Three stories from Zimbabwe caught my eye in the last few days:
A new “twinning” program will pair black farmers with Chinese agricultural investors in verdant Mashonaland East. There are a few points here to consider.
The first is that white farmers who have lost their land do not seem pleased. but the program is geared toward empowering black farmers and this program theoretically will do that, advance the country’s agricultural trade, and presumably fuel Zimbabwe’s economy as a whole. The inclination might be to see this as part and parcel of Robert Mugabe’s capriciousness in dealing with land redistribution. But land redistribution was always necessary. The problem always was that Mugabe used it as a political weapon to threaten white farmers (and other political enemies) into quiescence. The irony is that “twinning” actually seems to hint at the development of a larger plan that has for so long been lacking. Of course another angle on this is to wonder about China’s role. Many are wary of the outsized Chinese interest across Africa. Perhaps they come as a wolf in sheep’s clothing to the rich Zimbabwean farmlands. But before we develop some knee-jerk “yellow peril” conceptions of Chinese designs on Africa, maybe we should instead wonder why it is that it took the Chinese to step up to do something that surely some countries in the West could have done.
**********
The BBC recently broke a story about absenteeism and under-qualification in the Zimbabwean civil service. Another appalling story from Zimbabwe, right? Well, sure. The news isn’t good. But look more closely:
The audit was carried out by Ernst and Young India in 2010 and covered the period 2007-9.
This was a period when Zimbabwe’s economy was in meltdown – because of run-away inflation, the monthly salary of a teacher hardly paid for a single bus fare.
This might partly explain why on the day of the audit, some 13,000 public workers were absent – from a total of 180,000.
It found that 75,000 state workers did not have the qualifications needed to do the job.
Correspondents say little has changed now.
It seems to me that we need to separate a couple of issues here. First, looking at data from 2007 to 2009 tells us a great deal about the period from 2007 to 2009. But all this data does is confirm what we sort of already knew. To wit: Things in Zimbabwe were awful in the period from 2007 to 2009. I’m not sure what it tells us about Zimbabwe now. Absenteeism during a period of historically skyrocketing inflation and general economic and political chaos isn’t exactly the sort of thing that should lead one to the fainting couch. As for the lack of qualifications of public sector employees, well, color me decidedly unconcerned. I’d need a lot more data to decide which workers lack which qualifications. My guess is that many of these positions would function perfectly well with a capable but “unqualified” person if that person received training.
I would suspect that my credentials as a critic of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe in the last decade is well established enough that I don’t run the risk of being called an apologist when I say that this seems like a ginned up story.
**********
But if you need reassurance of my skepical bona fides, well, let’s just say that I am wary of the declaration that Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC recently recommenced the constitutional talks that have dragged on (and mostly off) for more than two years now. The parties recently “reach[ed] a compromise on how to analyse views gathered from the public.” If that sounds like exactly the sort of impediment that truly motivated actors would not allow to get in the way of progress to begin with, well, we’re on the same page. I’ve said all along that time is on Mugabe’s side. If he does not want to be tied down to any real agreement — and he does not; the status quo very much benefits him — then intermittent talks with only the barest of progress redound to his goals. Will there be elections later this year? Who knows? And my guess is that Mugabe very much does not care. He’ll hold elections when he thinks he is in the strongest position to hold elections. And if somehow he does not win? Well, he’ll almost certainly “win.” And for someone in Mugabe’s position “winning” is as good as winning.
