OPINION: What time is it in Zimbabwe? Is it indigenisation time? If black economic empowerment is good for South Africa, why should indigenisation be bad for Zimbabwe? 

If the three principal political parties agreed that at this defining hour in Zimbabwe’s history, the country’s Cabinet needed a portfolio to deal with indigenisation and economic empowerment, who has the place and standing to be critical of the implementation of laws that are already on Zimbabwe’s statutes?

At the core of the indigenisation/economic empowerment debate is the unresolved issue of the impact of colonialism on Zimbabwe’s political economy. 

An argument has been made and will continue to be made that blacks are poor because colonialism put God given resources out of reach to them and the process of resource diversion was non-market driven hence the need for the state to intervene to correct such historically determined distortions and inequity.

Some will look at the current indigenisation laws are a poison pill while others will regard them as a vitamin for social and economic change. 

The Zimbabwe we see today is a consequence of its past. After 30 years of independence, there can be no better time to ask what is good for Zimbabwe. The last 30 years has seen some fundamental political, economic and social changes.

It cannot be denied that a number of Zimbabweans for whom independence would have meant more have elected to vote with their feet and in doing so excluded themselves from any empowerment project that may be prosecuted in their name.  What has been described as a “brain drain” is real in the context of Zimbabwe. 

With the land reform programme having played itself out, we have not witnessed a reversal of the brain drain suggesting that the priorities of black Zimbabweans may not be the same at the political level.

The majority of Zimbabweans is more economically vulnerable and lack the resources required to underpin a transparent and commercially driven asset transfer process. The frontiers of poverty have not been reduced and are unlikely to be reduced by policies that are not forward looking.

The indigenisation law seeks to change the parentage of corporate entities fully knowing that changes at shareholding level have nothing to do with the performance of the company in question. History and experience has demonstrated that it is conceivable to have 100 percent of nothing and it may very well be desirable to have 0 percent of something that produces the kind of value that advances the national cause.

The need to transform the Zimbabwean economy in terms of the faces of the key drivers of economic change cannot be understated, as is the need to create an environment that can engender confidence and inspire citizens to believe in the future. 

Some can argue that although the message of indigenisation is understandable and merits support but cynics would not be unjustified to question the integrity of the messenger and the appearance of partisanship in the execution.

Indigenisation can be used as a political weapon especially given the transitional nature of the inclusive government. There is nothing to prevent the implementation being selective and targeted at perceived political enemies.

Will the country benefit in terms of efficiency and growth? Since independence, the state has invested in various projects and programmes as a principal and regrettably the experience has not been rewarding to suggest that any state administered system of patronage has its own inherent dangers of failure.

The credibility of the gatekeepers has to be one of the issues that have to be considered. Equally the policy seeks to empower people who were as at 197; considered to be previously disadvantaged by colonialism forgetting that many 30-year-old Zimbabweans have transformed themselves without the assistance of any empowerment legislation. It is not clear what will happen to shareholders who are white but under the age of 30 who have through hard work and initiative made money in the targeted sectors.

As we look at the motivation of the indigenisation law, we cannot help but reflect on what Zimbabwe needs at this juncture in its development history. It needs investment in the knowledge that any such injection will be value adding and without it the prospect for renewal and growth is doomed. 

The minerals will remain in the ground so will the land acquired remain underutilised unless a dynamic approach to development is taken. It is never too late to ask what kind of Zimbabwe do we want to see.

To what extent will the empowerment agenda militate against the progress of the country? It should be a Zimbabwe that can attract capital and respect the rights of persons and property. It should be a Zimbabwe that looks forward in the knowledge that any investment into the country lifts the country up. 

When I go to a back, for instance, all I would be looking for is service and the moment I worry about where the shares reside I must know that the end is near. Progressive and successful countries are more concerned about jobs and economic prosperity than parentage of companies because in the final analysis the Zimbabwean Companies Act makes no distinction between a foreign and domestic owned company. They are all treated as corporate citizens that have to pay their taxes from whi9ch the state can derive income to support the kind of programs necessary for poverty alleviation. – ZimOnline