By Nicholas Aribino
Economies of affection and vertical trust deficit When countries enjoy growth with development, leaders of such countries naturally earn the respect of their followers without necessarily muscling it up. Growth with development is growth that comes with hybrid dynamics that straddles both quantitative and qualitative aspects of development. As opposed to quantitative growth that is aligned to International Financial Institutions like the IMF and WB, growth with development is sensitive to human security because it embraces the happiness index of a nation, which is the qualitative domain of development. Many African countries are failing to realise growth with development because of political patronage, economies of affection, tender-preneurship, selective application of the law, corruption and pernicious polarization. Arguably, where economies are belaboured with the above factors, they become disarticulated and, in the process, vertical trust deficit sets in, thereby complicating governance. It is the object of this opinion piece, to ventilate the extent to which economies of affection have wrought vertical trust deficit in Zimbabwe.
Vertical trust deficit is a situation whereby citizens no longer trust their leaders. This mistrust emanates from citizens’ observations of how decision-making, policy making, production and distribution of resources, appointments, procurement of goods and services and dissemination of information are done. Since independence, there have been a disturbing trend of economies and politics of affection where government tenders, land distribution and appointments of personnel to key institutions like commissions, parastatals, judiciary, government boards, ministries and departments are concerned. For example, land distribution has largely benefitted the political elite, with some of them having multiple farms at the cost of everyday people of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, findings of most land audits have not been released for public consumption because they contain names of BIG people. During the time of Gono (2003-2013) as the governor of Zimbabwe there were agricultural implements and loans that were given to a beneficiary population defined according to politics of affection, and these loans were later written off. At the time of Kumbirai Kangai as the Minister of Land and Agriculture (1994-2000), the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) was prejudiced of millions of dollars when he flouted tendering procedures. In 2015 the Auditor General’s report revealed that the Basic Education Assistance Module (BEAM), which is a safety net for orphans and vulnerable children, was at some stage ring-fenced (US$500 000) for food hampers for some officials in the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, leaving multiply minoritized students without anything to cater for their scholastic needs. The Auditor General has on several occasions revealed deep dyed corruption within parastatals, government departments, parliament and commissions. Specifically, in 2016 a report by the Auditor General revealed that US$15 billion in diamond revenue had just dissipated due to lack of oversight and corrupt tendencies in the state-owned diamond company.
In the light of the above revelations of leakages within different public structures, the citizens naturally lose faith in the entire fabric of governance. When there is loss of faith in the system, citizens develop what is called vertical trust deficit. In an environment where there is vertical trust deficit as a result of economies of affection, institutions become dysfunctional because appointments to such institutions may be according to homophilic tendencies as compared to meritocracy. Filter bubbles and echo chambers are common in token economies because they characterize side taking rather than perspective taking. Economies of affection split nations into camps and these camps make it difficult for countries to be guided by issues when critical decisions are being made. Economies of affection identify with home or identity politics that can never help nations to converge on a common ground of building their nations. Where there are binary divisions, citizens will suffer as the distribution of resources will be done along political persuasions, key institutions like the judiciary and parliament will be guided by the strategic interests of people who wield social, political and economic power. The court judges in such nations become the spirit mediums of the political elites when they hand down judgements in court, and the parliament becomes an institution for settling scores and making laws that align to an incentive economy. As all these things happen, citizens will be observing and as they observe, their cognitive structures are coloured in a manner that creates a fertile ground for thinking that nothing good will come out of Nazareth. When such perceptions hold sway, citizens lose faith in the whole system of the nation and may fail to rally around the flag of their own country. Some of the citizens may even consider to migrate to other countries where they can build their careers and others may decide to remain in the country by riding on an unbanked informal economy where they get by through survivalist approaches of street smartness (kiya kiya, kungwavha-kungwavha).
Economies of affection do not come with any beneficiation, because they create the US vs THEM mentality which is toxic to growth with development. As we live in Zimbabwe let us realise that Zimbabwe is bigger than anyone of us and that social, political and economic circumstances change. In the event of shifting circumstances, we should be able to find one another as Zimbabweans. We only have one country, thence we need to develop it with an attitude of a singleness of purpose and fixity of focus. Economies of affection are not sustainable because circumstances change. Who ever thought that the late President of Zimbabwe R.G Mugabe would be buried in Zvimba, and not at the hero’s acre?
I am writing in my own capacity
