This time credit goes to Minister of finance Patrick Chinamasa and his colleagues. They managed to draft an effective plan on how to raise funds and how to retain donor confidence, as well as investments. The minister is on record saying that Zimbabwe would sharply reduce its public sector wage bill from 82% to 52% by 2019 and improve fiscal discipline.
The topic has since raised a lot of eyebrows and criticism. Some are even saying that this is the last kick of a dying government. But the thing is, we might say all that about the matter, but the truth is told, it is perfect, positive and welcomed development. After all, Domenico Fanizza, who was leading an IMF delegation to asses Zimbabwe’s economic reforms, said “I will be happy if your creditors know about it and it will change things for you. It’s not a question of government not affording it.
Creditors are not after the money but the principle.” I mean let us face it. The Zimbabwean government is seeking to restore relations with the International Monetary Fund and the Western donors and boost the economy. What is wrong with that? In a document circulated to legislators, the government wants to set a $10 billion Lands Compensation Fund to settle the matter that has complicated Zimbabwe’s efforts to re-engage international monetary funds. These funds would be supported through levies and taxes imposed on beneficiaries of the land reform program.
When I came across an article in a South African publication titled “Zimbabwe to compensate mainly white farmers who lost land in 2000” my first thoughts were that the South African critiques have started to spread lies. Further, tarnish the country’s image worse still in a time when their country hangs between being junk listed and being bankrupt.
My fears where not entirely wrong “farmers may be (and would be) compensated for both land and improvements as well as for equipment acquired by the government during the often violent seizures of properties that began in 2000.” Although I question the writer’s mention of ‘violent seizures’ I do not entirely criticize his stance because the claim is valid but not relevant to mention in this case.
I mean when are we going to stop painting whatever that happens in Zimbabwe with red paint. Seriously! I feel that we should try to make some of these articles clear. If you want to write about history, then do so and make it clear. Anyway, that is not my focus today.
Let us brush aside comments from the likes of Mr Spies from Pretoria, South Africa, who was quoted in the said article commenting on the finance ministry’s documents that he had not yet read. He said “The farmers have lost everything and up to now, the undertakings that were given for compensation were only for improvements and implements. If they added land to the equation, it could be a breakthrough.”
This is the problem that we have with critics from South Africa, and elsewhere, they rush to throw comments on Zimbabwe and have a lot to say about a situation that they have no idea of or that they know little of. If Mr Spies had read through the ministry’s announcement, he would have known that the government has now included the land in the equation. I am just waiting to see what his comments will be. Will he be honest and frank enough to say yeah now that is a breakthrough.
Anyway, I will not blame him if he doesn’t because whether he does or not, Zimbabwe is set to achieve its goals. And also it is in the habit of those who enjoy red painting the Zimbabwe government. For instance, Herbert Moyo wrote on The Mail and Guardian in August last year an article saying “Zim’s white farmers brace themselves for more land grabs.” I here wonder if he is going to write another one this time titled “Zim’s white farmers brace themselves for land returns.
Will this happen in Zimbabwe? Will this last?
“The question, however, should be; Is the government willing to implement policies that bring positive development. Talk is always cheap. Putting it on paper is one thing but taking action is another. As optimistic as some may be, this remains under the shadow of canning ministers who are most often than not, at strains to fatten their stomachs under the guise of policymaking and implementation. Its remains in the future, to be seen.