information in the
text.
Although The
Herald (26/11) published the proposed estimates of expenditure
for each ministry, this was only through a pullout of the full text
of the minister’s statement.
Otherwise the
rest of the coverage was characterised by the government media’s
preconceived portrayal of the budget as the perfect companion to
the RBZ’s monetary policy and therefore an inevitable solution to
Zimbabwe’s economic problems.
On the other
hand, the private media were inquisitive, balancing this simplistic
perception with other hard economic indicators on the ground.
Even before
Murerwa presented his budget, the government media were already
abuzz with glowing previews of his financial statement, saying it
was expected to complement the success of the central bank’s monetary
policy.
The Chronicle
(25/11), for example, claimed that the budget, coming "against
the successful implementation of a tight monetary policy"
and the drop in annual inflation from 609 percent in January to
209 percent October, was expected to further steer economic
growth. Selected members of the public were also quoted expressing
the hope that Murerwa would come up with a "consumer-friendly
budget".
The Herald
(25/11) too exuded such expectation. However, both papers failed
to provide an accurate summary of how successfully government had
implemented last year’s budget.
Rather, ZTV
(24/11, 8pm) simply noted, without providing evidence, that "despite
high inflation, low official foreign currency inflows, reduced performance
capacities by companies and erosion of disposable income, the 2004
budget managed to meet targets." In addition, the station
and Power FM (25/11, 6am) superficially argued that the absence
of a supplementary budget demonstrated government’s "commitment
to the turnaround of the country’s economy" through
"fiscal discipline". This was in spite of
revelations by Minister Murerwa that government had actually overspent
by more than $1.3 trillion.
But The Financial
Gazette (25/11) was doubtful. It pointed out that nothing much
was expected from Murerwa’s budget because the country’s "major
part of the economic policy (was) now driven by the Reserve Bank
of Zimbabwe" which has given the market "regular
direction on interest rates and the exchange rate"
through its quarterly monetary policy reviews.
The government
media however, still persisted in portraying the budget in glowing
and simplistic terms as illustrated by ZTV (25/11, 8pm & 26/11,
8pm), The Herald and Chronicle (26/11). These media
mainly cited Murerwa’s allocation of $1 trillion for the capitalisation
of the Energy, Housing and Infrastructure Bank, $5 trillion for
capital expenditure, $6.8 trillion for education and the raising
of the monthly threshold for non-taxable income to $1m and the tax-free
bonus from $1m to $5 million as indicative of the success of the
budget.
Economic analysts
such as Samuel Undenge and selected members of the public were quoted
as welcoming these measures and describing the budget "as
people- centred", ZTV (25/11, 8pm).
However, none
of these media questioned why, if the economy was on the mend, the
budget had soared from more than $7 trillion in 2004 to $27, 5 trillion
proposed for 2005 – and indeed, where that money would come from.
Such questions
only found expression in the private media.
For example,
these media carried comments from a cross section of Zimbabweans
such as economists, political leaders, workers and ordinary members
of the public as being largely sceptical that the budget would revive
the economy or meaningfully improve the welfare of Zimbabwe’s hard-pressed
workers and its unemployed.
Some commentators,
like John Robertson, mused about government’s capacity to finance
the budget in the absence of "no investment",
shortage of "new jobs" and in the face of
"fewer people paying tax", Studio 7 (25/11).
MDC Shadow Minister
Tendai Biti shared these sentiments. He told the same station and
the Independent that the consumptive nature of the budget
was nothing but a "dishonest, mendacious, over ambitious"
statement that would not do the economy any good.
The Independent
also quoted him criticising Murerwa for devoting 80 percent of the
budget to recurrent expenditure while allocating only $5 trillion
for capital expenditure saying, "no nation develops without
significant infrastructure developments that come from meaningful
capital investment". In fact, Biti later told SW Radio
Africa (27/11) that both the 2005 budget and the RBZ’s monetary
policy merely attempted to perpetuate a rosy picture of the economy
while the "political factors" on the ground,
"which have made it unattractive for anyone to invest
in Zimbabwe" remained unresolved. Said Biti: "It
does not mention the neo liberal policies that they have pursued
particularly the micro-economic programme by …Gono, which have exacerbated
the crisis particularly in the banking sector…the financial sector…the
issue of the death of the export sector because of an unrealistic
exchange rate…"
The Standard
also cited several analysts dismissing the budget, saying it did
not "contain any concrete measures to address unemployment
and mass poverty".
Although The
Daily Mirror (26/11) initially praised Murerwa as having brought
"Xmas cheer" by widening tax bands, it later
(27/11) castigated the minister for allocating about 42 percent
of the budget to civil servants while giving important sectors such
as health, which is on the brink of collapse, meagre amounts.
In fact, the
Independent noted that the massive allocation to civil servants
represented an increase of 324 percent over last year and was above
the current inflation rate of 209 percent. This, argued the paper,
was against "calls by the central bank to keep salary
hikes within reasonable levels to curb inflation".
However, Principal
Director in the Ministry of Finance Andrew Bvumbe defended the civil
servants’ allocation saying it was meant to avert high levels of
brain drain and raise civic servants’ salaries above the poverty
datum line.
Equally, the
Chronicle (26/11) maintained its defence of the budget on
the grounds that it was "probably" the
"the most ‘people-friendly’ budget ever crafted in recent years,"
because it "had all the ingredients of a government committed
to the welfare of its people without prejudice to economic success".
Visit the MMPZ
fact sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
