|
For The Benefit Of All?
Many readers of
the Lowdown have expressed their concern to me over the last few
weeks. This concern, apart from the exchange rate issue, has been
about the Citizen’s Economic Empowerment Bill which is currently
before parliament and which is being debated there. ‘Where exactly
do we stand?’ ask the foreign investors who have brought their hard
earned money/savings into the country. ‘Where exactly do we stand?’
ask the Zambian citizens who are not black in colour.
The bill before
parliament states that its objectives are, amongst other things, to
promote the economic empowerment of targeted citizens, citizen
empowered companies, citizen influenced companies and citizen owned
companies; promote gender equality in accessing, owning, managing,
controlling and exploiting economic resources; encourage and
increase in broad based and effective and meaningful participation
of targeted citizens, citizen empowered companies, citizen
influenced companies and citizen owned companies, in the country in
order to contribute to a high growth rate, promote the employment of
both genders by removing structural and discriminatory constraints
that hinder any particular gender from employment opportunities and
in so doing ensure equitable income distribution; promote equal
opportunity of targeted citizens and citizen empowered companies,
citizen influenced companies and citizen owned companies in
accessing and being awarded procurement contracts and other
services from state institutions.
From a quick
glance, this appears all well and good. It is important that Zambian
citizens are given the opportunity to participate in our economy.
From the late 60’s onwards, we had our Zambianisation programme,
which went hand in hand with the nationalisation of many companies.
At the same time, trading licences in rural areas were reserved for
Zambian citizens. This was good but what did it really achieve? Yes,
it employed many Zambians, but it also cost the country (and
therefore the people) a great deal of money that was spent in
propping up businesses which were not efficiently run; that were not
run according to sound business practices and which were not
developed, expanded and improved as would a private sector business.
If profits were not made, it didn’t matter – the state propped it
up. In addition, it limited the ambitions and expectations of our
citizens – all they wanted was a job; they did not think about
owning and running their own businesses. In fact, our education
system only trained people for the job they were going to find when
they left school; it did not give them the skills needed for running
their own businesses.
This was fine
whilst jobs were available and until privatisation came along. I do
not wish to go into the pros and cons of privatisation, but what I
can say is that many Zambians suddenly found themselves without jobs
and despite all their years of working for state-owned enterprises,
they had not built up enough savings to invest in their own
businesses. They had also, in many cases, not learnt any of the
skills needed for this : a basic understanding of bookkeeping or
other administrative skills, for example.
Thus, it is safe
to say that the Zambianisation policy was a dismal failure in terms
of empowering Zambians. And today, we are having to take another
look at it because for the past forty years, successive governments,
for whatever reason, have not done what they have promised in their
election campaigns – to improve the lot of the Zambian people.
Now let’s take a
look at the wording of this bill. What exactly is a ‘targeted
citizen’. In accordance with the Zambian constitution, a citizen is
a citizen and a citizen cannot be discriminated against because they
differ from another citizen. Yet in parliament, one of our esteemed
MPs has stated clearly that this is ‘black empowerment’ Where does
this leave the non-black citizens? Or will targeted citizens be
determined because of their sex? Or because of their tribe? Or
because of their religion? And who will decide who is and who is not
a ‘targeted citizen’. Will it be the Commissioner of the CEE? Will
it be a committee? With it be the President? And once this is
clarified, how will he/she/they decide? Will it be their cousin?
Will it be their sister? Will it be the persons who pay the highest
incentive to get onto the list of targeted citizens?
And now, we find that MPs are wanting this word ‘targeted’
to be replaced with the word ‘indigenous’. Now who are the
indigenous Zambians? A look on the web showed that this is a word
which seems not to have a universal, fixed definition. Several
widely-accepted formulations have been put forward by
internationally-recognised organizations, such as the UN, ILO and
World Bank.
One says people who ‘(1) descend from population groups
present in a given area, most often before modern states or
territories were created and before modern borders were defined, and
(2) maintenance of cultural and social identities, and social,
economic, cultural, and political institutions separate from
mainstream or dominant societies and cultures. In some cases, over
recent centuries, tribal groups or cultural minorities have migrated
into areas to which they are not indigenous, but have established a
presence and continue to maintain a definite and separate social and
cultural identity and related social institutions. In such cases,
the second identifying characteristic would carry greater weight.’
