Power: The Indigenous Hiccough and Coal

By Andrew Field – Follow on Twitter
The exploitation of vast resources of coal in Botswana into viable exports to Asian and eastern nations, such as India and China has, apparently, a Zimbabwean impediment. Studies into the more viable routes to get Botswana’s coal reserves to the sea opt for routes which transverse either Namibia or Mozambique (via Zimbabwe). The latter, with its port at Ponta Techobanine, is considered the better choice. But Zimbabwe, through which this route would pass, is considered too much of a sovereign risk to would be investors.

In a loose kind of way, there are three power bases at stake in this tale of economic woe, the power of coal, electricity and then politics. Zimbabwe’s economy, it would seem, has been traumatised by each of them and there is no letting up as to when this might subside.

Zimbabwe is not without its huge coal reserves, a source of power, the better known being Hwange, but the larger comprises the huge untapped resources of the Sengwa, with its high coke value ore. Export route viability studies have actually considered the Sengwa fields as a potential partner in a rail route which would transverse Zimbabwe. One may well question quite why the Sengwa coal fields are not being fully exploited and perhaps why Zimbabwe was not ahead of Botswana in not only resourcing viable export routes to the sea, but fully implementing them too.

Electrical power is not abundant in Zimbabwe, in fact load shedding of electrical power is essential to help shoddy supply keep up with growing demand. There is a 700 megawatt shortage on the grid, and South Africa is a major supplier of the deficit. Conservative estimates suggest Zimbabwe has unpaid bills in the tune of US$150 million with its southern supplier and Zimbabwe is not ‘coughing up’. Sengwa lays for all purposes mostly idle, despite its huge indirect potential in power and export revenue generation, and Hwange is certainly not up to steam in either too.

The single most damaging power is that of the political variety or persuasion. Zimbabweans are so thoroughly pre-occupied with the consuming, if not petty, power play between one party and the other, that they seem not to be seeing the wood for the trees on the economic front which affects them most. One of the principle deterrents to foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe is the nationalist vogue towards indigenisation. Appropriation of majority stakes in foreign enterprise has become a misdirected priority. It is a highly emotive issue for local people, the majority of whom, in the long term, are really unlikely to reap its alleged empowerment benefits. Indigenisation is the tree obscuring the wood.

If anything, indigenisation has done more to scuttle economic growth in Zimbabwe than any other post inflation debacle policy. For a nation which so desperately needs foreign direct investment in its mining sector, not to mention others, Zimbabwe’s nationalist politicians are giving out all the wrong signals. The mining sector has borne the brunt of the first phase of indigenisation. Large mining houses have stopped all new developments; the stock market has consequently suffered a long marked depression, especially in mining counters; there is a liquidity squeeze; and no hope on the horizon that the folly might subside. Clearly, it is all a little too much for the limited minds of some politicians who espouse such damaging philosophy.

Part of the prejudice lies in the fact that Sengwa coal is not streaming down the rail routes to the sea; nor is local coal generating sufficient power to supplement the grid; nor is Zimbabwe reducing its dependence of direct foreign power imports; and now there is little hope that massive exports of Botswana’s coal will transit Zimbabwe, thus generate employment and enterprise.

It is a ludicrous state of affairs with much blind fumbling in the cesspits of political chicanery. Surprisingly, Zimbabweans are not questioning the lunacy, most likely in the naive and unlikely hope that perhaps the politicians might be right: that it will lead them to the holy grail of empowerment, wealth and happiness. Ice will form in burning coal furnaces before that happens.

Visit Andrew’s Simply Wild Photography photo blog… you will not regret doing so!

 

Big Brother’s Long Arm of Credit Rating

By Andrew Field – Follow on Twitter
What do you all understand by a credit bureau or indeed a credit rating bureau? The history of bureaux have been the establishment of databases which carried mostly negative information, such as civil defaults on loans or debt and perhaps even criminal records. These often operated on the old saying, ‘once a thief, always a thief’ and once you suffered a civil judgement against you then you could be blacklisted from obtaining credit, loans or other finance. That still happens today, but no credit rating bureau will admit it.

More recently, during the last couple of decades the credit bureaux have attempted to shrug off the blacklist image, and many of them talk of positive information going into their systems. Obviously the major credit retailers who use these bureaux feed information into the these bureaux, including good and bad credit redemption records. Through a process of algorithms both corporates and individuals are credit profiled (or scored) and by classification declared a good or bad risk.

