Solzhenitsyn
25th July 2002, 08:45
Is Zimbabwe facing famine?
By Norman Reynolds
Mail & Guardian (SA)
May 09, 2001
Norman Reynolds is a former Chief Economist to the Zimbabwe Government. This piece represents his own personal opinions
Mugabe will see a future famine as an opportunity to threaten Zimbabweans into submission to his will. What should the regional and international community do to ensure that famine is averted?
There will soon be food shortages in Zimbabwe. The political situation, the run up to next year's Presidential elections, the history of Mugabe's use of food as patronage, and the present government's inability to deal with reality and to treat citizens properly suggest that the food shortage can easily become famine on a massive scale. How can this be avoided? What is the role of donors?
The doyen of studies on food entitlements, Amartya Sen, makes the basic point that, "There is no fixed relation between food and famine". "Nobody Need Starve" is the apt title of one of his papers.
Soon after Zimbabwe's Independence, in 1981/82, the first drought struck the southern regions, mainly Matabeleland and thus amongst tribes that were either not part of ZANU or of Mugabe's northern faction. As Chief Economist at that time, I wrote a memo to Bernard Chidzero, my excellent Minister of Finance and Economic Development, arguing for a community public works programme to demonstrate that Mugabe's earlier call for "reconciliation" was not just between white and black but also, and more fundamentally, had to be between black and black. Chidzero backed it. Mugabe turned it down. There was real hunger in the south that year and families could not afford to buy feed for their cattle or to pay school and other costs.
The next year Mugabe unleashed his attack on the people of Matabeleland, a human rights travesty that is well documented, but for which no apology has been forthcoming.
The southern drought was but a dress rehearsal for the big drought of 1982/83 that devastated much of southern Africa. This time I argued for a progressive "right to work" model of community public works so that those who lost income, had the means to buy food, feed cattle and pay for school and other domestic needs. Indeed, I sought to make it the on-going model, drought or no drought, that would secure economically those who wanted more income and training (work and training rights) in a form that allowed communities to form development budgets for local physical and human development. Chidzero again supported it but Mugabe turned it down in favour of a crass programme to "deliver" food to people. I warned Cabinet that this would immobilise the rural population as they sat under the village tree waiting for an official truck to deliver food from time to time. It did not answer how food would be distributed or how people would be able to attend to their other "cash" needs. Moreover, it would weaken linkages within the economy, leading to a more severe downturn than was necessary.
To begin with Mugabe gained a PR victory. People said, "We are eating with Mugabe!" But as the months went by, people realised how Mugabe was using food to control and to play political games amongst and between them. They were turned into children of the state. They lost control of their lives. Communities became fractious. After five months, the rural population saw the light. They became angry and drove Ministers out of the countryside. Then Mugabe agreed to a very limited state decreed public works programme which was halted one day, with most projects incomplete, to save money.
A country affected by frequent drought and with large and increasing poverty would normally devise programmes that secured peoples' welfare and provided the means for them to act locally. In Zimbabwe, the economy and citizen rights have been increasingly sacrificed to Mugabe's personal ends. There has been no attempt to devolve resources to community level and to develop the rights of each citizen to access equally those funds for various forms of public or of private investment. Sadly, in varying degree, this is an Africa-wide failure.
Sen argues that famine hardly ever occurs in independent and democratic countries and he sites Zimbabwe, before 1995, as such an example. Sen has not looked closely at the inner workings of the politico-administrative - patronage system used in Zimbabwe. Despite being a democracy, Mugabe has steadily eroded the underlying economic rights of citizens to enjoy the means to act to look after themselves, their families and communities and so has corrupted the very essence of democratic behaviour by opening society to his manipulation. Every action he has taken has advanced the narrow interests of the party and of his position within it.
Mugabe and his cronies are now estranged from the mass of citizens. This alienation, as in Ireland and in Bengal, history warns us, is ripe ground for official famine creation. To this must be added the lack of jobs, of a working countryside and thus of income in the hands of so many families which means that people do not have the basic means, purchasing power, to look after themselves. Mugabe will see this imminent nightmare as the next opportunity to further threaten Zimbabweans into submission to his will.
Famine, upon largely man made food shortages, might be just a few months away. What can or must the regional and international community do to ensure that famine is averted? Can the fact of food shortages be used as the entry point to bolster citizen economic rights and open up their democratic space prior to the upcoming residential elections? If the donors do not achieve the latter, can they avoid the former?
Mugabe would hope to be able to import food and to use that supply in state hands to wreak additional havoc in society by distribution through the party, the so-called War Veterans and the nefarious secret service. He undoubtedly will use that power over life and death to elicit party support and commitments to vote for him. The logic states that he need only import enough food to feed 51% of the population. The rest would have no party-determined right to eat and no means to buy it.
