ZIMBABWE POLITICAL ECONOMY - Kubatana Zimbabwe

 

 


 

ZIMBABWE

POLITICAL ECONOMY

REVIEW

Economic Liberalization Under Political Authoritarianism: Is it Sustainable for Zimbabwe?

Zimbabwe
 Democracy
 Institute
 
66
 Jason
 Moyo
 Avenue,
 Bothwell
 
House
 
Harare
 
Zimbabwe
 
www.zdi.org.zw
 

  [email protected]
 
  1
 

Economic Liberalization under Political Authoritarianism: Is it Sustainable for
Zimbabwe?

Does the type of a government have a causal effect on economic performance? A
number of scholars have written on this subject in an endeavor to establish a causal
relationship between democracy and economic development. There are various and
diverse analytic propositions on the subject. Some scholars have attempted to
downplay this correlation. However, prevalent view is that democracy as a type of
governance has a positive effect on GDP growth hence the correlation between
democracy and development. Generally, it has been argued that states with
authoritarian political systems are thus anticipated not to grow as rapidly as
democracies. Democratic systems are believed to have positive influences on the
economy, for example, greater stability, human rights and more extensive property
rights. On the other hand, there is China, a country that has experienced successive
years of economic growth and rapid industrialization albeit under one-party and
authoritarian rule. This paper is written in the context of reforms towards economic
liberalisation in Zimbabwe fashioned along the Chinese model. However, this
economic liberalisation has not been matched with political democratisation. The
question then is whether or not this economic route, referred to as authoritarian
capitalism, is sustainable in the Zimbabwean setting characterised by competitive
authoritarianism.

What is democracy?
A democracy is defined as a people-form of government which is in contradistinction
to monarchies and aristocracies. The mark of a democracy is rule by people1.While
Held points out that Ancient Greek Athens‟ rule by the people was direct democracy,
it was also marked by a commitment to the principle of civic virtue, dedication to the
republican city-state and the subordination of private life to the affairs of the public,
other scholars have pointed out its limitations2. Hyland, for example, argues that
political rule could be conceived as democratic to the extent that people who are
significantly affected by political decisions have equal rights of participation at all
levels of decision-making, with the understanding that this effectiveness is crucially

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Held, D., (1996) Models of democracy, Cambridge, Polity Press.

2 Ibid, p1


  2
 

dependent on adequate access to the resources necessary to enable full and
meaningful participation3. Tilly supports this view, contending that a regime is
democratic to the degree that political relations between the state, or those who hold
power, and the citizens feature broad, equal, protected and mutually binding
consultations4.

Despite different contested definitions, meanings, types and variants of democracy, as
well as its application, it is generally posited that democracy is a desirable form of
government, as scholars like Fukuyama (1992), Held, (1996) and Hyland (1995)
argue. However, the gap between democratic theory and practice is a matter of
continuous debate. Scholars are also sometimes influenced by their own background
and society, as seen from the radical African critiques5. However, in the absence of
alternatives to democracy, Held (1996) and Hyland (1995) have both argued that
democracy is significant as a form of rule because it celebrates diversity and
tolerance. Held (1996) points out that the idea of democracy is important because it
does not just represent one value among many, such as liberty, equality or justice, but
it is a value that can link and mediate among competing issues in society. It is further
pointed out (Held, 1996) that the other significant value of democracy is that it does
not pre-suppose agreement on diverse values but, rather, suggests a way of relating
values to each other and leaving the resolution of conflicts about different values that
are open to participants in a public process.

Authoritarian Capitalism
From the onset, the notion of ‘authoritarian capitalism’ seems oxymoronic, since
entrepreneurship in an authoritarian environment is contradictory? However, if the
term is understood as a hybrid model, and from the definition of authoritarianism,
then one can perceive this as an environment that has a strong government that guides
its people in certain ways, but that allows the people a certain measure of freedom in
the deployment of their resources. According to Laurence (2009), authoritarian


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3 Hyland, J., (1995) Democratic theory, the philosophical foundations, Manchester, Manchester
University Press.
4 Tilly, C., (2007) Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
5 Ruhanya, P. (2014), PhD Thesis: Alternative Media and African Democracy: The Daily News and
Opposition Politics in Zimbabwe – 1997-2010, University of Westminster, London


  3
 

capitalism is the introduction of a free market system into countries which are ruled
by a non-elected and or usually autocratic government. Policies are introduced on
a 'top-down' basis from a tight political oligarchy. Thus, an authoritarian capitalist
setting would have economic control shared between government and the people,
while the lion’s share of control held by government.6

The Context of Authoritarian Capitalism in Zimbabwe
From the definition of authoritarian capitalism provided above, one can deduce that
Zimbabwe is gradually descending or has assumed the status of an authoritarian
capitalist state. Authoritarian capitalism in Zimbabwe can be understood in the
context of failure and or unwillingness to implement provisions in the constitution
particularly those provisions addressing civil and political liberties and socioeconomic
rights while attempting to address economic competitiveness of the economy at the
behest of the International Monetary Fund’s Staff Monitored Programme.

