Because they can, rightly or wrongly.

I have been back home in Zimbabwe exactly two years in July 2011.  My observation that things are seldom what they appear to be, seems to aptly describe the general state of affairs in my beloved country. Whilst it is my considered opinion that, Zimbabwe is a country abundant with opportunities and alive with possibilities, I often wonder whether we are interrogating the right questions, whose answers would assist us in making informed decisions.

Have we ever wondered why a small landlocked country like Zimbabwe is forever courting international attention? Is courting international attention a strategic posture of the political establishment in this country. Coming from the private sector, it seems to me that political risk is the largest single factor impacting on business decision-making? What is the minimization of this political risk? Is the political risk controllable? Can political risk in Zimbabwe be managed? How can we incorporate political risk into our macro and micro scenario planning for business decision making at organizational and sector level?

Last week after the announcement that Gadhafi had fallen, many Libyan Embassies around the world apparently pulled down Gaddafi’s green flag and his portraits and replaced them with the flag of the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya.  After the foreign Embassies had announced to their host countries that they had defected to the NTC, all countries with the exception of Zimbabwe accomodated the move. Zimbabwe on the other hand, announced that the NTC is not accredited with the Government of Zimbabwe, a SADC and AU requirement and therefore would not recognize the Embassy’s new status.  In addition, if the Libyan Embassy in Zimbabwe no longer represented the interests of the Libyan people, they would be asked leave. Why does the political establishment in Zimbabwe continue in a contrarian behavior? Because it can.

There are many unsubstantiated reports in the Sunday media of today, the 28^th August, 2011 suggesting that Gaddafi could have sought political asylum in Zimbabwe, a report ZANU PF has denied as speculative and untrue.  Assuming there is a shred of truth in these allegations, why would Zimbabwe go out of its way to harbor a perceived fugitive from justice whom the international community including the NTC of Libya has vowed would not let any clock, calendar nor boundary bar them from bringing him back to justice? Why would the political establishment in Zimbabwe even consider this move? Because it can and most probably no one and no body would stand in its way.

The events of the past ten to fifteen years around agrarian reform need no mention here in greater detail. Many white farmers in Zimbabwe have fought for nearly a decade, seeking compensation for their loss of immovable and movable assets which were seized from them violently. Not much progress has been made in this regard as some of the beneficiaries of the land reform programme are themselves part of the judiciary meant to preside over these cases. The drama that unfolded during this land reform programme happened in full view of the world and no interference from the international community, why? Because the political establishment, which is in essence the Government of Zimbabwe can.

More than thirty years on, Zimbabwe is taking about an indigenization policy that seeks to control and even nationalize foreign owned companies. First it was the land reform programme, and now it is the black economic and empowerment plan. What is evident is that there has been no extensive research and broad-based stakeholder consultations at sector level. Those who have been asked to spear head this policy have been hand picked because of their political affiliations to the current political establishment: a move not necessarily unusual when compared to other economic empowerment programmes in the region and world wide.  There are divisions in Zanu-PF, government and bureaucracy in general, ministers across the political divide and in state institutions, yet the Youth Development, Indigenization and Empowerment Minister is plodding along seemingly making up controversial rules and decisions as he goes along. Obviously, this is being sanctioned at a much more senior political level, because they can.

Recent and past events I have mentioned in this note are far from exhaustive. Be that as it may, having been an organizational strategist for most of my professional life, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable about what I do not know about the political dynamics in Zimbabwe. Hence the maxim: things are seldom what they appear to be. The political landscape is fairly fluid and whilst appearing to be on less firm ground, the political power of Zanu-PF which sees itself and acts in a manner exuding seniority in the Global Political Agreement is undoubtedly the only certainty on the ground. There are too many unknowns and therefore many blind spots. When there are too many unknowns, it is becomes an exercise in futility to connect existing dots. When known dots remain unconnected, it implies serious chaos and fragmentation inside Zimbabwe Incorporated, which then stifles innovative thinking and hampers logical decision making.

This leads me to the conclusion that, what we might not know about our country is probably very shocking. Yes, we know that in the 21^st century, change is the only constant.  However, if we are unable to plan for our future with a certain degree of certainty, then we are doomed into planning for the for-seeable short-term, which is what the majority in Zimbabwe have already become, in essence, living and planning for now, essentially compromising any meaningful future economic recovery of this beautiful nation. Unfortunately, time is not on our side and the rest of the world is not waiting for us to get our ducks in a row.