What has gone wrong over the last 30 years?

When President Robert Mugabe stood up to take the salute at the Zimbabwe independence celebrations on 18 April 2010, it was a different man to the one who had the same honour 30 years earlier. Looking back over the past 30 years in our northern neighbour, it is clear that the international community and its institutions are not without blame, and there are important lessons for South Africa.

Anyone listening to the recording or reading the independence speech that President Mugabe delivered on 18 April 1980 is immediately struck by the humility of the man and his conciliatory message at the time. Even more striking is the contrast to his verbal outbursts of late.

What has happened?

There are many explanations and theories, but at the root lies a failed economy. Zimbabwe not long ago boasted the world's highest inflation rate - 231 million percent a year - and a 90% unemployment rate.

Zimbabwe is a country richly endowed with natural resources and immense agricultural potential. No wonder then that Zimbabwe at independence was described as the bread basket of southern Africa and overall a star performer in Africa.

Today Zimbabwe is a basket case, an agricultural disaster and underperformer.

Why?

An interesting observation was made by the well-known Stellenbosch University academic and analyst, Dr Willie Breytenbach. In a SABC radio interview, he observed that Mugabe’s failure and oversight to implement a structured and well-balanced black economic empowerment (BEE) policy in Zimbabwe may be an important reason.

Considering the situation in Zimbabwe today, it is perhaps not only a pity for that country, but to some extent also a pity for South Africa.

In the absence of a BEE policy in Zimbabwe, it did not allow for the establishment and development of a strong and vibrant black middle class capable of building a durable and diversified economy, and entrepreneurial spirit which is so indispensable for sustainable economic growth.

South Africa also could have benefited hugely from a Zimbabwean BEE exercise. Lessons learnt from the Zimbabwean experience could be of immense value – as a warning to South Africa to stay clear of repeating the same errors. Optimistically, it even might have prevented  BEE in South African from becoming such a controversial issue – except, of course, for those very few well-connected and well-placed individuals who have become rich overnight and South Africa’s latest contribution to the dictionary – the word “tenderpreneur”.

Sadly, that is not to be. But despite all its problems and shortcomings, Breytenbach is of the opinion that BEE is perhaps one of the things that South Africa got right and which distinguished it from Zimbabwe.

Sad role of the IMF and World Bank

As the years passed and the Zimbabwean economy came under increasing pressure, the Mugabe government, like so many other newly independent states, had to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank for assistance.

These institutions and other donors were willing to aid, but under strict conditions - written into what was the vogue at the time for assistance to developing countries, the so-called economic structural adjustment plans (ESAPs) that many economists will tell was the proverbial kiss of death for Zimbabwe.

Escalating debt, exacerbated by years of severe drought in a country relying heavily on its commercial agricultural sector, played havoc with any good intentions the Mugabe government might have had.  Ironically, Zimbabwe had no option but to ask for more assistance from the same institutions that put the country in its predicament in the first place.

For Zimbabwe, as with other poor developing countries, the implementation of the ESAP led to its reduced spending on issues such as health, education and development. Debt repayment and other economic policies aimed at the promotion of globalisation have been made priority.

Effectively, the IMF and World Bank demanded that poor nations lower the standard of living of their people. For Zimbabwe, the effect was devastating, and something such as its education system - of which it once could be proud - collapsed.

The loan agreements that were signed became more strict and prescriptive and stretched Zimbabwe’s foreign and domestic debt to unmanageable proportions and it brought more hardship and suffering to the people of Zimbabwe.

Growing discontent and an increasing vociferous opposition led by the trade unions drove Mugabe into a corner and a position to which he was unaccustomed.

Confronted by mounting problems, and fast losing his grip on the control panels of state; and witnessing with alarm his dwindling influence - Mugabe decided his only way out if he were to retain power would be to go on the attack by playing his last ace: the unresolved and emotional land issue.

Britain not without blame

Whether by design or sheer luck, the British - as former colonial master - left Mugabe with this one card to play, and he played it with a vengeance.

Under the Lancaster Agreement, which granted Zimbabwe its independence, Britain had certain obligations to help settle the burning and outstanding land redistribution issue.

With his back to the wall, Mugabe accused Britain for retracting on its commitments under the Lancaster Agreement which, according to him, is the reason for the lack of progress in land redistribution and restitution in Zimbabwe.

He further blamed the few thousand white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe for their intransigence and unwillingness to participate like true patriots in land redistribution and restitution.

The result and effect of Mugabe’s land policy is well known today.

Land is, and will understandably, always remain an emotional issue anywhere in the world.

Zimbabwe, however, is a prime example of how badly things can go wrong.

South Africa also is confronted by a similar problem. Land redistribution and restitution is a necessity upon which everyone across the political spectrum agrees; while in South Africa, the land issue has the potential to become much more intense and explosive than in Zimbabwe.

The message from Zimbabwe to South Africa, on the 30th birthday of its independence, is to take note of its failed land policy and to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Hope fading again?

With the formation of a unity government last year, there was renewed hope that finally things could be turned around. Last year, the economy at 5.1% growth did better than the projected 4.7%.

Then the implementation of the political settlement stalled and Finance Minister Tendai Biti last week said that due to political uncertainty, the country is likely to cut its 2010 economic growth forecast from 7.7% to 4.8%.

In the face of the uncertainty, Zimbabwe has received only $2.9 million from donors of the $810m required to finance its budget deficit. The economy has shrunk by 40% between 2000 and 2008 alone, and at least $10 billion is required to fix it.