Mugabe is warning off foreign firms

Will the new model work for Zimbabwe?

Following their recent election win, Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF government has issued a new warning to foreign firms. They ran a full-page advertisement in local papers this week saying that their comprehensive election win was an endorsement of their “indigenisation plans” that will see all foreign owned companies forced to give up 51 per cent of their equity to black Zimbabweans.

It is expected that this means that Mugabe will force the remaining 1100+ white and foreign owned companies left in the country, as well as local banks with foreign interests, to hand over 51 per cent of their businesses to the Zanu PF government.

"Over the next five years, Zimbabwe is going to witness a unique wealth transfer model that will see ordinary people take charge of the economy," the adverts read.

Saviour Kusukwere, one of Mugabe’s ministers, revealed separately that the country planned to seize 51 per cent of foreign-owned mines, worth an estimated US$7bn without any compensation. He warned that mines that refused to surrender more than half of their assets would lose their licences.

Recent Economic Trends

Following the 2000 referendum, Zimbabwe experienced 7 years of negative economic growth, with GDP per capita figures falling from US$535 in 2000 to US$415 in 2008. Then after introducing the US dollar as it currency in February 2009, the country witnessed a resurgence, with GDP per capita levels rising to US$788 by 2012 (Source: World Bank).

However, despite this small improvement, most African countries have surged ahead of it over this twelve year period as reflected in the table below.

Timeline: Mugabe’s 33 years in power

  • Mugabe and his Zanu PF party took power following the 1980 general elections.
  • Following droughts in the country in the late 90s and slowing economic growth, Mugabe was coming under increasing pressure to step aside.
  • Mugabe then held a referendum in 2000 in order to extend his powers. This referendum was unexpectedly defeated by a new opposition party formed from a labour union movement, the MDC and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
  • Months after the referendum, the MDC ran a candidate in every district in the country and emerged with nearly half the seats in parliament.
  • Zanu PF responded by launching a campaign of violence to intimidate the MDC. It also destabilized the country by ordering the invasion of commercial farms by so called War veterans.
  • Following the invasions and general public outcry, new media laws were passed prior to the 2002 elections which led to the closure of all independent newspapers in the country.
  • Zanu PF won majorities in the 2002 and 2005 elections. These results were heavily disputed by the MDC and international bodies.
  • MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai was severely beaten by government officials in 2007 and his bodyguard, Nhamo Musekiwa, was killed.
  • The MDC won a majority in the 2008 election but they did not achieve over 50 per cent of the vote and a run-off election was therefore required.
  • Prior to the run-off election, Zanu PF launched another campaign of violence against MDC supporters, forcing the MDC to pull out of runoff elections and effectively handing power back to Mugabe.
  • Susan Tsvangirai was killed in a car crash in 2009, which is believed by many to be the work of Zanu PF officials who were attempting to assassinate her husband Morgan Tsvangirai, who was in the same car at the time. He survived.
  • In a deal brokered by South African president Thabo Mbeki following the 2008 elections, Mugabe remained president and kept control over the army and the country as a whole.
  • Mugabe won the recent elections held on the 31st July 2013, taking over 60 per cent of the presidential vote and over two thirds of parliamentary vote. These results have been heavily disputed by the MDC, as well as by various independent bodies and the UK and US government. However, most regional powerhouses including the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the South African government said the elections were free and fair. In fact, the only African country to officially speak out against the result was Botswana.
Robert Mugabe. Photograph: Getty Images

Andrew Amoils is a writer for WealthInsight

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.