2012 should shape our destiny

leaders hurtling out of the political limelight and into oblivion, convicted of their inability to consummate a love affair with voters.
Indigenisation and economic empowerment on the one hand, and the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) on the other, look set to increase or break a good number of political leaders whose utterances and handling of money meant to improve the welfare of Zimbabweans at national and community levels, respectively, have become embroiled in controversy.

The CDF was introduced by the Government in 2009/2010 national budget for use by MPs and other political leaders in their constituencies, not only to eradicate pockets of poverty, but also to develop the community and so end any slavish dependence on the Government by people for mundane needs.
Yet some MPs and other political leaders have been accused by members of their communities in Matabeleland, the Midlands and in some parts of Mashonaland of embezzling or failing to explain expenditures of the money drawn on the CDF account.

In the Midlands, the leaders concerned have been given an ultimatum by the Government to account for every cent allocated for community development.Controversy has been raging lately over the use of the CDF in Makokoba constituency in Bulawayo with a pre-school renovated at Thorngrove being condemned by the city council as unfit for use.
There have been grouses elsewhere in the city over allegations of conversion of CDF money to personal use by some leaders. In some cases contracts were reportedly awarded to people associated with a political party to which an MP belongs.

An individual is said to have recommended a contractor for work that had to be done in the constituency in question. The latter raises an ethical question regarding not just a lack of transparency, but also about the connectedness of the recommender to the contractor and if there is no financial benefit for choosing the contractor.
The unholy happenings around the CDF certainly leave the image of leaders involved in question and calls for scrutiny in the disbursal of that fund to avoid self-enrichment by powerful individuals,

while the weak continue to wallow in want.
As things stand concerning that fund, the integrity of leaders implicated in the misuse of the fund and that of innocent ones, appears to have been mortally wounded by the erosion of the public’s trust in them.

When leaders forfeit the trust invested in them by followers, their social and public standing is called into question and such leaders cease to be relied upon.
It should be underscored that the CDF is taxpayer’s money which must be spent prudently, every cent of it, to uplift the welfare of communities, not to line some people’s pockets.
Therefore, all CDF expenditure must be thoroughly audited. As for indigenisation, some leaders have played out their discordant tune to the gallery of foreigners who back them, not because of any love for them, because they see in such leaders with a dim view of independence and self-realisation the gateway to plunder the country’s natural resources for themselves and their people back home.

These leaders should realise that the purpose of indigenisation is not to “Zimbabweanise” the means of production in the economy but, rather, to give blacks and non-blacks pariahed economically by the previous white racist regimes, equal control of these means.
The Government could have gone ahead and nationalised major industries and commerce, if it chose to do so and nothing could have stopped it. But it graciously let things run as they did until such a time as Zimbabweans had grasped the rationale and dynamics of the means of production to go ahead and equalise opportunities in the control of the economic affairs without unduly prejudicing investors, old and new.

The empowerment of indigenous people does not mean seizure of such foreign physical culture as machinery or other equipment, but their control as they are now components of Zimbabwe culture.
Decision-making processes are also means of production exclusive to executives of foreign-owned companies. Now, Zimbabweans should equally participate in sharing decision-making in companies in which they buy shares. Political leaders opposed to indigenisation say they prefer inviting foreign investors to come to Zimbabwe and “create jobs” for locals. Why do they not want their own people to acquire a stake in companies already in the country that belong to foreigners in order for Zimbabweans to create jobs?

Or does this negative attitude betray these leaders’ lack of confidence in the competence of their own black people, more than 30 years into independence from foreign rule.
Whatever the case, indigenisation and economic empowerment are so critical to the economy and future of this country that their relevance should be put to test in the forthcoming elections for the masses for whom, they were introduced to have their last say.

This suggests that the theme of elections should be “indigenisation, empowerment and Zimbabwe’s future”.
Elections that take a country a step forward should have an objective to fulfil, such as, for example, social, economic and political advancement.