The Politics of Despair

Nothing is working anymore, potholes, no water, erratic power, business conditions very serious, corruption totally out of control. I could extend that list – we are a much more unequal society; our state-controlled education system has virtually collapsed our state-controlled health system simply no longer works. Our local University, with 29 000 students, is on strike and examinations have been delayed, putting all these young people’s future in jeopardy.

What has gone wrong? All of the older men in the group could remember the days when things were very different. In some cases, they related that “things were better in the Rhodesian days”.

I listened to a lecture by a World Bank economist who has just received a Nobel Prize for a thesis on the “Importance of Institutions” the other day and what impressed me was the way he dealt with world history in all countries. He described the colonial era that had impacted the majority of countries that now make up the United Nations. He outlined how many of the colonial States like Zimbabwe were settled by people from the more developed countries like Britain, France, Belgium and Holland. He listed the USA as one of these countries.

The settler Governments brought to their new host countries all the things that had been established in Europe after many centuries of trial and error – a legal system and the rule of law, property rights, constitutional law, a form of democratic government to represent not the majority but the interests of the settlers. Despite their minority status the settlers completely dominated these States but always ruled in their interest. Inevitably the settlers had a standard of living that was far above that of the majority. The former controlled all the institutions of the State, but in their interests.

So, by 1980 when our settler government was removed from power and replaced by a majority government, Zimbabwe had a small but diversified economy that delivered a high standard of living to a minority, made up mostly of the white settler population. A democracy that represented this elite had low levels of corruption and provided services in education and health that served the minority and at a high level. Life expectancy was about 64, a black elite had been created by a system of education that had been based on what the whites enjoyed but a real minority. Population growth was 3,9 per cent per annum meaning that our population doubled every 18 years. The currency was strong at 1:2 against the US dollar.

Our first Cabinet, appointed by the new Government after the first general election based on majority rule was well educated and included elements of the former white settler regime. The Prime Minister appointed at that time was Robert Mugabe. A brilliant intellectual with several degrees including a degree in economics and law, was a devoted Anglophile – always bought his suits in the UK and recognised the British royalty, but little else. His ambition was to be head of a one-Party State which he controlled 100 per cent.

His first target was the other major nationalist Party that had fought the war of liberation from about 1962 to 1980, ZAPU. Led by perhaps the first real national leader, Joshua Nkomo. The campaign against this minority group started in 1983 and lasted until 1987 when Nkomo gave in and accepted absorption into the main Party, ZANU. Zimbabwe became the classical African State at the time, one Party in charge with a strong man at the center who brooked no challenges.

The remnants of the white settler regime – about 50 000 individuals retreated into the private sector and became even more wealthy and the famous white farmers who had created a highly productive and efficient farm system on 16 million hectares of land, largely remained and for the next 20 years they were the main source of economic growth which was steady at about 5 per cent. The institutions created by the settlers – a Judicial system, property rights, education and health services, railways and an airline and infrastructure that was the envy of much of Africa were retained and expanded to meet the needs of the majority.

Mr Mugabe religiously held elections every few years, based on a constitution that he inherited in 1980 with modifications. But they were hardly democratic. After 1990, ZANU was the only party allowed to fight the elections and the first major institutional casualty after Independence and majority rule was democracy. In 2000, following the first major challenge to his hegemony, Mr Mugabe destroyed property rights and subverted the rule of law and the constitution. He did this to defend his grip on power and Zimbabwe became a corrupt autocracy. This was the second destruction of institutions inherited from the settler regime.

The third, was the economy and by 2008, Zimbabwe was a failed State. Millions fled the chaos, life expectancy crashed, infant mortality rose to record levels and eventually regional States had to step in and force a return to democracy in 2008. The opposition won the election by a wide margin but regional States, concerned about their own tenuous grip on power, forced the opposition into a power sharing deal which maintained Mugabe’s grip on power.

Our World Bank economist showed data that clearly demonstrated the impact of strong institutions on all sorts of indices – GDP, Education, Health, Life expectancy, Child mortality, a more equal society, low levels of corruption and responsive government. He then bemoaned the decline in democracy across the world, highlighting the recent Trump election in the USA. He also identified countries that had become democracies who had shown all the positive trends seen in Europe and those States who had maintained post settlement basic institutional fundamentals, including democracy.

In particular he stated, that based on empirical data, countries, like Zimbabwe who had become autocratic regimes post-colonial settlement, all exhibited the same trends – much more inequality, rampant corruption, collapse of basic services, decline in life expectancy and less responsive government. He then made the point that where the corruption remained hidden from public view the regimes were able to maintain stability of sorts. However, where it became public knowledge that corruption was widespread and endemic, regime stability became difficult to maintain and change would result – sometimes to the better, but often to just another corrupt and incompetent, non-responsive regime.

These trends had nothing to do with race, or colonial history; they were the product of choices made by the Governments involved. His basic thesis was the same for all countries, the rules are the same. Democracy may be less than perfect, but it does subject a government with the threat every few years of judgement and removal without violence. It means that leaders who are elected by a system that gives the people real choice, are forced to respond to public opinion. For the rest, building institutions in every area of national life remains central – an independent Judiciary, real democracy, property rights, low levels of corruption, service organisations that deliver. That’s the recipe for success no matter who you are or how big you are.