Zimbabwe's shattered economy cannot provide the exports to pay for all that the country needs to import, notably energy and food. The donors must not separate this fact from the issue of financing or of sending food. They must tie any further support to Zimbabwe for whatever purpose to a single programme that requires that all support leads to the direct provision of "community budgets" as the one means to create food equity and open democratic space. These budgets are equally owned by all adult community members and are distributed through exchangeable work rights so that work and income gains a local value. There must be no room for food handouts or even state managed public works. Families must be made financially competent to buy food and to resurrect community living and services.
All donor relations with Zimbabwe should be managed through two Trusts, one outside and one inside Zimbabwe. In that way it can be a "People to People" programme outside Mugabe's control. It can be likened to a form of constructive boycott of the state apparatus.
Donor-provided finance to fund imports is exchanged for Z$ to fund local community budgets. The original foreign exchange is held by the Trust in Zimbabwe and only released for imports as the community budgets are spent. Food grants are sold into the domestic market and those Z$ used to support community budgets. If Mugabe obstructs the programme, spending will slow as will the related release of the foreign currency. In that way, Mugabe's government has to help facilitate community management. Any opposition will cost Mugabe the big prize he seeks: the foreign exchange for imports.
Mugabe will cry that this is meddling in Zimbabwe's internal affairs. Since he cannot be trusted, he must not be given a choice. The Constitutional construct of South Africa, community led development, demands that any aid provided first build community and citizen rights. In that way South Africans and the citizens of all involved countries will stand by Zimbabwe's citizens, creating the basis for economic rights and thus opening up democratic practice: the two prerequisites to ensure there will be no famine.
A profile of the tyrant by left of centre BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/744174.stm
A rather excellent photograph of Mugabe chumming it up with fellow dictator and Che-lives.com darling, Fidel Casto: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../170/1v0yu.html (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020716/170/1v0yu.html)
As with any Socialist mass-murderer, Mugabe has his very own cadre of left-wing apologists.
From the very leftist "Black British" mag New African:
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terra...00/nacs0501.htm (http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/lf41/na/may00/nacs0501.htm)
More sycophancy from noted leftist Koigi Wamwere via the Black Business Journal
http://www.bbjonline.com/mugabe-is-right.html
For a small bit of irony surf here: http://www.thp.org/prize/88/mugabe.htm
(Yes, the Hunger Project is well meaning but misguided)
. . . and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/afr...ica/default.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/default.stm)
Finally, the brave souls that dare stand against Mugabe: http://www.mdczimbabwe.com/
. . . and really good idea: http://www.cbn.co.za/issue/current/schoo.htm
By Norman Reynolds
Mail & Guardian (SA)
May 09, 2001
Norman Reynolds is a former Chief Economist to the Zimbabwe Government. This piece represents his own personal opinions
Mugabe will see a future famine as an opportunity to threaten Zimbabweans into submission to his will. What should the regional and international community do to ensure that famine is averted?
There will soon be food shortages in Zimbabwe. The political situation, the run up to next year's Presidential elections, the history of Mugabe's use of food as patronage, and the present government's inability to deal with reality and to treat citizens properly suggest that the food shortage can easily become famine on a massive scale. How can this be avoided? What is the role of donors?
The doyen of studies on food entitlements, Amartya Sen, makes the basic point that, "There is no fixed relation between food and famine". "Nobody Need Starve" is the apt title of one of his papers.
Soon after Zimbabwe's Independence, in 1981/82, the first drought struck the southern regions, mainly Matabeleland and thus amongst tribes that were either not part of ZANU or of Mugabe's northern faction. As Chief Economist at that time, I wrote a memo to Bernard Chidzero, my excellent Minister of Finance and Economic Development, arguing for a community public works programme to demonstrate that Mugabe's earlier call for "reconciliation" was not just between white and black but also, and more fundamentally, had to be between black and black. Chidzero backed it. Mugabe turned it down. There was real hunger in the south that year and families could not afford to buy feed for their cattle or to pay school and other costs.
The next year Mugabe unleashed his attack on the people of Matabeleland, a human rights travesty that is well documented, but for which no apology has been forthcoming.
The southern drought was but a dress rehearsal for the big drought of 1982/83 that devastated much of southern Africa. This time I argued for a progressive "right to work" model of community public works so that those who lost income, had the means to buy food, feed cattle and pay for school and other domestic needs. Indeed, I sought to make it the on-going model, drought or no drought, that would secure economically those who wanted more income and training (work and training rights) in a form that allowed communities to form development budgets for local physical and human development. Chidzero again supported it but Mugabe turned it down in favour of a crass programme to "deliver" food to people. I warned Cabinet that this would immobilise the rural population as they sat under the village tree waiting for an official truck to deliver food from time to time. It did not answer how food would be distributed or how people would be able to attend to their other "cash" needs. Moreover, it would weaken linkages within the economy, leading to a more severe downturn than was necessary.
