Implications of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act on ordianr people

Zimbabweans want hope, security, dignity, freedom and prosperity. They want investment so that they can have jobs, food, better health care and education and not cheap politics meant to smother hope and undermine the inclusive government. Such implication might be brought by the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The act will simply create a new arena for looting and abuse. The so-called “indigenous people” who are set to benefit from this act are not the ordinary man and woman, but the well-connected elite. Zimbabweans do not want an experience like that of the blatant hijacking of land resettlement, the so-called economic empowerment of the electorate should not be used to reward criminals while cultivating a culture of patronage. The Indigenisation Act will create an elite black that survives on patronage. Through this act a few individuals belonging that have benefited through partisan lines might own 51% of the companies in the country and go on to donate to the groups they sympathise with and fund galas, birthdays and congresses. How much trust do we vest in these people that contributed immensely to the deterioration of the Zimbabwean economy? This extension of the patronage system can be juxtaposed with South Africa’s BEE. We should learn from South Africa where tenderprenuers have been created based on patronage and party affiliation. I am not against indigenization policies, but I do not support any policy that has the potential to scare away investors, worsen poverty among people while embedding our political culture with patronage and favoritism. There is need for a balance of policies between attracting investors, supporting indigenization and sustaining citizens, a balance that this act lacks. Such an act would also further hamper efforts to encourage foreign investment in the country, efforts already undermined by the ongoing seizure of commercial land under the guise of land reform. The act completes a process that began with the controversial seizure of white-owned farms starting in 1999. The Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act is failing to meet not only the basic components of procedure, but has far reaching negative and dire consequences on the much-needed investment in Zimbabwe. This act will achieve disempowerment by taking businesses away from people who do not support the proponents of this act and giving power to those who do. As we have seen before, those in support of such policies are conveniently rewarded. Most citizens do not have enough money to buy businesses or own 51% of a firm and those who do, probably, stole it. Most industries that collapsed in Bulawayo did so when they were owned by government officials. It has been proven that corruption is rife in industries that are partly or wholly owned by government officials. In most cases this results in the officials using the industries to enhance their personal gains at the expense of the nation. Buildings in Bulawayo are owned by government officials or people with links within government mainly because the city’s residents cannot afford to make such investments. Young people in Bulawayo have no capital what-so-ever as they have never benefited from laws that are meant to empower the youth. Surprisingly, these are the same people who are expected to invest in their own city. In the past party affiliation and tribal issues have determine the distribution of resources. Allocation of resources should be done with respect to cultures and indigenous people. Cultures have to be respected and the process of undermining certain cultures through economically disadvantaging them should stop. People in Binga should not be forced to speak Ndebele because they want jobs. They should be free to speak Tonga under whatever conditions and not be undermined because they are a minority. There should be respect for all political parties and tribes this way indigenization will actually start at local level.