| |
Back to Index
Gideon and his monetary policies are soon parted
Tatenda
Chiware
February 09, 2007
The Reserve Bank
of Zimbabwe Governor, Gideon Gono on the 31st of January in one
of his routine and many Monetary
Policy Reviews, unveiled a year long programme to fight inflation
which he said was centred on the Social Contract Theory. In the
same Policy Review he made numerous allusions to the need for proper
legal frameworks and a robust legislative environment as the key
pillars to economic stability. Shockingly, he also made a nude acknowledgement
that there is massive deterioration of the Judicial Framework.
Does this then
mean that Gideon has miraculously seen the light? Perhaps his blind
eyes have been cleansed with the spittle filled mud of reality.
In his policy two fundamental points are eminently exposed as being
crucial to nation building and economic stabilisation. These are;
- That there
is a Social Contract between the government and the people. This
Contract founds the relationship between the state and the citizens.
Everything done by the state authorities is done in pursuit of
maintaining the social covenant. Hence there is need for an all
inclusive approach to tackling the economic recession currently
bedevilling and besetting Zimbabwe.
- That the law
is the pinnacle of all government efforts in trying to create
economic stability and that the judiciary and the legislature
are indispensable and invaluable aspects in national development.
Loosely interpreted,
the Social Contract Theory is based on the assumption that all men
live in a state of nature which is not ideal. In order to move away
from these conditions men enter into a contract with each other,
allowing them to live in peace and unity. Men thus ceed some of
their rights and arrogate them to an authority whom they entrust
with the task of safeguarding and maintaining them in the interests
of peace, tranquility and social development. The theory of the
social contract is the justification for the formation of the state
and it is subsequently the basis for democracy. All members within
a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract
by their choice to stay within the society without violating the
contract. Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers and proponents
of the theory.
In Zimbabwe, and
in a hoard of other authoritarian states, this theory has been misconstrued
by those in power to mean that when men enters into a social contract
they strip themselves of all fundamental human rights. It is assumed,
as evidence by the actions of the ruling government, that the best
interests of the nation are known by a few individuals who assume
the omniscient and omnipotent position of dictating what they perceive
as being in the best interests of the public. According to the doctrines
of contract a contract is mutual and is enforceable if and when
there is consensus amongst the contracting parties. A contract is
invalid and unlawful unless all parties agree to it voluntarily,
that is, no one has been pressured under the threat of physical
force to enter into it. In the political sense, when failings are
found in the social contract, there is always room to renegotiate
to change the terms, using constitutional methods such as elections,
the legislature and most importantly the Judiciary.
In our Zimbabwean case we have often witnessed acts of tyranny to
which there is no recourse for the citizens. We have witnessed legislation
which is not in any way reflective of a social agreement, being
forcefully foisted down the throats of defenceless citizens who
are not in agreement with the government`s terms. In such a case
there is no social contract to talk of when those whom Zimbabweans
entrusted with the duty of safeguarding their rights are the chief
culprits when it comes to infringing the same rights they undertook
to protect. Gideon the Governor is convinced that a Social contract
means the people gave him authority to impose policies on them without
proper consultation and involvement of the same people. It also
means imposing policies that do not seek to eradicate and reduce
poverty, policies that do not seek to protect and empower the small
to medium scale entrepreneur. Policies that do not recognise the
vendor and the cross border trader as entities and players in the
economic turnaround. He may prate and hide bind the thin veil of
language, misleading people that his policy is home grown solution
to Zimbabwe`s monetary and hyperinflationary woes, but the reality
is self evident as people struggle to survive each day, as people
are brutally assaulted for expressing divergent viewpoints from
those of the government, as people are denied the Right To vote
in 2008. How and where then does the social contract come in? The
government imposes the terms and conditions of the social contract
and proceeds way of enforcing them upon a reluctant and unwilling
citizen.
For a government
to claim legitimacy on the basis of a Social Contract there must
be a constitutional relationship between the government and the
people. This entails that representatives in government are chosen
freely by the people in an open, free and fair election where they
express their will without fear, intimidation or reprisal for their
choice. The Constitution must have been drafted and adopted through
an all inclusive and consultative constitution making process which
ensures that all the views, hopes and aspirations of the people
are captured and enshrined in one document. This can never be the
case for Zimbabwe which uses a constitution which can best be described
as alien to the people. The Lancaster House Agreement Document does
not capture the will of Zimbabweans; rather it enshrines the views
of a couple of individuals who were present at the peace negotiations.
The Governor needs must be reminded that we cannot skip the basics,
such as free and fair elections (in 2008) and an all inclusive constitution
making process, before we rush to invoke complex philosophical conceptions
such as the social contract.
A human rights based approach is the panacea
Thus
far having discussed the Social Contract Theory in detail, I now
come to the second point where Gideon admits that the law is necessary
for economic development. I essence what Zimbabwe needs is a human
rights based approach to development. A Human Rights Based approach,
according to the International Monetary Fund, is best captured in
the following six points;
- active protection
of civil and political liberties;
- pro-poor budgets
and growth strategies;
- policies geared
toward ensuring that people receive adequate food, education,
and health care;
- broad participation
in policy design;
- environmental
and social awareness; and
- efforts to
combat discrimination. They should have added a seventh one; adherence
to the rule of law and principles of democracy.