The IMF Staff Monitored Programme seeks among other things to “improve
Zimbabwe’s repayment capacity and demonstrate that it can implement reforms that
could justify a Fund-financial arrangement, which could help tackle the country’s
deep-rooted problems. The Zimbabwean authorities remain committed to
implementing sound macroeconomic and structural policies.”

Efforts towards economic liberation were also articulated in President Mugabe’s state
of the nation address delivered on 25 August 2015, which enunciated a 10 point plan
focusing on; revitalising agriculture and the agro-processing value chain; advancing
beneficiation and/or value addition to the agricultural and mining resource
endowment; focusing on infrastructure development, particularly in the key Energy,
Water, Transport and ICTs subsectors; unlocking the potential of small to medium
enterprises; encouraging private sector investments; restoration and building of
confidence and stability in the financial services sector; promoting joint ventures and
public private partnerships to boost the role and performance of state owned
companies; modernising labour laws; pursuing an anti-corruption thrust and

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
 Laurence, M. (2009) China’s Authoritarian Capitalism: Growth, Elitism and Legitimacy,

International Planning Development Review, Volume 31, Issue 1.


  4
 

implementation of Special Economic Zones to provide the impetus for foreign direct
investment.
The 17 July 2015 Supreme Court ruling which led to the modification of labour laws
can also be viewed in the context of economic liberalisation and the quest to improve
ease of doing business.

The authoritarian nature of Zimbabwe is also manifest in its human rights record,
which by all standards is in liability. The Freedom House 2015 index ranks
Zimbabwe as “not free” on civil liberties, political rights and press freedom.7 The
2014 Ibrahim Index of African Governance8 ranks Zimbabwe 42 out of 52 African
countries for protecting human rights. The electoral politics of Zimbabwe also exhibit
strong authoritarian nuances leading literature to classify Zimbabwe as a competitive
authoritarian regime.

Competitive Authoritarianism
Levitsky and Way (2010); Przeworski et al. (2000); and Svolik (2012), argue that
terms authoritarianism, dictatorship, and autocracy are used interchangeably to denote
“a political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite
that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people.”9 Way and Levitsky
(2010:5) define competitive authoritarian regimes in electoral terms as civilian
regimes in which formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as the
primary means of gaining power, but in which incumbents’ abuse of the state places
them at a significant advantage vis-a`-vis their opponents. Such regimes are
competitive in that opposition parties use democratic institutions to contest seriously
for power, but they are not democratic because the playing field is heavily skewed in
favor of incumbents. Competition is thus real but unfair.10


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7Ibrahim Index of African Governance 2014,
http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/downloads/publications/2014/2014-iiag-summary-report.pdf
8Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2015 Report
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/01152015_FIW_2015_final.pdf

9
 Przeworski, Adam, et al. (2000), Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being

in the World, 1950-1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
10 Levitsky, S. and Way, L. (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War,
Cambridge University Press.


  5
 

Additionally, opposition forces used democratic institutions to contest for political
space—and at times successfully—for power. However, these regimes are not
democratic. Government critics experience harassment, arrest, and in some cases,
violent attacks. Electoral fraud, unfair media access, and abuse of state resources are
rife. The electoral playing field is heavily skewed in favor of incumbents. In other
words, competition is allowed but the extent to which it is allowed is dependent on
the incumbent who is both the referee and participant.

Will Authoritarian Capitalism Flourish in Zimbabwe
So, what explains why some autocracies succeed so spectacularly when others fail?
Why would Singapore and China economically succeed while other countries
dismally fail? Further, why is there a greater range of performance among the
autocracies? Kelsall (2014) candidly forwards that one of the more popular
explanations hinges on the character of individual leaders. Since autocracy puts fewer
restraints on the leader, it simplifies the transmission mechanism between his or her
own characteristics and economic performance, so that benevolent leaders produce
exceptionally good outcomes, and bad leaders exceptionally poor ones.11 There is a
world of difference between President Hu Jintao of China and Robert Mugabe of
Zimbabwe.

Kelsall (2014) also identifies the drivers of development under authoritarian regimes
as broadly; one, the will to develop; two, sensible developmental policies; and three,
effective institutions. Hence the sustainability of the authoritarian capitalism
trajectory in Zimbabwe must be evaluated on these three canons.

