Back to Index

Donors, diaspora and Zimbabwe democracy
Dr Alex Magaisa
July 25, 2006

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/magaisa28.14451.html

ONE of the greatest handicaps to the growth of mature democracies in Africa is the lack of financial strength and independence on the part of political and civic organisations unless they are part of the ruling establishment.

Like any other activity, politics requires money to meet organisational, operational and campaign costs. While the ruling party has access to state resources, which are often diverted for its advantage the opposition and civic organisations remain on the fringes, even where they qualify for state funding. The result is that opposition and civic organisations depend heavily on foreign donor funding.

Arguably in the case of the MDC the foreign donor community played a crucial role in providing funding for the party during its formative stages. Without financial support, even with the massive support, organising the party would have been very difficult given the financial impediments that put paid to the efforts of most opposition parties before it.

The same is true for key civic organisations such as the NCA, Crisis Coalition, etc whose existence owes as much to the will and resilience of the founders, as the financial support they received from the donor community. There is nothing wrong in principle about getting financial and other logistical support from foreign sources.

After all, without the support of the Chinese, Russians and African countries like Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania, the liberation movements ZANU and ZAPU would have found it very hard to launch and sustain the struggle against colonialism in 1970s. The problem arises when the local parties and organisations lose their independence, so that their benefactors begin to determine their agenda and policies.

Problems arise however, when the independence of civic and political organisations becomes compromised by the dependence on foreign funding. Further, weaknesses emanate when the lack of autonomy means that their policy, agenda and strategies are determined not by the party or group and its constituents but according to the interests and demands of the foreign donor community. Additionally, problems arise when the donor community fails to rein in errant elements in the organisations that they fund, thereby becoming complicit in perpetuating the undemocratic culture that they profess to be fighting.

Political party funding is a sensitive issue across the world, and has recently been a major issue in the UK in the wake of allegations of unfair favours being extended to those who fund the ruling party. The one key principle behind rules prohibiting foreign funding in most countries is the desire to curb foreign interference and control. But given the scarcity of local funding in Africa, most opposition parties tend to beg the predominantly Western donor community for financial support. Yet ultimately, this dependence is not entirely preferable and is a weakness in our social and political systems. In my opinion, as I will argue below, the African Diaspora could play a key role in resolving this fundamental weakness.

It would be ideal if all political and non-political activities in Africa would be funded locally. The business community, in their role as corporate citizens, would be a useful source of funding. However, the system of patronage ensures that local businesses tend to fall over each other to fund the ruling party, already a recipient of state resources. Even where the opposition party qualifies for state funding, it is often insufficient to cover their costs. ZANU PF realised from the very beginning the importance of creating key sources of funding for itself.

Unsurprisingly, through its various corporate vehicles, ZANU PF is a major participant in most economic sectors of Zimbabwe. This ensures a steady stream of revenues and as well as key control of the economic sector at party level.

The problems of dependence on foreign funding arise when the donors put unsuitable conditions upon which their financial support is based. In this case, the political and civic organisations are obliged to pursue a specific agenda directed from above. There is no guarantee that the agenda necessarily meets with the interests of the citizens. On the part of the recipient organisations, it is natural not to bite the hand that feeds you. They therefore lack the courage to challenge the ideas coming from above. Instead, they would go to great lengths to try and meet the interests of their benefactors, and, in the process, lose sight of the local citizens whose interests should be paramount. To be fair in most cases on the part of well-meaning donors, the idea of setting the agenda is to ensure that their funds are put to good use.

After all on their part, the donors depend a great deal on the taxpayers in their home countries through grants from their governments. They are created with a set agenda and they have to ensure that they stick to its parameters. But often this agenda would make sense to the community from which they originate but might not necessarily fit within the circumstances of the people they are trying to help. Sometimes the ideas are good, but the local citizens may have other more crucial concerns that matter within their specific circumstances. Also, the benefactors may not necessarily understand and appreciate the local context, with the result that the policies and ideas that they try to pursue and impose are incompatible with the interests and experiences of the local citizens. Unfortunately, because they are largely dependent on the foreign donors who set the agenda, the political and civic leaders lack the courage and power to challenge these ideas and policies and instead are only too keen to tow the line.

