I was distressed to read about ZANU PF youth who laid siege to the Minister of Finance’s office, apparently with the aid of the Zimbabwean police. What is worse is that one of the youths was heard in conversation with Webster Shamu, who is reported as attempting to call off the youths after presumably sending them there in the first place. The implication that politicians are ordering these youths to attack to further their political interest is not surprising.

Recently, I interviewed Grace Chirenje, who is a passionate advocate for young people and in particular young women.  This is what she had to say about the youth being used as a political tool:

I can’t blame the politicians. Imagine if the youth said no, enough is enough we will not allow ourselves to be used to perpetrate violence, we will not allow ourselves to be engaged only during elections. No one has ever approached the youth and said, there’s a crisis in this country, what do you think? I think the youth should begin to say no, we will not allow ourselves to be used by politicians. After the violence they still remain as neighbours, brothers and colleagues.  I think we need to begin to define our role as young people.

What continues to vex me is that the youth allow themselves to be used. What makes me angry is that it paints a picture of my country, my countrymen and my generation that shows us to be ignorant political tools unable to think for ourselves.

We are better than this.

This year the World Bank forecasted that the economic growth rate in Sub-Saharan Africa would reach 5.3%.  Adding to this positive projection, the Economist published an analysis conducted over the ten years up to 2010, which states that six of the world’s ten fastest growing economies were in Sub-Saharan Africa. For the period 2011-2015, the analysis forecasts that Mozambique, Tanzania, Congo and Zambia will be ranked in the top ten fastest growing economies in the world.

Zimbabwe stands a very real and frightening chance of being left behind by her neighbours. While the core philosophy of Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment is to restructure our economy and restore sovereignty to the previously disenfranchised majority, the proposed regulations fall far short of this aspiration. The Research and Advocacy Unit recently released a report titled “Racketeering by Regulation”. Noting political and selfish interests behind the regulations, the report says:

… simplistic interpretations placed upon the laws by the press have fed into the notion that white owned and foreign businesses will soon be dispensed as largesse to the ZANU PF faithful.

… Over the Regulations hover the spectre of the land invasions and the tacit threat that, if a business has not suggested a means by which 51% of the business can be transferred to indigenous Zimbabweans, the business will simply be seized in the same manner that land was taken from white farmers.

The regulations in no way make provision for the key ingredients required for creating wealth and prosperity for all Zimbabweans, being more concerned with expropriating existing capital. Myopically, Mr. Kasukwere failed to craft regulations that create a policy environment conducive to the creation of new wealth, and most especially encouraging entrepreneurship by young indigenous Zimbabweans. RAU’s report is aptly titled. The regulations create an environment that can only foster greater corruption and patronage by those in power.

Our Dear Leader and his government need put in place the right policies and provide the right environment and incentives for capital and businesses to come in, and for the creation of new business by indigenous persons. Government cannot punish foreign investors that already have a presence in the country with one hand, and beg for new investment with the other. It is contradictory and self-defeating. The survival of ZANU PF itself beyond the next election also depends on the success of their present and future policies regarding indigenization and investment. It is an oft-repeated fact that Zimbabwe has a significantly young population that is largely unemployed. It is this section of our society that is eagerly awaiting the disbursement of riches from foreign owned firms.  Only when tangible solutions to poverty and unemployment are delivered will the Third Chimurenga become more than another convenient political rallying point.

Last year there was uproar about the Zimbabwe Ministry of Education’s new policy of allowing expecting teenagers parental leave from school. This year the National Aids Council has proposed the introduction of condoms into schools as a way of fighting HIV/AIDS. This has also been met by a public outcry. Even organisations purporting to represent the best interests of young people are in denial about teenagers having sex.

Newsday quotes Programmes director for Justice for Children Trust, Caleb Mutandwa as saying: “I think for us as an organisation, seconding the placement of condoms in schools will be difficult to support. Most children in schools are young and the majority of those at secondary school are still below age, below the age of 16. What will they need them for?”

Youth Forum senior programmes officer Terrence Chimhavi also agreed, citing a lack of curricula designed to teach adolescents about contraceptives. He added, “Instead they should be taught about the disadvantages of engaging in sexual activities and be taught about how to abstain.”

