Well done to everyone who signed a petition, wrote a blog, submitted a letter to the editor, or otherwise complained about Luxurygate – The purchase of government vehicles.

Public discussion and pressure around this issue has prompted the statement below from the Prime Minister’s office – It’s a real shame that it takes people getting outraged about an issue before government finds the need to explain its actions. But steps like this will hopefully lead to the policy changes outlined below for accountability and transparency in government salaries and expenditure.

Cars for Ministers: The facts

There have been reports in the press of late about unjustified expenditure of motor vehicles for Cabinet Ministers and senior government officials.

Indeed it is the duty of the press in a democratic society to oversee the State and excesses of government.

A vibrant media that is not indebted to any political organisation is the cornerstone of any democracy.

However, to the extent that the Press is the Fourth Estate which plays a critical role in any society, it has an obligation to be fair, impartial, objective and accurate. That is why every journalist is taught the value of public interest, privilege and truth.

Public interest is key but it is not best served by mistruths and sensationalism.

In 2010, the Government of Zimbabwe set aside $1,5 million for the purchase of off-road vehicles for Cabinet Ministers and other senior Government officials. The money was disbursed to the Ministry of Transport in December 2010. CMED, a private company, has proceeded to acquire the vehicles which are a condition of service for Cabinet Ministers.

Since January 2011, the Ministry of Finance has been gazetting accounts following the procurement of vehicles for education officers, health officials and other key departments in line with allocations in the 2011 budget. There has been no allocation for Cabinet ministers in 2011 and the off-road vehicles, procured this year from the allocation in 2010, are for outreach duties.

Like all civil servants, whose plight everyone concedes must be improved, Cabinet Ministers are not on meaningful salary. Their salary does not include any allowances such as housing and education because of the limited fiscal space.

However, the so-called Luxurygate teaches all of us important lessons.

Firstly, that there must be transparency in the conditions of service, remuneration and other perks for all senior officers. While the current law says only the President’s salary should be gazetted, perhaps we need greater transparency where all remuneration and benefits for everyone in Government are made public so that there is no room for speculation.

Secondly, it is important for everyone in public service, including cabinet Ministers, to declare their assets and for the Government to have a comprehensive and vehicle policy.

The bottom line is that civil servants and Cabinet Ministers must be well remunerated so that they are able to buy vehicles from their own salary.

In the face of accusations of profligacy, the Prime Minister, as the head of Government charged with the responsibility of formulating and implementing Government policy, has sought to clarify the cost and the context of the procurement of the alleged vehicles.

The Government should not operate as a secretive enclave. In the public interest, the Ministry of Transport should state the full facts, the number of vehicles procured and the total cost to the taxpayer.

Luke Tamborinyoka
Spokesperson
Office of the Prime Minister

I’ve recently heard about a new directive from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Announced in RBZ Governor Gono’s July Monetary Policy Statement, it effects sellers of immovable property such as real estate.

A synopsis by MBCA Bank Limited explains the directive, but the notice on the Seeff home page draws more question marks around it, in terms of it not being written down formally or gazetted in a Statutory Instrument.

Effectively, the new policy required home sellers to wait a year before they can access the proceeds from selling their property. During that year, the money goes into a special “FCA Property” account. I’ve heard some estate agents argue that the new regulations “aren’t so bad.” You can access $50,000 of the value immediately, you can earn interest on the funds in the meantime, and you can access them if, for example, you have sold one house to buy another, or if you need to pay for things like school fees or other services locally or internationally.

But looking back at the past decade of Reserve Bank autonomy – and the impunity with which it printed money, financed pet-projects and engaged in quasi-fiscal activities such as car purchasing, it’s very difficult not to be cynical.

Surely if I sell my asset, the proceeds from this sale (barring perhaps something like a capital gains tax) are mine? No doubt since the switch to the US Dollar, the Reserve Bank has been short of work. Is the RBZ not trying to just divert all property sale proceeds through itself so it can keep some operating funds, have to fire fewer people,  and try and keep itself afloat a little bit longer?

I’m surprised not to have heard more about this. Maybe it isn’t actually as outrageous a move as it sounds? Or maybe  property sellers are such a small pool, the RBZ knows it can target them in this way without too much fall out? But if Zimbabwe is serious about trying to rebuild its economy and attract investment, surely the idea should be to make the transaction environment more free, rather than more restricted? It sounds like one rationale behind this new regulation is that buyers and sellers have been moving off shore without the Zimbabwean economy benefiting from these transactions at all. I agree that’s problematic – but with a history of the RBZ seizing assets, freezing accounts, and redirecting funds for its own purposes, is there any wonder investors are reluctant to keep their funds here? Surely moves like this one make it even more difficult to recover, rather than less?

Informed opinions about the legality of this move by the RBZ, and what it means for the Zimbabwean economy, are most welcome.

In a follow up to my disappointment with the MDC’s cancelled Minister’s feedback meeting, I was interested to get a new text message last night from them:

You are invited to attend the MDC 12th Anniversary Rally at Gwanzura Stadium on Saturday 10 September 2011, Time 10:30am – 4:30pm.

So the community feedback meeting is cancelled. But not the anniversary rally?

It’s hard not to be cynical that this is because politicians find it so much easier to talk at people, rather than speak with them.

Late yesterday morning, I got an SMS from the MDC announcing an MP feedback meeting in Harare that evening. Finance Minister Tendai Biti, co-Home Affairs Minister Theresa Makone, Minster of State in the PM’s Office Jameson Timba and Deputy Justice Minister Obert Gutu were slated to attend.

Coincidentally our newsletter headline that same morning had been “Seen your MP lately?” And when I got the SMS, I was pleased with this example of Ministers making themselves available to the public.

But I was also frustrated to have gotten the announcement at such short notice – which made it harder to share with others and encourage more people to attend. But I put it up on Twitter and Facebook in the hopes of inspiring at least a bit of participation – only to learn later that it had been cancelled, at even shorter notice.

Nine people attended, the speakers never appeared, and one of the participants finally phoned a different MP, who told them the meeting had been cancelled.

So why announce a meeting you don’t intend to have? And why announce with such little turn around time that hardly anyone hears about it and even fewer people can attend? It left me cynical and sceptical. Do the MDC Ministers actually want to be seen – and heard, and to see their constituents and hear what they might want to say? That is do they actually want to deliver or receive the feedback? Or do they just want the kudos of being seen to engage the public, without any of the hard work of actually having to organise, listen, or discuss?

I’ve noticed around Harare the billboard above advertising The Herald: News packaged to your taste. And I’ve been wondering if it is actually a terribly clever subversive undermining of the state media by whomever they hired to do their marketing. Because I don’t know about you but the image used – a crusty day-old bread roll, a bit of polony, some wilted lettuce and a few slices of that tasteless, processed, pre-sliced, plastic orange stuff that tries to pass as cheese – doesn’t exactly leave me salivating to by my latest copy of The Herald and tuck right in. But then again, I’ve always found The Herald pretty tasteless – in both senses of the word.

Rather than arguing about what social media can’t do, focus on what it can, urges Aaron Bady writing for MIT’s Technology Review this week. He looks at the role of tools like Twitter and Facebook in the Egyptian revolution, and without giving credit to them for “starting” the revolution, or even “causing” the revolution, he makes a thoughtful, reasoned argument for appreciating what they can do. He counters arguments from the likes of Malcolm Gladwell, that social media organising revolves around ‘weak ties,’ by suggesting that sometimes weak ties are exactly what you need to keep people working together – and not getting bogged down in disagreements over the detail.

Read more here – It’s worth it.