Global Policy Forum

By Eric Bloch

Ever since the International Monetary Fund (IMF) discontinued its funding support of Zimbabwe, it has been a pronounced target for scathing verbal attacks by the Zimbabwean governmental hierarchy, its bellicose media which unhesitatingly abuses the fundamental precepts of journalistic ethic in order to satisfy its masters, and those duped by such attacks into believing that the IMF is all that its loud-mouthed critics allege it to be.

Almost immediately after Zimbabwe's Independence, the IMF was forthcoming with considerable financial assistance for the young, new State that had a desperate need to develop its infrastructure, rebuild and grow the economy and source volumes of imports of capital and consumable goods. Much of the funding flowed from the IMF and, possibly of greater importance, the fact that Zimbabwe had a credible status with the IMF assuring it of public and private sector loan funding from international monetary organisations, and of vast aid from donor states.

Concurrently, the IMF, the World Bank and others, responding to requests from Zimbabwe, gave advice as to how Zimbabwe could most advantageously and expeditiously develop and strengthen its economy. Zimbabwe proved itself very willing to accept those advices - when they accorded with the desires of Zimbabwe's government - and especially so when they were accompanied with monetary largesse.

Thus, when the IMF advised Zimbabwe on a programme for economic structural adjustment, and provided much funding to facilitate and support the programme, Zimbabwe readily implemented those facets of the programme (which became known as Esap) which appealed to it, but either ignored the elements of the programme which were counter to the ideologies, economic perceptions and misconceptions, and the vested interests of those in power in Zimbabwe, or at best implemented the measures half-heartedly.

As a result, the first three years of Esap were a marked non-event, compounded by adverse climatic conditions. Belatedly, in 1994, the programme was pursued with somewhat greater commitment and vigour, resulting in some significant economic advances over the following three years. However, the liberalised, deregulated economy did not conform with the political and other aspirations of Zimbabwe's masters.

Esap represented freedom for the economy, but a straitjacket for the Establishment. Eventually the authorities could bear the constraints no more. They burst through the shackles that Esap represented to them (but not to the economy), and progressively reversed all that Esap had achieved.

As the economic gains were increasingly reversed, as economic decline accelerated, it was necessary to divert any possible criticism and blame, and rapidly the IMF became a target. After all, Esap was founded upon economic policies strongly advocated by the IMF, and it was essential for the populace to be misled into believing that the economic recession was the fault of Esap, which the state had therefore discontinued, in the alleged best interest of Zimbabwe and its people.

In castigating Esap, instead of itself, government successfully convinced many that the ills of the economy were not due to fault on its part, but to that programme which it alleged had been imposed upon Zimbabwe by the IMF. And then, the economy continued to worsen, despite repeated assurances by government that its actions would soon restore well-being (after all, was it not that "economy is the land, and land is the economy"?).

More and more victims to be the brunt of governmental verbal assault had to be identified as the culprits for Zimbabwe's woes. Hence Britain in general and Tony Blair in particular, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, whites, commercial farmers, industrialists, political opponents and numerous others were repeatedly accused of conspiring to bring Zimbabwe's economy to its knees. But throughout, the IMF was identified as a key villain, and more intensively so once it ceased to provide Zimbabwe of critically needed foreign exchange.

The fact that Zimbabwe was in default in servicing prior debt was not considered by government to be of significance. Zimbabwe is now indebted to the IMF for US$153,4 million (which, at official exchange rates, amounts to approximately $8,4 billion and, at prevailing parallel market rates, to about $153 billion).

As recently as eight days ago, a state controlled daily newspaper was emblazoned with a headline pronouncing: "IMF, donors destroying democracy in Third World". This form of crass attack upon the IMF has become an almost daily diatribe of vitriol.

In practice, it invariably is a matter of "the pot calling the kettle black". It was President Franklin D Roosevelt who, in an address to the United States Congress in 1941, suggested that the pillars of democracy are four freedoms. "The first is freedom of speech and expression .... The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way ... The third is freedom from want ..... The fourth is freedom from fear ....".

Of these four freedoms, only the second prevails in Zimbabwe. Freedom of speech only exists selectively, government having enacted draconian legislation to curb free speech, unless such speech is acceptable to, or emanates from, government and the ruling party. The third freedom, being from want, is almost non-existent in Zimbabwe, with more than 80% living in abject poverty. Millions are experiencing the pangs of hunger.

Many are the sufferers of malnutrition. The causes are incontrovertibly the reversal of the economic policies which stimulated the economy's recovery and growth from 1994 to 1997, that reversal being at the instance of government, and the disastrous mismanagement of Zimbabwe's immense agricultural resource by an ill-conceived, grossly inept and markedly unjust, agrarian reform programme, also at the instance of government, whereas a viable, practical, beneficial, internationally-supported agrarian programme could readily have been pursued, except that such a programme was not politically palatable to the ruling party.

And the fourth freedom is also almost non-existent in the Zimbabwe of the 21st Century. Fear abounds. Fear of starvation, fear of the alleged guardians of law and order, fear of other arms of government such as the CIO, fear of war veterans, and fear of many others who are clearly immune to the prescriptions of law!

So, far from the IMF destroying democracy, it is the actions of some of those in power in the Third World, and certainly so in Zimbabwe. (The latest example of erosion of democracy by the state is the contemplated legislation that executive mayors not be elected by those they are to serve, but be appointed by Government!)

Amazingly, however, on the same day as that attack upon the IMF was printed, the Minister of Finance and Economic Development reportedly stated, in an interview with an independent newspaper, that a "task force" is drawing up a macro-economic policy to be presented to the IMF and that talks with the IMF will be opened as soon as that policy framework is complete.

He is quoted as saying that "we are cognisant of the fact that we cannot go it alone without international partners" and that "Zimbabwe still values its IMF membership". He acknowledged that the IMF recently signalled that it was prepared to bail out Zimbabwe from its economic quagmire, although he also said that "government wants first to steer the economy to a sustainable path before seeking assistance from the IMF".

These statements fly in the face of oft-repeated contentions by many in high office in Zimbabwe that "Zimbabwe can go it alone - Zimbabwe does not need the IMF or anyone else". Perhaps belatedly an element of reality is setting in and eclipsing the delusions that Zimbabwe does not need others, save perhaps for those who are allegedly its friends, but whose friendship is linked to their own enrichment at Zimbabwe's expense. The minister's statements, deserving of much commendation and very courageous in the context of being the opposite to the enunciation of others in authority, are the first, very tentative, indications of a possible transformation of Zimbabwean attitude to the IMF and, therefore, to restoration of a constructive economic environment.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.