IN Zimbabwe there is a glaring divide between Zanu-PF and the Morgan Tsvangirai-led faction of the MDC, otherwise commonly known as MDC-T — a divide so apparent during election time; where Zanu-PF preaches development while MDC-T preaches electoral democracy.

The concepts of democracy and development are closely related in many ways, more importantly in that they are both always threatened by possible loss of sovereignty.

In the contemporary world of state capitalism — the economic doctrine largely prevailing in many developing nation states at the moment, loss of sovereignty often may result in a decline in democracy, at least in its Aristotlean sense. Simply, the doctrine undermines the people's will.

Loss of sovereignty inevitably leads to a decline in the ability to conduct social and economic policy and to integrate on a country's own terms into international markets. Western countries have deployed human rights groups in Zimbabwe, with a view to determine what comprises human rights on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and their Government. One such group is George Soros' Human Rights Watch, a group so scared that if Zanu-PF is allowed to have access to money, the party would be absolutely unstoppable in election 2011.

The rift between these groups and the Government of Zimbabwe, at least its Zanu-PF component (especially on Chiadzwa), undermines intensively the sovereignty of Zimbabwe.

An example is how the human rights groups are trying to block Zimbabwe's way into the international diamond market by abusing the principle of consensus agreement at the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme.

It is a wonder why Zimbabwe still wants to be part of an organisation that disregards the wishes of its majority. By respecting consensus the KP has effectively honoured the wishes of a minority handful of countries opposed to the sale of Zimbabwean diamonds — all because the absence of the KPCS certificate, ostensibly on the basis of the absence of consensus agreement, is exactly the desire of the minority handful of countries opposed to Zimbabwe.

Zanu-PF says Zimbabwe has a sovereign right to determine what to do with the country's diamonds or any other resources and as such the party will not allow Canada, Australia and the United States to abuse the KPCS and sabotage Zimbabwe's development in violation of WTO regulations.

The natural move for Zanu-PF should be to have nothing to do with the KPCS for now.
On the other hand, MDC-T stands in alliance with the hostile Western NGOs and they hold that only when these organisations endorse Zimbabwe's human rights regime, will they fully support the sale of Zimbabwean diamonds through the KPCS.

Development sabotaged by external forces is a gross undermining of a country's sovereignty, inasmuch as democracy prescribed and endorsed by foreign influences is an insult to the founding principle of democracy.
A decline in a country's ability to conduct social and economic policy harms development and this is why it is important for Minister Saviour Kasukuwere to keep the resolve on the implementation of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act.

Any compromises based on pressure from Western countries will mean a decline in potential development for Zimbabwe and a gain for Western capitalist investors waiting in the wings.

The historical trends in economic history clearly prove that when a country's social and economic policies are incapacitated by foreign influence, economic development sharply declines.

The same history tells us that loss of sovereignty leads to imposed liberalisation, be that of trade, or of liberties and freedoms in the human rights regime.

This is the kind of liberalisation that is solely aimed at safeguarding the interests of those with the power to institute this liberalised social and economic regime — all for their own benefit.

In fact, it is a manipulated kind of liberalisation which is run from Western capitals.

This is the regime commonly called "neo-liberalism", regardless that there is hardly anything new or liberal about this concept — at least not in the context of classical liberalism.

Zanu-PF and the MDC-T must both understand that the common enemy of both development and democracy in our times is neo-liberalism. Zanu-PF seems to understand this as a party hailing from a revolutionary past, perhaps less so from an economic perspective, and the party leadership has stood resolutely in defiance of neo-liberalism on the issue of land reforms and the economic empowerment of indigenous people.

Despite the fact that the very design of neo-liberal principles is a direct attack on democracy, the MDC-T strangely holds that neo-liberalism breeds democracy — that it upholds human rights and the welfare of the masses. The view is nothing more than a sponsored opinion — purely driven by the dictates of donor funding and political direction from Western political elites. In political science the view is a discredited one.

Some authorities like Noam Chomsky have asserted that it is debatable to assert that neo-liberalism is the enemy of development.

This is for the simple reason that the economy — especially the international economy; is so poorly understood and involves so many variables that even when close correlations are found, one cannot confidently outline any causal relations.

Robert Solow, who founded modern economic theory half a century ago, commented that despite his enormous accumulation of data since his pioneering work, "the direction of causality" is not known.

He said it is not clear whether capital investment causes productivity, or productivity leads to capital investment; or whether openness to trade improves economic growth, or growth leads to trade. These dilemmas arise almost in all other related dimensions.

Paul Bairoch, a prominent historian, argues that protectionism has commonly increased trade. He suggests that this is because protectionism stimulates growth, and growth leads to trade.

He points out that imposed neo-liberalism, the so called free market forces, has fairly had harmful economic effects since the 18th century.

Africa at large, and Zimbabwe in particular are all faced with enormous Western pressure to liberalise investment laws, markets, airwaves, and many other facets of social and economic life, and the basis pushed forward is that this neo-liberalisation will prosper Africa and make the economies of African countries stronger — all in a democratic environment.

