Affirmative Action Group (AAG) President Supa Mandiwanzira spoke to state media journalist Augustine Moyo. He was quizzed on the AAG’s position on indigenisation and the future.
Augustine Moyo: Supa, what is your organisation’s position on indigenisation?
Mandiwanzira: Indigenisation is actually the reason for our existence. We stand for indigenisation. We stand for black economic empowerment, an equitable distribution and re-distribution of economic resources of this country. We believe that every Zimbabwean must have a piece of the national cake, not a token piece but a real piece. The AAG is also very clear that while our economy is open for everyone to participate, the biggest beneficiaries must be the indigenous people of this country.
Moyo: Do you not run the risk of being considered racist since you are focusing on black empowerment?
Mandiwanzira: I doubt that there is anyone out there who actually believes that pushing the cause of a society like blacks in this country — who were marginalised for more than a century — is racism. Unless we were saying dispossess those that have to give to blacks, then we would be racist, but that is not what we stand for.
We do not believe the indigenous people will prosper by taking away from whites, Indians, Pakistanis or Nigerians. But the locals will be better off if we adopted affirmative action policies to give them advantages against everyone else. For instance, we need to reserve certain sectors of this economy only to the indigenous. These should be industries that are relatively easy to enter and do not require a lot of capital. It’s actually very sad that some of our very enterprising women, youths and others in this country are being displaced from flea markets by foreigners.
Look at downtown Harare, who is selling toys, car radios and even second-hand clothes? I can assure you the majority of those people are not our people, and there is something definitely wrong with that.
Moyo: So are you saying even whites can join AAG?
Mandiwanzira: Why not? They are most welcome as long as they are Zimbabweans and they fit into the legal description of “indigenous” in this country. The law describes indigenous Zimbabweans as those disadvantaged before Independence in 1980. That definition is very colour blind and that is what we believe in at the AAG. I must also say we now need to move away from issues of race. If there is any white person still in Zimbabwe today, I believe they are genuine about loving this country and they want to serve it and serve it well. We need to embrace them and they, too, need to embrace the aspirations of black Zimbabweans to own and control their economic resources. They also need to use their many advantages to ensure they help black Zimbabweans recover from a century of deprivation to a future of plenty.
Moyo: A few months ago you walked out of a mining indaba at the HICC over disagreements about indigenisation in the mining sector. Why?
Mandiwanzira: First, let me correct the impression that I walked out! I never walk away from issues, I tackle them and that’s what I did at the mining conference. I did not walk out at all. This was a forum organised by the Chamber of Mines to interact with other stakeholders and discuss issues affecting their industry, the opportunities and the critical issue of indigenisation of the mining sector. I felt during the conference that while the chamber was putting across very important issues of survival and prosperity for the industry, the moderator, some gentleman from an NGO, was trying to patronise the audience so that the conference could only come out with one outcome — which increasingly appeared predetermined.
Be that as it may, my contribution was on the indigenisation of the mining sector and I pointed out that it was probably not the right forum to discuss such an important issue. Issues of indigenisation relate to ownership and when you discuss ownership of a business you must engage with the owner, the one who calls the shots and not with their employees. The mining industry was well represented at the conference by largely the chief executives, managing directors and others. Most of these are black Zimbabweans and I felt it unfair to expect them to properly articulate issues of indigenisation of the sector without running the risk of their employers beginning to feel they are joining the “indigenisation band wagon”. If you want to discuss the indigenisation of the mining sector, talk to those who own the mines.
I know in most cases these businesses are listed so there are thousands of shareholders — but I am also very aware that even among a million shareholders of one company, there is one or a small group that calls the shots.
I made it clear at the conference that Zimbabweans have really gotten a raw deal from mining houses, particularly the multi-nationals. If you really look at community re-investment, it has been next to none. In a few places, there have been some clinics, schools and some support to the engineering and mining school at the University of Zimbabwe. But if you look at the clinics today they have no drugs and the schools have no textbooks, among many shortages. Of course it is not the responsibility of mining houses to provide those, but what it points to is the fact that the community re-investment has been token and quite short-sighted. As AAG, we call upon real empowering community re-investment programmes. Something that changes the lives of people and their destiny forever.
Moyo:What do you expect the mining houses to do in terms of social investment?
