Few, if any, can claim to still be surprised by the antics of the paranoid, power-crazy dictator up north, who has spent the last near-decade single-handedly destroying what was once the bread basket of Africa.
These days, Robert Mugabe and his systematic deconstruction of Zimbabwe - a country once thriving off mineral exports, agriculture and tourism - has become a fact of life, an anecdote thrown around over after-work drinks, the subject of ridicule and source of tasteless jokes.
Unfortunately, the facts are far less amusing. Sweeping into power in 1980, the ZANU-PF party symbolised independence and an end to colonialism. Mugabe, first as prime minister (before installing himself as president in 1988), was hailed as a figure of hope, peace and conciliation - some Zimbabweans say he was regarded as a Nelson Mandela-like figure in his time.
But things change, and the only constant seems to be the unpredictability of African politics - most often taking the form of dictatorships masquerading as democracies - which can seldom be prised from power with a mere tick on a ballot paper.
These days, Zimbabwe is but a shell of the thriving country it once was. Since the start of controversial land redistribution in 2000, which has seen the eviction of some 4 000 white farmers, the country's economy has been on a sharp downward slope - mainly due to the decline of agriculture exports. As it stands, Zimbabwe's current official inflation rate is about 26 000% and the Zim dollar makes for good toilet paper and little else. Daily life in Zimbabwe is no picnic: there is a chronic shortage of supplies, including food and fuel. Tourism - a major revenue earner - has taken a huge knock and businesses are struggling to stay afloat.
Added to this, Zimbabwe is struggling with a shortage of foreign exchange and foreign direct investment has, for the most part, packed up and left the country.
Again, I say, none of this is new, but simply a fact of life these days. What also isn't new is that Zimbabwe's woes have not been restricted to within its own borders. Negative perceptions of the situation have tainted the entire southern African region in the eyes of the rest of the world, and many of those eyes have turned to SA, the continent's youngest and most sophisticated democracy.
No talking
As it stands, Zimbabwe's current official inflation rate is about 26 000% and the Zim dollar makes for good toilet paper and little else.
Martin Czernowalow, news editor, ITWeb
The response has been silent. President Thabo Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" has done nothing to allay the fears of horrified European governments and human rights organisations, which feel Pretoria would do well to take a firmer stance on its northern neighbour.
But alas, the silence is deafening. It is against this backdrop that ITWeb last week decided to check on the state of ICT in Zimbabwe, as it is hard to believe that any form of hi-tech infrastructure remains operational in a country where day-to-day survival has become the focus for the majority of its citizens.
Doing business in Africa has never been without its unique challenges, including power shortages, poor roads infrastructure, lack of telecoms penetration and often much red-tape and corruption. And that is without the extraordinary conditions in Zimbabwe. In addition, Mugabe has just signed the country's new nationalisation law, which stipulates that at least 51% of a foreign company's shareholding should be locally-owned. This means that any foreign company operating in Zimbabwe will have to renegotiate its investments and terms under which it operates.
Sadly, Mbeki's policy of "quiet diplomacy" seems to have rubbed off on business as well. ITWeb approached about 10 ICT companies that either have existing Zimbabwe operations, or which have recently withdrawn from the country. None of them would talk.
The one company that did agree to be interviewed, would only do so under conditions of anonymity and severely downplayed its presence in the country, the effect of the nationalisation law and, indeed, the conditions in Zimbabwe.
What's most ironic about this is that Mbeki has come under fire, in the past, for taking this very approach. In fact, business lambasted Mbeki for creating investor uncertainty and economists have charged that the president's stance has directly led to the rand plummeting.
So why aren't these guys now putting their money where their mouths are? Why are they tip-toeing around, especially the ones who no longer have a Zim presence, calling the situation "sensitive"?
At the end of the day, when failed "democracies" relegate individuals to dispensable pawns, who make up mindless masses that can be swayed through intimidation, or blind loyalty, business is the last bastion of reason. Business has a voice. So shame on you guys for not coming to the party.
Share