Chapter 3: An overview of indigenisation and economic empowerment
3.5 Malaysia and the New Economic policy (NEP)
3.6.1 Background of inequality in Zimbabwe
In order to understand economic empowerment in Zimbabwe, it is necessary to visit historical facts about the country and its colonial past. This should give background of inequality and marginalisation experienced in the country and a deeper understanding of what precipitated the introduction of IEEP.
Zimbabwe was occupied by the British and proclaimed a colony in 1888. The settlers adopted a policy which saw the segregation of whites from blacks, the forced seizure of land and cattle and the imposition of new taxes amongst other things. The colonialists introduced the indigenous black population to a new way of life; a western lifestyle that was characterised by European governance, industry and commerce. African traditional communitarian values were systematically replaced with Eurocentric capitalist ideologies in a forced manner. Violence was commonly used against the indigenous population, whilst devious and oppressive laws were mooted to dominate and strategically antagonise the local African tribes. This is corroborated by Mlambo (2000:139) who discusses the “white settler racism and discrimination against the African black majority” and states that the injustices perpetrated by the colonialists led to resistance and uprisings by the indigenous Zimbabweans in later years.
To maximise on the benefits of the land, the settlers went into mining, agriculture and manufacturing.
These were labour-intensive activities which required cheap manpower and in order to influence or pressure the locals to work as labourers in these sectors, the settlers introduced a monetary system, capitalism and taxation all of which forced Africans who had been dispossessed of their ancestral land and livestock to seek employment as manual workers. This is supported by Johnson (1992:111) who observed that “one of most daunting tasks to confront employers and the state in Southern Rhodesia was that of incorporating African labour into the new capitalist mode of production that had been established by conquest”. Taxes such as grazing and dipping tax were introduced into a population that had previously relied on traditional methods of commerce such as bartering. Arrighi (1970:212) noted that as cash became the preferred method of payment in Africa, traditional transactions, such as bride price, started to take on a monetary value, thus increasing the drive towards investment in the cash economy. Consequently, many Africans went out in search of employment to satisfy the insatiable demands of the new colonial system. These workers, who were
119
poorly remunerated and subjected to despotic working and living conditions, guaranteed the settlers of cheap labour and downstream consumers.
As the years progressed, the settlers prospered at the expense of the locals who continued to toil the land for their colonial masters. In addition, because the country was richly endowed, experienced favourable climatic conditions, had very fertile land and guaranteed cheap labour, many companies from Britain established themselves in the country, operating mines, factories and farms. Arrighi (1970:225) found that “by the late 1940s, the structure of the Rhodesian economy had altered radically and that foreign controlled oligopolies, characterised by considerable 'international mobility', had come to dominate important sectors of the economy (mining and secondary industries), while the financial and entrepreneurial 'entrance requirements' in most branches of production had greatly increased”. Many of the privileged individuals established companies which grew to large conglomeratic entities that were actively supported by the colonial government (Seidman, 1982:13 and Raftopoulos & Compagnon, 2003:15). The country therefore became dominated by MNCs and other large local entities that excluded the locals in the ownership of production and wealth. Blacks were however not afforded the opportunity to become wealth creators but were deliberately reduced to consumers and labourers (Marazanye, 2016:56). This meant that Zimbabwe was fragmented racially, with the white minority enjoying a disproportionate share of the socio-economic benefits.
This systematic subjugation was well orchestrated and entrenched in all spheres of life in the country.
The education system was designed to ensure that Blacks would not develop into formidable black competitors on the job market (Herbst 1992:14). Instead, they were educated just enough to realise an adequate level of literacy and comprehension necessary for the menial and physical opportunities that were afforded to them (Marazanye, 2016:54). According to Seidman (1982:23), more resources were allocated for the education and development of minority white children than for black children.
This is buttressed by Zvogbo (1981:14) who highlights that in 1971, for example, $21 million was allotted for the education of an African population of 4 817 980 compared to the $20 million that was set aside for the non-African population of 252 414. This equated to an average spend of $5 on each African child’s education compared to $80 per non-African child.
In addition, to fend for their families, many black children had to quit school early in their childhood in search of work in the factories, mines and farms. This meant that only a few blacks ever reached the pinnacle of the academic or professional heights that would propel them to become economic leaders or creators of wealth. This oppression and marginalisation by the minority white administration meant that the indigenous black majority remained perpetual suppliers of cheap labour and rarely earned or accumulated enough wealth or played a substantial role in the ownership and control of the country’s means of production.
120
In fact, legislation was passed to reserve certain jobs for whites. High paying civil service positions and skilled artisan positions in the mining and manufacturing sectors were categorised for whites.
This is articulated by International Commission of Jurists (1976:26) who state that:
“Employment opportunities for Africans are severely restricted. Their principal areas of employment are as unskilled labourers, as agricultural workers on European farms, as domestic servants, as unskilled workers in manufacturing, construction, mining and quarrying, and in distribution, restaurants and hotels. The government ensures that white semi-skilled Rhodesians will not have to compete directly with similarly skilled blacks for employment by maintaining reserved (or occupationally protected) jobs at “European” wage rates, including within the lower echelons of the civil service and within statutory bodies such as the Rhodesian Railways.”
This left those blacks who were fortunate enough to complete school to take up unreserved positions in office administration and teaching. The domination of the skilled labour market by whites was supported by the imperfect education and apprenticeship opportunities afforded to Africans as well as the active and deliberate measures adopted by the Rhodesian government to recruit skilled white immigrants to satisfy the growing business and industry demands in the country (International Commission of Jurists, 1976:30).
Raftopoulos and Compagnon (2003:15) highlight that segregation and racial discrimination began in 1889 and only ended in 1980 when Zimbabwe gained its independence. The successive Rhodesian governments during this period implemented policies and programmes that were designed to continue the empowerment of Rhodesian whites at the expense of the indigenous blacks (Marazanye, 2016:54). For example, in the agricultural sector the government subsidised the purchase of inputs and implements as well as provided white commercial farmers with preferential credit facilities. The Agricultural Finance Corporation was one such institution that was established to issue loans to white farmers at preferential rates. The government also established parastatals such as the Cold Storage Commission, Grain Marketing Board, the Dairy Marketing Board and the Cotton Marketing Board whose main purpose was to purchase and market produce from the white farmers. This had the effect of promoting white farmers and allowing them to grow even more at the expense of black farmers who had neither the means nor the ability to achieve great commercial status.
The best arable land was allocated to white farmers, whilst the less arable land was delimited into reserves to “contain” the blacks. It is interesting to note that according to the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Central Statistical Office (1960:3) in 1956 the population of whites stood at 177 124 compared to the 2 540 000 Blacks in the country. The apportionment of agrarian land in 1958 stood at 48 000 000 acres for the European population and 41 950 000 for the 2.5 million blacks (Floyd, 1962:566).
121
During this time, the mining sector also performed exceptionally well in this mineral rich country. This sector was dominated by transnational corporations such as Anglo America and Rio Tinto. According to Seidman (1982:14), the sector employed approximately 60 000 black workers who were paid salaries that were lower than those that were offered to their counterparts in South Africa and lower than what these MNCs were expected to pay employees in their home countries.
Seidman (1982:13) highlights that in 1980, 14% of Zimbabwe's GDP was derived from the agricultural sector which comprised of 60 000 farms. These farms employed approximately 320 000 labourers who worked on them but were subjected to living conditions reminiscent of 19th-century slave plantations in America. These 60 000 farms were owned by local minority whites and MNCs such as Lonrho and Anglo America and as well as European absentee landowners. (Seidman, 1982:13). This serves to highlight the vast inequality prevalent during the colonial period.