To begin with Mugabe gained a PR victory. People said, "We are eating with Mugabe!" But as the months went by, people realised how Mugabe was using food to control and to play political games amongst and between them. They were turned into children of the state. They lost control of their lives. Communities became fractious. After five months, the rural population saw the light. They became angry and drove Ministers out of the countryside. Then Mugabe agreed to a very limited state decreed public works programme which was halted one day, with most projects incomplete, to save money.
A country affected by frequent drought and with large and increasing poverty would normally devise programmes that secured peoples' welfare and provided the means for them to act locally. In Zimbabwe, the economy and citizen rights have been increasingly sacrificed to Mugabe's personal ends. There has been no attempt to devolve resources to community level and to develop the rights of each citizen to access equally those funds for various forms of public or of private investment. Sadly, in varying degree, this is an Africa-wide failure.
Sen argues that famine hardly ever occurs in independent and democratic countries and he sites Zimbabwe, before 1995, as such an example. Sen has not looked closely at the inner workings of the politico-administrative - patronage system used in Zimbabwe. Despite being a democracy, Mugabe has steadily eroded the underlying economic rights of citizens to enjoy the means to act to look after themselves, their families and communities and so has corrupted the very essence of democratic behaviour by opening society to his manipulation. Every action he has taken has advanced the narrow interests of the party and of his position within it.
Mugabe and his cronies are now estranged from the mass of citizens. This alienation, as in Ireland and in Bengal, history warns us, is ripe ground for official famine creation. To this must be added the lack of jobs, of a working countryside and thus of income in the hands of so many families which means that people do not have the basic means, purchasing power, to look after themselves. Mugabe will see this imminent nightmare as the next opportunity to further threaten Zimbabweans into submission to his will.
Famine, upon largely man made food shortages, might be just a few months away. What can or must the regional and international community do to ensure that famine is averted? Can the fact of food shortages be used as the entry point to bolster citizen economic rights and open up their democratic space prior to the upcoming residential elections? If the donors do not achieve the latter, can they avoid the former?
Mugabe would hope to be able to import food and to use that supply in state hands to wreak additional havoc in society by distribution through the party, the so-called War Veterans and the nefarious secret service. He undoubtedly will use that power over life and death to elicit party support and commitments to vote for him. The logic states that he need only import enough food to feed 51% of the population. The rest would have no party-determined right to eat and no means to buy it.
Zimbabwe's shattered economy cannot provide the exports to pay for all that the country needs to import, notably energy and food. The donors must not separate this fact from the issue of financing or of sending food. They must tie any further support to Zimbabwe for whatever purpose to a single programme that requires that all support leads to the direct provision of "community budgets" as the one means to create food equity and open democratic space. These budgets are equally owned by all adult community members and are distributed through exchangeable work rights so that work and income gains a local value. There must be no room for food handouts or even state managed public works. Families must be made financially competent to buy food and to resurrect community living and services.
All donor relations with Zimbabwe should be managed through two Trusts, one outside and one inside Zimbabwe. In that way it can be a "People to People" programme outside Mugabe's control. It can be likened to a form of constructive boycott of the state apparatus.
Donor-provided finance to fund imports is exchanged for Z$ to fund local community budgets. The original foreign exchange is held by the Trust in Zimbabwe and only released for imports as the community budgets are spent. Food grants are sold into the domestic market and those Z$ used to support community budgets. If Mugabe obstructs the programme, spending will slow as will the related release of the foreign currency. In that way, Mugabe's government has to help facilitate community management. Any opposition will cost Mugabe the big prize he seeks: the foreign exchange for imports.
Mugabe will cry that this is meddling in Zimbabwe's internal affairs. Since he cannot be trusted, he must not be given a choice. The Constitutional construct of South Africa, community led development, demands that any aid provided first build community and citizen rights. In that way South Africans and the citizens of all involved countries will stand by Zimbabwe's citizens, creating the basis for economic rights and thus opening up democratic practice: the two prerequisites to ensure there will be no famine.
A profile of the tyrant by left of centre BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/744174.stm
A rather excellent photograph of Mugabe chumming it up with fellow dictator and Che-lives.com darling, Fidel Casto: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../170/1v0yu.html (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020716/170/1v0yu.html)
As with any Socialist mass-murderer, Mugabe has his very own cadre of left-wing apologists.
From the very leftist "Black British" mag New African:
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terra...00/nacs0501.htm (http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/lf41/na/may00/nacs0501.htm)
More sycophancy from noted leftist Koigi Wamwere via the Black Business Journal
http://www.bbjonline.com/mugabe-is-right.html
For a small bit of irony surf here: http://www.thp.org/prize/88/mugabe.htm
(Yes, the Hunger Project is well meaning but misguided)
. . . and here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/afr...ica/default.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/default.stm)
Finally, the brave souls that dare stand against Mugabe: http://www.mdczimbabwe.com/
. . . and really good idea: http://www.cbn.co.za/issue/current/schoo.htm