Ha-Joon Chang provides a historical record with substantial evidence that "historically, trade liberalisation has been the outcome rather than the cause of economic development".
This is apart from the so-called development of narrow sectors of great wealth and privilege benefiting from resource extraction, for example mining. A lot of African countries have recorded this kind of "development", whose reality is nothing but extreme exploitation where value addition of African mineral resources enrich European countries at least 30 times more than they do to their countries of origin. It is deceptive growth. Why should the minerals of Zimbabwe cause traffic jams in New York?

Zimbabweans must know that the extraction of diamonds from Chiadzwa is not the route to development — not in the sense of the true potential lying in diamond wealth.

Westerners want Chiadzwa neo-liberalised for the benefit of Western investors, and this is why the South African investors operating in partnership with the ZMDC at Chiadzwa cannot qualify under the West's idea of liberalisation. These are "Mugabe cronies" and are supposedly a product of "patronage".

Even the Mauritius company taking over key shares at Zisco is not good enough to qualify into the doctrine of liberalisation.

The dominant theory is that of the rich and powerful, who vigorously advocate liberalisation for all others, and even for themselves — but only after they have achieved a dominant position and hence are willing to face competition from those in weaker positions — presumably on a "level playing field" – one heavily tilted in their favour.

Economic historians have in the past described this tactic as "kicking away the ladder": first the West violates the rules to climb to the top, and then they kick away the ladder once they reach the top, so that others cannot follow, and then they righteously proclaim: "Let us play fair, on a level playing field."

It is well recorded that until the 1920s, the US was the bastion of protectionism, dwarfing all else across the globe, and had the fastest growth rate, becoming by far the most powerful economy, rising to become the world's biggest power after the Second World War.

The basic protectionist programmes were established after US independence from England. Alexander Hamilton pioneered import substitution industrialisation — a gross error by the standard of liberalisation theories then and now; yet a cornerstone for development in the actual history of the US.

Yet today the US stands in opposition to Malawi's protectionism in its agricultural sector; they stand in hostile opposition to Zimbabwe's protectionist policies on its natural resources, vilifying Zimbabwe's land redistribution policy and describing it as "an extraordinary threat to the interests of the United States".
The greatest economists of Hamilton's time insisted that the US had to import superior British manufactures and concentrate on their comparative advantage in primary resource and agricultural export. The US violated these injunctions completely and their economy grew.

But today the same US wants Zimbabwe to concentrate on the comparative advantage in primary resources and in agricultural exports, reminding Zimbabweans without end that their known economic position is to become "the breadbasket of Africa", never the strongest economy in Africa, let alone globally.

We are told we must allow Western capitalists to invest into the extraction of primary resources and that we must allow ousted white commercial farmers to return to the repossessed farms and "revive the agricultural sector".

Robert Mugabe is the Alexander Hamilton of Zimbabwe. He resolutely violates the injunctions of the greatest economists of our time, and like Hamilton of the US, he will be vindicated when his protectionist policies will make Zimbabwe's economy the envy of Africa.

Just 10 years down the line, the agricultural sector is rising to be again the mainstay of Zimbabwe's economy, but this time fully in the hands of indigenous people. The country is already training diamond cutters so Zimbabwe can start cutting its own diamonds, to have value added end products that can be traded for the full benefit of the country.

Meanwhile, the MDC-T is vigorously advocating the "liberalisation of airwaves", monitoring of elections by "the international community"; the euphemism for Western countries, and all sorts of liberties and freedoms as defined and prescribed by neo-liberalisation.

Biti even wants Zimbabwe to declare itself a hopelessly poor country, so the floodgates for Western hegemony may be opened — all in the name of restructuring our economy.

The party believes freeing airwaves so that Westerners can fund and flood Zimbabwe's airwaves with voices that push Western interests is some kind of democracy — regardless of the apparent reality that this kind of liberalisation is a gross violation of the principle of democracy, by its mere attack on the principle of sovereignty.

Who in their right senses would free airwaves for VOA or SW Radio?

Adam Smith warned the US that monopolising their market at the expense of better quality British manufactures would retard instead of accelerating the further increase in the value of US annual produce, and would obstruct instead of promote the progress of the country towards real wealth and greatness.

He argued for the same predicament if the US would monopolise to themselves their whole exportation trade.
This was surely one of the most refuted economic predictions in history, spectacularly proven wrong by the growth of the US economy; but solidly rooted in the abstract theories that continue to be forced upon weaker nation states today.

The West cannot be allowed to kick away the ladder and then tell us to climb and join them at the top.
They do that a lot with their abstract lectures on democracy, they did that with the deceptive and ruinous IMF-prescribed Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) in the nineties, and they do it today with the manipulative aid that comes through their thousands of NGOs stationed across Africa.

They tell Zimbabweans that the MDC will bring "real change" and, of course, that change would be nothing more than a seal of endorsement for Western economic hegemony in Zimbabwe, as well as the condemning of our country to a producer of primary resources and primary agricultural exports.

When Zanu-PF and MDC-T face the electorate with the two election cards of development and democracy, it is important to see how each of the two parties is playing their doctrine in relation to neo-liberalism.

Without violating neo-liberal theories that govern the world economy today it is practically not possible to overturn the burdensome reality of imperialistic hegemony.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafa warova. com or visit www.rwafawarova.com

©  EsinIslam.Com