The agenda-setting dilemma is most prominent in the context of a subject that I have touched on before – a key difficulty in the politics of Zimbabwe, where a predominantly Western-oriented human rights approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe has been the dominant paradigm to the extent that some of the issues that the political parties and civic organisations pursue, though right in their own ways, do not always resonate with the immediate concerns of citizens in various sectors of society.

For example, press freedom is an important democratic right that has been prominent in the Zimbabwe crisis. Yet this right is not anywhere near the heart of the villager in Zaka or Tsholotsho whose key concern is whether he can access clean water or whether he will get the necessary inputs in time for the planting season. The free media talk makes a lot of sense in the chunky quarterly and annual reports, it makes great sense in the human rights bulletins and journals but it is not the prime issue for the 70 per cent of the citizens of Zimbabwe whose key concerns centre on social and economic survival. It is easy to state to the world that restoration of civil and political rights, as argued in the dominant language of the Zimbabwe crisis, will solve most of the villager's problems.

Yet the agenda must be restated and reworked, in the image of the citizens whom the organisations purport to represent. More than newspapers and radio stations, these citizens need tools and resources to work the land and create value to ensure their social and economic security. There is too much talk of aid by civic society organisations but surely the citizens need the fishing nets and rods not simply the fish itself. It is common knowledge that the agricultural sector has been messed up by the state but what do right advocates have to say about empowering those that are struggling on the land other than endless discussions on human rights? In the absence of economic independence, civic and political organisations will continue to parrot the dominant language of human rights, in a version that makes great sense in London and Washington, but flies above the heads of most people on the ground, who need to survive and have access to the means of production. Far from repeating the same song of condemnation, focus should now be on how to make things work given the present scenario.

When donors try to justify their existence to the taxpayers in their home countries they lean towards making a positive audit of their work in the different countries. That is when the risk of covering up weaknesses in the political and civic organisations that they fund materialises. There is, one could say a symbiotic relationship between the donors and the donees. The donee organisations need the donors for funding and the donors need their donee projects to look good in the eyes of their own benefactors – the taxpayers. They have to demonstrate that they are doing well in Africa – that they are making a difference for the poor communities.

When donors cover up the inadequacies of their donee projects, they do a great disservice to the citizens in the countries in which the civic and political organisations operate. They are invariably interested in the good story – the "heroes" and "stars" that they laud with prizes and similar awards but tend to turn a blind eye to the bad stories within these organisations. Therefore, even where local political and civic organisations exhibit undemocratic behaviour the donors tend to ignore or cover up such activities. They are reluctant to condemn them as this would be tantamount to admitting their own failures to their own governments, taxpayers and other funding bodies. But then in refusing or failing to bring to book the political and civic organisations, which they support financially, and instead continue to give them more support in the face of clear failures, they perpetuate the political culture and practices that they are seeking to challenge. They participate in creating the same breed of public leaders – corrupt, power-hungry with a tendency to use violence when it suits them. Given the financial dependence, it is arguable that the political and civic organisations feel more accountable to the donors. Donors could therefore play a more positive role by being more vigilant and curb excesses that fuel a culture of corruption and undemocratic behaviour.

These weaknesses attributed to the current system of foreign donor dependence could in my view be addressed by having the African Diaspora playing a more active and positive role in the political and economic activities in their home countries. Despite years of absence for most of the African Diaspora the place they still call home are their respective countries of birth. Even for most second generation Africans in the Diaspora there is still an attachment with their parents' countries of birth. Most Zimbabweans still retain strong links with Zimbabwe and in the main discussions I have with those in the Diaspora, there is still a strong desire to contribute to its regeneration and development. It is therefore encouraging that the political leadership across all parties, bar the rhetoric, realise that there is potential in the Diaspora. It is clear that the Diaspora is a critical constituency, which, if properly mobilised and organised can be an influential force in social, economic and political terms.