Mandiwanzira: We want to see a mining house opening in an area and a boom of business activities in that area from vegetable and food suppliers to the mine, to other business activities promoted by the mine but in some cases without any direct correlation to the existence of the mine. Let’s say a mine opens up in the Zambezi Valley for gas mining — can we see some of the profits being ploughed back into the community to set up hectares and hectares of sugarcane plantations because the area is good for sugarcane farming. In my view that is community re-investment that changes a society for good. Building clinics is good but it adds no other value, but a sugarcane project can lead to other business activities.
Moyo: So given your answer, what is your action plan as the AAG?
Mandiwanzira: We will be strongly lobbying for Government to take the lead in negotiating tripartite agreements with new foreign companies investing in mining or extracting our resources and the representatives of local communities on the benchmarks that must be met before operations begin, to include details and modalities for re-investing a portion of mineral revenues in the areas surrounding their mines or operations; concrete socio-economic measures to be implemented to revamp basic infrastructure and increase local training and employment; precise processes to control pollution levels and determine reparations/compensation for environmental pollution and other degradation.
Which brings me to this point — the model of mining ownership in this country needs to change and guarantee shareholding to local chiefs who represent communities they preside over. The chief must sit on the board or nominate his appointee to the board. The community must be guaranteed at least 15 percent ownership out of which dividends must be ploughed back into the community. This ownership must be free to recognise that the resource available was God-given to that community. That is one of the things the AAG wants firmly put in the new constitution.
Moyo: In your view, has Zimbabwe been successful in its indigenisation thrust?
Mandiwanzira: Zimbabwe has been successful to some extent, but there is still a lot more to be done. I would say the success has been through the land reform programme and, as you know, land is the basis for any production.
The land reform programme has its own challenges of resources, but that should never take away the fundamental point that it is a resource that has been democratised. And the democracy I am talking about is that of wealth and many who sing the language of democracy sometimes forget that it must apply to economic wealth just as it does to politics.
If we look at the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, many large companies there are in black hands. Similarly the financial sector — despite some setbacks — we have our own people there. People underestimate this progress, but it makes a huge difference to have someone in a bank who understands your struggles and, in many cases, have themselves walked a very difficult rope to reach where they are. They are always willing to bend the rules to accommodate their own when it comes to fellow Zimbabweans borrowing.
We still need to do more in spreading the wealth, bringing people in the rural areas significantly into the economic fray. Right now they are exploited, they get a pittance for their produce simply because they have no direct access to markets. Government needs to build that infrastructure for them. The women are nowhere near the real economic levers and the youths are way, way behind. So the next level of indigenisation needs to target these groups and polish up elsewhere. We must not forget as well, the millions of our countrymen and women in the Diaspora — they deserve a big stake in this economy. They deserve the land that others here have received and a go at other economic opportunities.
Moyo: Why? And did the AAG make input into the Indigenisation and Empowerment Act?
Mandiwanzira: AAG did provide its input and I have no doubt that the law exists today partly because organisations like ourselves, the IBDC, IBWO and others clamoured for stronger participation of the indigenous in this economy particularly where it relates to the exploitation of our natural resources. I think the fact that the current Minister of Indigenisation, Youth Development and Economic Empowerment, the Honourable Saviour Kasukuwere, is himself a founder member of AAG, speaks volumes about the journey that has been walked.
Moyo: Some quarters argue that 51 percent is too much a stake and no investor can put their money where they do not have control. What is AAG’s position on the 51 percent?
Mandiwanzira: The debate on 51 percent is very unfortunate. Sadly it is Zimbabweans who have been in the forefront of making this an issue without even understanding clearly what the law says on the 51 percent indigenous ownership. I am a firm believer in 51 percent or more indigenous shareholding, particularly in the ownership of our natural resources. This applies to mines, land and the like. If someone from outside our borders comes in and takes up 100 percent of a mine, they do so to make a profit for themselves, a profit they will take back to their country. It gets worse, in the majority of cases — even the raw mineral is taken for processing outside of Zimbabwe thereby creating jobs for non-Zimbabweans and creating greater revenue for another country’s economy. So our view at the AAG is that 51 percent is important where ownership of our natural resources is concerned. However, if a foreign mining house, for instance, decides that apart from owning 49 percent in a mine — they also want to invest in a beneficiation plant — we won’t care whether they own 100 percent or 51 percent of that processing business. So in a nutshell, 51 percent in a business that relates to our natural resources is non-negotiable. I think that the law is very clear also that where 51 percent ownership is required, it is not over night. Companies must be allowed up to 10 years and even more to achieve this threshold. I do not see anything wrong with that. What is also important about our law is that it does not expect an investor to bring US$1 billion for an investment and give up 51 percent of it to indigenous partners. Our law expects indigenous investors to put an additional US$1,1 billion on the table to make the total investment US$2,1 billion. So clearly the noises about 51 percent local ownership being too much are very unfortunate.