No significant
economic gains have ever been achieved in an environment without
the enforcement of the law and adherence to the rule of law. Conversely
no one nation has ever attained significant economic strides without
respect for all fundamental human rights. The Commissioner Commission
for Social Development in 1998 said;
"For too long
the development debate has ignored the fact that poverty tends to
be characterized not only by material insufficiency but also by
denial of rights. What is needed is a rights-based approach to development.
Ensuring essential political, economic and social entitlements and
human dignity for all people provides the rationale for policy.
These are not a luxury affordable only to the rich and powerful
but an indispensable component of national development efforts.''
It is needless
to emphasise the meaning of these wise words. In Zimbabwe, the problem
is the mistaken notion by the state that human rights are a fallacious
ideal brought into the minds of citizens by the west in order to
perpetuate the ouster of the current government. To it, the current
Government, the purpose of politics is not to serve the citizenry
but to perpetuate and maintain power. Human Rights issues and development
are secondary to their political ideal of power preservation and
maintenance. In so doing the government has enacted several draconian
laws such as the Access
to In formation and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), the Public
Order and Security Act (POSA), the Non-Governamental
Organisations Bill, the Interception of Communications Bill
, the recent Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Currency
Revaluation) Regulations, 2006 (SI 199/2006), and the innumerable
amendments to the constitution of Zimbabwe such as Amendment
Number 17 . As a result the economy and the citizens have suffered
because of this misguided approach.
Amartya Sen, Nobel
laureate in economics, in his book Development as Freedom, notes
that there is no record of a democratic country with a free press
(not so in the land of POSA and AIPPA) that has suffered from famine.
He argues that economic indicators, such as GDP per capita and income
distribution, fail to capture what is really important to people:
the freedoms associated with human rights . In May 2001, the United
Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights also
echoed this view in a forceful statement arguing for a better integration
of human rights in development strategies. Unfortunately it has
not yet dawned on the Zimbabwean Government that the only way out
of the economic quagmire we are drowning in is to respect fundamental
human rights, to respect the rule of law, to obey court judgements
and not to oust their jurisdiction, as happened in the case of amendment
number 17 to the constitution and in the case of the Currency Revaluation
Regulations which ousted the jurisdiction of the courts in deciding
whether an individual's rights had been infringed in that it gave
wide powers and protection to the police and state agents involved
in the search and confistication of money. The government should
also allow constitutional reform to take place and to restore investor
confidence.
It is because
of the bad Human Rights record that our government is shunned by
international monetary agents such as the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank. It is also as a result of the Corruption
and bad governance that our country is defined uncreditworthy. All
these issues Gideon must not skate around, he must be forthright
and open to his authorities and to the nation. Unless and until
the issues of corruption, bad governance are discussed, Zimbabweans
are given back their Human Rights and the human rights violations
are stopped, we cannot hope for an improvement to the situation.
No Foreign Direct Investment is to be expected, no International
Monetary organisation will lend us a dime and no Monetary Policy
will yield results.
The Governor in
his Reality Check admits that Government Labour and Civil Society
are complementary, yet the government has tried countless times
to shut down some Non-governmental organisations and charitable
organisations. It has also barred some organisations from distributing
aid which is crucial in poverty reduction and creating self sustainance,
it has also overtaxed the Labour sector and has often misused and
mismanaged the proceeds thereof. Let alone inadequately remunerated
labour. The Reality Check in the face of these imbalances is sheer
rhetoric meant to give a face of humane seeming to the external
world.
Deterioration
of the judicial framework is also one of the issues he identifies
as one of the Staggering Distortions. While his observation is correct,
he misses the point in assuming that the role of the judiciary is
to sheepishly complement government efforts in fighting economic
crimes. What needs must be addressed are issues of the Independence
of the Judiciary, Access to timeous justice by all and capacitation
of the judiciary in terms of competent and qualified manpower and
the resources necessary for the effective administration of justice.
Without an independent Judiciary, the major economic saboteurs who
are mostly government officials will never desist from destroying
the economy and they will always escape with impunity. In any case,
is the same government ready to abide by the Rule of Law and to
be bound by judicial decisions? How many times has the Daily News
been refused a licence after the Administrative Court declared that
it be granted one? Aren't the two freedoms of expression and freedom
to access information pertinent in development and democracy? Only
the judiciary can protect these freedoms if there is no interference
from the state and if there are no handpicked judges who are there
to uphold government`s legislation, no matter how patently unjust
it may be. The truth is the judiciary must never be capacitated
and resourced to pander to the whims and caprices of those in power,
but serve and meet the ends of justice.
The Governor also
refers to Legislative Grey areas. He correctly puts it out that
there is no clear Indigenisation and Empowerment Policy or legislation.