The interest in this article is that far beyond the question whether or not they can vote and beyond the economic support that individuals in the Diaspora give to their respective families, when properly focussed, they can be an equally strong source of funding for political and civic organisations in their home countries. There are many advantages in having Zimbabweans abroad funding activities in their own countries. They are more likely to understand the causes for which they fund as well as the context in which activities take place in the country. They could therefore prioritize the issues that matter and set the agenda in ways that resonate with the interests and concerns of the people at home. They also have a direct interest in ensuring that the projects that they fund succeed because the better the situation in Zimbabwe, the less the burden they have to carry collectively and individually, in the long run. They only have to account to themselves as Zimbabweans, not to the taxpayers or governments of countries in which they live.

Admittedly, most Zimbabweans in the Diaspora are already engaged in various social and political activities at an individual level. I am not quite sure that political party organisations in the Diaspora have had the necessary effect. In most cases, unscrupulous individuals have jumped on board for personal gain only to disappear into thin air once their interests had been satisfied. In desperation some individuals have also taken advantage of the situation, joining political organisations in the Diaspora, not to play any significant role but to gain the necessary labels of political involvement for purposes of seeking asylum in their host countries. Political divisions at home are replicated in the Diaspora causing confusion and most well-meaning individuals lose interest and retreat to the margins. But others are genuine in their desire to fight for political change and are often let down by those that take unfair advantage. They organise rallies and meetings and show immense solidarity. Other Zimbabweans routinely put together funds, resources such as books and other materials to send to their former schools or institutions close to their home areas.

Almost every responsible Zimbabwean in the Diaspora has relatives who each month look to them for financial and other assistance. It is fair to say that the Diaspora is a key industry that has sustained Zimbabwe in many ways in these dire times. All this is very good and commendable.

However, it is time that the Zimbabwean Diaspora realises that there are greater advantages in focussing and coordinating their efforts. Economists talk of synergies or economies of scale – the advantages and savings arising from doing things on a large and unified scale. There is a love-hate relationship between the Diaspora and local-based Zimbabweans. The locals are happy to get support on an individual basis but also blame the Diaspora for fuelling the parallel market and price increases especially in respect real estate. The Diaspora on the other hand complains of the burden they have to shoulder at home and the tough lives they lead in their host countries.

In my opinion, the Diaspora must seize the chance to play a more significant political role by pooling resources together to fund both political and civic bodies including charity organisations that do work beyond politics and the usual human rights. Imagine for example, adopting Harare or Mpilo Hospitals – just meet the cost of drugs and provide food to patients in these dire times. It is hard when you consider it from an individual perspective but a much lighter burden when done together. It is very easy to blame the government for its failures, but people must also begin to question what they can do to reduce the suffering of the masses. Politics alone will not save Zimbabwe – It has to come from within our hearts.

It will never be easy and will not happen overnight but as the Chinese say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It is not impossible. Most times these same individuals pay small amounts to charity in their host countries – could they really fail to pay a pound or a dollar a week to create a fund that would enable Zimbabweans to take charge of their own destiny? If on average a million people pay £1 a week to a fund, that is £4 each month, they contribute £4 million each month and £48 million per year – imagine the difference it could make to the many causes that require support in Zimbabwe.

The Diaspora may not have the chance to vote due to a skewed political environment but properly organised, they can be a powerful force that can influence political and civic events and processes through their economic power. It is certainly more preferable to have the African Diaspora play the key funding role, than to rely solely on the foreign donor organisations. It is a dream that may never yield any fruit in reality but it is worth a try. There are a number of hurdles to be overcome, such as the atmosphere of distrust among the Diasporas, caused among other things by jealousy and cheating and many other trivial divisions. But the greatest challenge is whether Zimbabweans in the Diaspora have the political will to take charge of the destiny of their own country and their own future.

*Dr Magaisa is a lawyer and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk

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