Moyo: What about the point made in some quarters that the indigenous people will never be able to raise big amounts of money for huge investments in mining and other capital-intensive projects?
Mandiwanzira: I think they argue from a point of ignorance. The starting point must be the fact that the Zimbabweans own the resource, so that has a value and secondly that resource is what unlocks a loan from a financial institution. Try to go and borrow from a bank without a property that you give up to the bank as collateral and see how successful you will be.
And who says the 51 percent indigenous ownership should be in the hands of one person or entity? It can be a consortium of many indigenous players who take up a small fraction each. Listen, I know many companies where even individuals owning only 12 percent are controlling shareholders of a business.
On the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange you control a company with around 30 percent shareholding.
To conclude on this subject — let me also say as Zimbabweans, we are our own worst enemies sometimes. We are always so desperate to undermine that which is meant to benefit us. We also scold ourselves for things other countries have done successfully for the benefit of their own nationals. Are you aware that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Sky News, BskyB, Fox in America and loads of newspapers, had to change his nationality to being an American only to be able to own more than 10 percent of media enterprises in the US? Here, we are saying 49 percent, no problem.
Moyo: During the days of Phillip Chiyangwa at the AAG, there was a lot of activity at the AAG. What really is the thrust of the AAG now after Chiyangwa passed the baton? it seems the AAG has lost relevance in some way?
Mandiwanzira: Phillip Chiyangwa, the late Peter Pamire, Saviour Kasukuwere and others were the pioneers of this organisation. They had their own style of leadership that suited the situation at the time. Similarly, during Keith Guzah’s term, he had also his style of doing things — all for the good of the organisation. This new leadership of AAG believes in carrying the work forward and because times have changed, the style also is different. We believe in a lot of focus on the issues, technical responses to challenges and finally mass mobilisation to tackle the issues.
So if you are not seeing us as much as you would expect, it’s not that we are doing nothing. It is because we are dealing with the technical issues, strategising and when we launch the public phase, we are armed with facts and solutions that can’t easily be dismissed. AAG will never lose relevance, especially where a rapid and uncontrolled influx of imported goods are destroying the zeal of our own farmers, where thousands of Zimbabweans in industry are losing their jobs because we have decided it’s okay for South American chickens to land in Zimbabwe at next to nothing forgetting most countries subsidise their own farmers and industries.
I am sure you are not serious to assume that we have lost relevance . . . when women traders continue to struggle to feed their families and send their children to school through buying and selling but sometimes have their goods seized, etc. As AAG, we will continue to prick the conscience of those in authority.
Moyo: So what direction is the AAG taking of late and what is it doing now? There hasn’t been much happening lately. Again does the AAG have any members or it is a cartel of a few indigenous businesspersons with the same beliefs and interests? If there are, who are they?
Mandiwanzira: AAG has a lot of members. We are right now updating the database. We are probably the largest business organisation in terms of membership given the fact that we speak for everyone.
We want affirmative action policies for the youths, for women, for rural businesses, for industrialists and, more importantly, for every indigenous person who wants to claim their own piece of the national cake. Our objectives are noble and I have no doubt we speak to the aspirations of every true Zimbabwean. So if we speak for everyone, who would not want to be our member?
Moyo: By the way, you have since moved from journalism, what are you doing now for a living?
Mandiwanzira: Journalism is my passion, I would never move away from it. That’s what defines me. I remain very active in the broadcast media through Mighty Movies and Rainbow Cinemas. That’s where I work full time. Like everyone else, at the height of our economic challenges I tried my hand at other businesses in order to survive. But now is the time to go back to core business and I am firmly there. I am known for my media skills and I don’t wish to be known for anything else.