Another says that
when working on a definition of indigenous peoples criteria should
seek to include ‘cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an
historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts
of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either
before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a
nation-state’
Yet another says ‘Indigenous has a number of usages
that differ from "to be born in a specific place," which
is how the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it. These usages
tend to define indigenous by the experiences shared by a
group of people who have inhabited a country for
thousands of years, which often contrast with those of
other groups of people who reside in the same country for
a few hundred years.’
Confused? Yes, me too.
Is ‘indigenous’ the same as a ‘minority’?
As, say, the Asian community have ‘established a presence
and continue to maintain a definite and separate social and cultural
identity and related social institutions’ does this classify them as
indigenous?
As, say, the white Zambian community inhabited the region
‘alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a
nation-state’, does this make them indigenous?
As, say, the Ngoni people (who came to Zambia in 1835),
have not lived here for thousands of years but for less than two
hundred years, as opposed to the Tonga people who I understand were
the original inhabitants of what is today Zambia, does this exclude
them?
I understand that in Zimbabwe, the definition of an
indigenous person is someone who can trace their ancestry back for
seven generations. Now, if we take each generation as 30 years,
that would be someone who could trace their ancestry back to 1796.
This would exclude many of the tribes that make up the Zambian
people today, not only because many of the people arrived in the
late 1700s/early 1800’s but also because at that time (and even
today) many people do not have a proper record of their birth. I
mean, already, the ancestry of two out of our three presidents has
been questioned. If there were a proper paper trail, together with
the requisite rubber stamp, this would not arise.
I think some of our MPs could be tying themselves up in
knots and they could find themselves excluding the very people they
are trying to empower and some of them might even end up excluding
themselves. They need to proceed with caution.
Next we look at the point of view of our ‘foreign
investors’. These people have made enormous investments into this
country. Obviously for the large international companies, their
investments have been, in terms of figures, much larger than some of
the smaller investors. But for many of the smaller investors, they
have invested their life’s savings, everything they have, on the
invitations and assurances given by our Government. Where do they
stand now? When researching this article, I came across two Zambian
Government websites which both said ‘the Government actively
supports, facilitates, and rewards new companies in all sectors of
enterprise and this support is equally available to indigenous and
foreign-based companies without any discrimination whatsoever
against offshore companies. Large and small enterprises are equally
welcome’ Do you see a contradiction between this and what is being
said in Parliament or is it only me?
I know that there are many investors who feel they have
been ripped off. Should they be laying off their staff, selling
their assets (or worse, exporting them) and closing down their
businesses (remember this must be seen together with the erosion of
their income and value of their assets in Dollar terms by around
40%, making their businesses no longer viable). Is this what we
want? Do we think that we will then be able to pick up these
non-viable businesses for a song? And if we do buy them, will we be
able to manage them given that over the last years, we have seen
declining education standards in this country and our citizens are,
by and large, not equipped (educationally) to run these business?
And that readers is the crux of the matter – until and
unless we do something about the education of our citizens, they
will never be empowered, no matter what laws we put in place, no
matter what finance we give them, no matter what incentives we give
them.
And when we have educated our citizens, we need to ensure
that we have an environment which is conducive to the conduct of
business, an environment which encourages people to set up their own
businesses, where they can run their businesses profitably, where
they are not seen as a cash cow by the local council or some
statutory body or authority who is trying to fund their
inefficiencies. We also need to ensure that our labour laws
encourage people to employ their fellow citizens, so that these
people also have the chance to build up the capital and expertise
that they need to start their own business. And we need to ensure
that we have the infrastructure that is needed for these businesses
– roads, communications etc. I believe Parliament would be well
advised to ensure these things are in place and when they are,
empowerment of Zambian citizens will follow naturally.
And we need to ensure that whatever is put in place
benefits all Zambians and not only a tiny elite group of people. |
April
2006