The will to develop - Sustained developmental autocracies, according to Kelsall
(2013a), have addressed the issue of leadership and the will to develop by embedding
the leader in a wider leadership group, for instance a political party. Furthermore, if
the party has clear provisions or guidelines for leadership succession, leadership
changes may not be so destabilizing to investor confidence.12 Svolik (2012) buttresses

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

11 Kelsall, T. (2014) Authoritarianism, Democracy and Development, Development Leadership
Programme, www.diprog.org.

12
 Kelsall, Tim (2013a), ‘Economic growth and political succession: A study of two regions.

Developmental Regimes in Africa Project, Working Paper 1’, (London: Overseas Development
Institute/DRA).


  6
 

this point positing that some well-institutionalized autocracies such as China, even set
term limits on their leaders. However, these succession guidelines and regulations are
nonexistent in Zanu PF leading to internecine succession battles. The succession
quagmire in Zanu PF has had multiplier effects on the broader economy. It has
necessitated deep-rooted nervousness in the market and has emerged as an oasis of
economic policy unsustainably and uncertainty corroding the economic sector.13

Sensible development policies - Authoritarian capitalism’s prospects of succeeding
at a policy level in Zimbabwe are also limited due to inherent challenges that include
rent-seeking by special interest groups that penetrate the open political process and
use their influence to produce socially inefficient policies. Thus the relationship in the
structure between the agents and institutions militates against the development of
sensible policies premised on sound economic reasoning. The absence of such policy-
making initiatives in Zimbabwe will militate against the success of authoritarian
capitalism.

Effective institutions – The most critical and missing ingredient in the economic
development matrix of autocracies glaringly missing in Zimbabwe is the presence of
effective institutions. According to North, “the fundamental role of institutions in a
society is to reduce ambiguity by establishing a stable . . . structure to human
interaction.” In this nominal sense, institutions promote economic growth through
positive impact on certainty. Although political institutionalization is difficult to
demarcate, there seems to be general agreement that processes in a well-
institutionalized society are “functionally differentiated, regularized (and hence
predictable), professionalized (including meritocratic methods of recruitment and
promotion), rationalized (explicable, rule based, and non-arbitrary), and infused with
value (legitimate).” Acemoglu and Robinson (2012:55) assert that as institutions
influence behavior and incentives in real life, they forge the success or failure of


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

13
 Svolik, Milan W. (2012), The Politics of Authoritarian Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).


  7
 

nations. Individual talent matters at every level of society, but even that needs an
institutional framework to transform it into a positive force.14

Conclusion
From the analysis on institutions provided by Acemoglu and Robinson, this paper
deduces that Zimbabwe is rife with extractive political institutions which,
“concentrate power in the hands of a narrow elite and place few constraints on the
exercise of this power. Economic institutions are then often structured by this elite to
extract resources from the rest of the society. Extractive economic institutions thus
naturally accompany extractive political institutions. In fact, they must inherently
depend on extractive political institutions for their survival. Inclusive political
institutions, vesting power broadly, would tend to uproot economic institutions that
expropriate the resources of the many, erect entry barriers, and suppress the
functioning of markets so that only a few benefit.”15

Another factor that will curtail the success of authoritarian capitalism in Zimbabwe is
the fact that the economic challenges in the Zimbabwean economic are not confined
to economics but political in nature. Challenges that are impacting on the economy
are more political than economic so addressing the economic challenges ahead of
political challenges is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. The World
Economic Forum 2013 report highlights the major problematic factors of doing
business in Zimbabwe as political citing policy inconsistencies and political
instability.

The purpose of this essay was to determine the feasibility of authoritarian capitalism
as an alternative to maximizing economic growth in Zimbabwe. Capitalism is a
system predicated on voluntary trade in which individuals make their own plans
regarding deployment of their resources. An authoritarian capitalist system would be
characterized by an economy in which individuals are allowed some discretion over
the deployment of their own resources but the state still retains a pervasive presents in
the administration of the economy. Individuals’ discretion would be limited according

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

14 Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and
Poverty, Crown Publishing Group, New York.
15 Ibid, pg. 88.


  8
 

to an overarching plan created by the government. Thus, people would have some
freedom over their economic lives, but avenues of economic development would be
limited by the government plan. The success of the authoritarian capitalism path on
the Zimbabwe context is thus bound not to yield the expected results due to the
absence of the will to develop, sensible developmental policies and effective
institutions. Authoritarian capitalism is thus not a sustainable economic trajectory for
Zimbabwe.


  9