adminTafara Shumba
FOLLOWING Government decision to withdraw operating licences of companies that will not submit their indigenisation implementation plan by March 31, 2016, there has been an unprecedented outcry, coming mostly from the usual ‘hired mourners’ who have now developed a special knack for crying more than the bereaved.
The Government decision has been very topical within the media, opposition political parties and civic society.
The decision received undue and vicious attack from a constituency that seems to be in total darkness of the contents of the recently fine-tuned law.
It is, however, refreshing that the responsible minister, Cde Patrick Zhuwawo dedicated a day to shed light to those who care to be enlightened.
Unfortunately, the hired mourners will be certainly nowhere near the venue to be schooled on the law they are blindly attacking.
At times it is necessary to separate a message from the messenger for the sake of national interest.
Parochial interests must not always blight good ideas.
Like him or not, the idea that Cde Zhuwawo is advancing on behalf of government is great.
Some companies have read the modified Act and managed to pick the sensibleness in it, resulting in 50 of them submitting their plans in the nick of time. Its better late than never.
It therefore makes business prudence for companies that have not yet complied with the statutory directive, to do so and avoid unnecessary loss of business and profit.
The prime reason for their existence is profit making.
Thus, that profit must be made within the confines of the laws governing the environment they are operating in.
During Zanu-PF’s 15th Annual People’s Conference in Victoria Falls, President Mugabe reiterated that Government would not tolerate companies that refuse to comply with indigenization.
As the Chief Executive Officer of this country has already declared, companies have no choice, but to comply.
Of course, the indigenization law might still have some rough patches; nevertheless, it still remains a law whose terms must be met.
In military parlance, one is supposed to complain after duty. The concerned firms must meet the terms of the law first and raise their objections, concerns and suggestions thereafter.
In this way, chances of getting an audience with authorities are high.
These affirmative laws are not inimitable to Zimbabwe. Every country has its own way of making sure that the native participate in the economy.
According to economic history, every successful economy has used nationalistic policies. In the UK for instance, the government is set to deport all migrant workers who earn less than 35 000 pounds per year.
This is meant to protect the local job market.
The highest shareholding interest that German can give to a foreign investor is a mere eight percent.
Despite their barrage of criticism of the Zimbabwean indigenization programme, most of the rich European countries, at one a time embarked on some form of indigenization programmes. Indigenization and Economic Empowerment programme was a success story in recently emerged economic giants such as Japan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and even South Africa as well as Namibia.
Zimbabwe is a lawful nation that upholds the rule of law. This is despite criticism and false accusations that the country does not respect same. It is rather these impudent companies and those that are cheering them into crime, which do not respect the rule of law.
As Friedrich Hegel noted, we have learnt from history that we do not learn from history.
The destructive path that these firms want to take is a cul-de-sac.
The Daily News trod it in 2003 when it refused to register with the then Media and Information Commission (MIC) in accordance with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). As a result of this senseless defiance, the paper closed shop in September 2003 and sent dozens of scribes in the streets.
Ironically, the major victims were the very scribes who incited the paper’s proprietors to flout the law.
The closure of the defying companies will render more workers jobless.
They will join thousands of other workers who lost their jobs following a High Court ruling which that gave employers a blank cheque to fire employees willy-nilly.
Zimbabwe cannot afford to witness another spate of job losses, more so when government is struggling to avail jobs promised in the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-Asset).
What this means is that the issue must be approached with caution. There must be a balance between IEE and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI).
During his visit to China last year, Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa assured Chinese investors that indigenisation was not a threat to the interests of the investors.
As such, Government must stick to that assurance.
Both Government and the companies must consider the risk of job losses which their decisions on this issue are likely to cause.
The companies must not take advantage of the country’s desperate need for investment and job creation to hold government at ransom.
On the other hand, Government must not be lost to the economic environment prevailing in Zimbabwe.
Indigenisation policy is a great policy that must be implemented methodically.
Government must do away with all the stumbling blocks that will give credence to the arguments advanced by detractors of the indigenization policy. For instance, ridding corruption and creating stable political and economic environments must be prerequisites for a successful indigenization of the economy.
The indigenization programme must prove wrong some detractors who always claim that the initiative benefits the elite and the well connected.
The initiative is a process and five years down the line, government should be able to pick a beneficiary from Murambinda or Mutoko.
Indigenisation must not only replace white capitalists with black ones.
Hopefully the indigenization programme will maximise local retention of profit and curb the externalization of national resources as witnessed in the diamond mining industry.
Online Reporter