More often than not the government`s policy has not been for the
benefit of ordinary citizens but for the benefit of those on power
and those in the Ruling Elite and their relations. Closer to home
in South Africa, they have created what they term the Black Economic
Empowerment BEE concept, which seeks to economically strengthen
the formerly marginalised black people. The Empowerment concept
is a resounding success, and it is also import to state that South
Africa is a shining example of a constitutional democracy where
Human Rights are respected to the fullest. The Governor further
proposes the Clearing Up of the Operating Legal environment5. He
touches on the finalisation of investor friendly Mining legislation,
the announcement of a balanced, transparent indigenisation empowerment
framework and the finalisation of investor friendly statutes, all
by not later than 31 st of March 2007. If the truth be said, Gono`s
proposals are a far cry from addressing the real legislative concerns
that have drastically impacted on the economy. The starting point
is the constitution. Allow a constitutional reform process which
arrogates fundamental human rights in their entirety and totality.
The next point is to repeal and if possible remove pieces of legislation
such as the draconian POSA and AIPPA. These are fetters to fundamental
freedoms and they are the reasons why we are shunned by investors.
Investors can never be certain as to what the ruling government
can do next as it can amend the constitution and other legislation
willy-nilly in order to suit its partisan and political needs. A
case in point is the Land Reform Process where farms were grabbed
indiscriminately by the state and settled on mostly by government
officials in the ruling party. Some of the major victims were companies
that had invested in farms. Commercial farmers also lost their farms
yet they are the ones that were instrumental in economic stability,
as they were engaged in organised commercial farming of produce
that would earn the country the much needed foreign currency. If
legislation does not protect investors, Zimbabwe will remain a highly
risk investment terrain and investors will shun it. And in any case
no one invests in an autocratic state, except smugglers and true
economic thugs.
Even if legislation
is enacted and it has selective application in that it only affects
the poor, the nation can never be guaranteed of stability. Currently
the government is arresting in alarming numbers, small alluvial
gold panners alleging that they are sabotaging the economy. The
real culprits are Ministers in government who own mines, some of
whom are on international lists for being engaged in the theft and
smuggling of diamonds ( Blood Diamonds). There are multiple farm
owners in government but nothing has been done to bring them to
book or at least to compel them to cede some of the farms back to
the state. Even if Indigenisation and Empowerment legislation is
promulgated, the obvious result is that the benefits will be enjoyed
by those in the ruling government, and obviously not the poor. With
the current levels of unemployment, Gideon should be talking of
empowering the small scale miners they are busy arresting in the
pretext of protecting the economy. We all remember the adverse and
permanent effects of Operation Murambatsvina. While the process
claimed to rid the urban areas of illegal settlers and illegal black
market activities, it only affected the poor who lived bearably
legal lives. The real culprits a re still engaged in illegal activities.
The law skirts around them because they are powerful.
In 2001, a time
when the current government was at the height of its human rights
violation record the IMF Managing Director Horst Köhler, emphasized
the participation of the poor in the development process and suggested
that governments need to create an environment in which the poor
can protect, sustain, and enrich their livelihoods. This approach,
which seeks to strengthen countries' sense of "ownership" of their
economic strategies, is neither very far from, nor incompatible
with, a rights-based strategy. It is pertinent that the poor are
protected and empowered. In all cases the poor have no protection
from inflation and economic decline. Their plight is only worsened
when their incomes are eroded as prices rise faster than their incomes.
The rich are shielded from inflation in the sense that they own
property, which appreciates in value as inflation escalates. Hence
it is meaningless to talk of indigenisation and empowerment in the
monetary policy.
The International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states in its article
that . All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue
of that right they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development. It also
requires that state parties to the Covenant should put in place
all the necessary measures to ensure that economic security, access
to education, paid employment, health security (access to low-cost
preventive and curative medical care), food security (access to
basic foodstuffs and safe water), and political security of the
individual and adherence to the rule of law the rule of law, responsibility,
participation and transparency are put in place as the core developmental
principles for the development of nations and of mankind. All these
are an integral part of the most basic and fundamental human rights
of all. However in our Zimbabwean context these have not yet been
fully given their priority by the state. It is clear from the Budget
earlier presented by Herbet Murerwa that no measures aimed at poverty
reduction are yet in place to reduce the plight of the poor in society.
In conclusion,
Gono in his Monetary Policy Review statement clearly and correctly
states that "we need to realise that it is better for us to rely
on a spirit of partnership in whatever we do as a country and in
our various concerns than on controls after controls, legislation
after legislation and regulation after regulation." If he finally
realises this point. That there is need for robust and unambiguous
legislation, he should openly convey the message to his seniors
and colleagues in government, because they are the ones who impose
legislation after legislation whenever the need arises to suit their
political agenda instead of the national agenda. It is clear that
no one from the ruling government will strictly adhere to or subscribe
to Gono`s ideals and propositions. What we will witness in the remaining
part of the year is a massive deviation from what Gideon proposed.
*Tatenda Chiware
is an intern with the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
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
|