The reasons why adolescents engage in sex are numerous and complex, but surely the most terrifying is economic. Intergenerational sex, where young girls have sex with older men for money, is a well-documented phenomenon. Several reports have concluded that consensual or forced sexual relations between vulnerable girls and older men – is driving much of the AIDS epidemic in southern Africa because many of the men are HIV-infected. According to UNAIDS, four out of five new infections in Zimbabwe in the 15-24 year old age group in 2005 were among girls. More specifically at risk of infection within the group are adolescents, as evidenced by the MOHCW (2000) study in which girls in the 15-19 years age group had an infection rate about five times that of males in the same age group.

It is no longer enough to say that good girls or boys don’t have sex before marriage.  Our traditional systems are collapsing, the high number of illegal abortions and the disturbing media reports of children who have been sexually assaulted by relatives should be adequate evidence of this. If we are to raise an HIV-free generation we have to look at the problem objectively, without being pious or self righteous. Our children need a sex-education curriculum that is unprejudiced and presents them with all their options, not just abstinence. They need greater access to reproductive services without being stigmatised by healthcare workers. Policy makers and non-governmental workers need to address the economic reasons young girls are having sex, and to stop living in denial. It is irresponsible to prescribe solutions that they personally do not practise.

There’s a bridal shop opposite my office. Every morning on my way into work I can’t help but glance across at the display of beautiful white full-skirted gowns and long a little to one day wear one on my own wedding day.

I know many women who have married for love. The grand illusion that happily ever after begins with that white gown has been cemented into the consciousness of every young girl who has ever spent a happy childhood reading fairy tales or watching Walt Disney’s Cinderella, Snow White or the Little Mermaid.

Marriage in the 21st century is not what it used to be. Before feminism made a home in Africa and the advent of industrialisation, marriage could have been interpreted as acquiring labour. Traditionally it is women and children who worked the fields. The purpose of marriage therefore was to ensure the material security of a woman, and through her ability to bear children that of her family. The bonds formed during a marriage ceremony obligated her husband to contribute towards the welfare of his bride’s family. Women were and still are conditioned to view marriage through this lens, that of self-sacrifice to meet your obligations to support the survival or your family through production by yourself and the children you bear.

In an industrialised world children are no longer necessary for labour, in fact they have become a liability, and the ability to bear them in great numbers is no longer as prized. As our economies have evolved, so have our social structures. Marriage moved to being about financial protection as women could not work and earn enough to support a family. So still they were married for security as well as for their families to establish a connection with well to do families.

Now, sisters are doing it for themselves. Increasing numbers of women are delaying marriage and their first child in favour of leading an independent life. As for obligation and sacrifice, those were necessary to keep your husband and financial protector happy, if you make you own money and the world is civilised enough not to try and drag you into a cave every so often, you can do without them.

So where does that leave marriage?

From Pambazuka:

Given the state of our economy, the current model for Indigenisation cannot help but appear to be another political project that plays on the poverty and disenfranchisement of millions of Zimbabweans but in effect will only benefit a few.

Speaking in an interview with the state media Reserve Bank Governor, Dr Gono says
“It has to be realised that not everybody can fit or benefit from the equity-ownership model we are pursuing. Only a few will and that’s a fact.”

One has to wonder what exactly the agenda is behind the programme. It is no secret that the Minister responsible for the programme is a business man himself, neither is it a secret that our Ministers have used other such programmes to amass vast wealth at the expense of the ordinary Zimbabwean.

There are far too many young people with brilliant ideas who lack the capital to finance their enterprises. There are even more who are frustrated by unemployment and poverty. It is this generation that runs riotously through the streets demanding that foreign owned property and companies be given to Zimbabweans. While for now they might have been persuaded to riot in aid of the Minister of Indigenisation’s cause, it is only a matter of time before they turn on a government that is failing them.

If we are to carry out indigenisation then it must be transparent and it truly must benefit all Zimbabweans.  Indigenisation should not be limited to the expropriation of shares from the few companies that have survived the economic roller coaster of the last decade. Empowerment must be looked at holistically. Rather than simply dividing up an economic cake that is becoming smaller every day, let us consider ways in which we can add to it and create wealth. We cannot continue to brag about Zimbabwe’s vast mineral wealth and human capital without having Zimbabweans at the forefront of exploiting these resources for Zimbabwe’s gain.