I fail to see how these bureaux are covering all the points though. The banking sector is meant to have an ethos of holding its client information closely to its chest and indeed they have a fiduciary duty of confidentiality between themselves and their clients. Is it naive to trust that the banks are not providing your credit performance to any third party. Perhaps. One wonders if this client confidentiality extends to the large credit card companies too, since they have to be a major source of the information credit rating bureaux require. Perhaps your banking and credit card contracts allow for such disclosure. It is apparent the major credit card companies do ‘snitch’ your information to the rating companies. You should be told when they do.

If this secrecy about their clients is being honoured by both the banks and the credit card companies, then clearly our, now friendly, credit rating companies would not be seeing the entire picture. Even if they were, each bureau does not have the entire house of bankers, credit card companies and credit retailers’ information at their disposal, the entire picture. There is no global collation of the information either. Unless there is a mutual exchange of information between the very competitive, top three, credit rating companies, Experian, Equifax and TransUnion, then how can you be guaranteed you will get a fair hearing? I doubt you will.

It would seem clear then that, while the credit bureaux continue to accumulate negative data and blacklist, the quantum of positive information from its sources can only be a mere small sampling of the entire picture in each case. Yet the major credit rating companies, which basically use the FICO method of credit rating will claim that their systems are based on a statistical history of each individual’s or company’s credit handling. Are the bankers and credit card companies breaching their duty of confidentiality and disclosing your information to the rating companies, or are the credit rating companies simply pulling a fast one?

There also seems to be a lack of transparency here too. Any attempt by you to access your information more than say once a year is a difficult challenge and then you have to pay through the nose to get to the real information. The credit rating agencies should also be challenged about passing your information onto any third party in terms of national data protection and information acts. What is the real situation with credit rating? Clearly it has good purpose and gives some protection to the providers of credit, but it offers little protection to those who need or use credit.

Visit Andrew’s Simply Wild Photography photo blog… you will not regret doing so!

 

Speed, Guns and Tobacco Kill: Vehicle manufacturers get off lightly

By Andrew Field – Follow on Twitter
Speed trapping is probably the single most used law enforcement method to combat road deaths.  One might however question whether this does in fact save lives or whether it is merely window dressing enforcement to generate general compliance with the rules of the road.  For want of a better word the imposition of fines gets a wee bit ‘pedantic’ for those who are travelling at say 65kph in a 60kph zone.   We all know how easily and indeed comfortably one can creep up 5kph without noticing, but one supposes that rules are rules.
 
We need to take a step back from trapping to the actual setting of speed limits.  This is where the ‘do-gooders’, the politicians and councillors step in.  Some may suggest that speed limits are set too low, thus making trapping ‘easy meat’ for traffic law enforcement officers, and that cognisance should be taken of certain other factors, such as age of drive, experience and the type of vehicle they are driving.  Many are designed for speed.
 
Many of us are in metric speed limit zones and, generally, town centres are set at 60kph as a general limit and 80kph on dual carriageways.  The open general limit on highways is 120kph.   In the United Kingdom built up area are 30mph, while dual carriageways and highways get the 70mph approval.  Yet we are all driving vehicles which manufacturers have designed to travel upwards from speeds of 200kph/124mph, almost twice speed limits.  That is criminal!
 
One often wonders what science is applied to speed limiting, or whether in fact nations have just pursued limiting as a case of ‘those have always been the limits’.  Statistics have been quoted on United Kingdom based speed limits which suggest “Accident statistics show that at 40mph nine out of ten children hit by cars either die or receive life changing serious injuries. At 20mph nine out of ten survive.” **   Should 20mph be the general limit in built up areas?

Clearly, many people reading this will be thinking that their local speed limits are a little dull, when they come to consider it.  Nobody would propose that speed limits be abolished, because there are very good reasons not to travel at high velocity through, for example, built up areas where pedestrians dominate, especially the young.   But control does not lie in law enforcement trapping.  Given the amazing feats of engineering we enjoy in motor vehicles today, and considering aspects of age, driving experience and training, one wonders if speed limiting legislations has been left behind in the 1950s mindset.  It is very much contingency limiting, for that tiny minority who may suffer an accident, which cannot be adequately controlled.

Given all this, it would seem that more fundamental issues are still ignored.  These are that most people who take to the wheel of a car generally intend to be law abiding citizens and have no intention of using their vehicles as a weapon.  No cognizance is taken of those who are seasoned drivers, nor the propensity of the very young or the very old to be more accident prone.  No one cares about expansion of vehicle brake capacity or efficiency, vehicle design and the elimination, to a reasonable degree, of drink-driving (which combined with speed is a sure killer).
 
The potential impact fatality figures on children are often quoted.  With measures like gun control in the United Kingdom, when it was discovered that guns can kill in large numbers in populous communities, guns were banned outright.  Yet when it is evident that the higher the speed the more likely impact deaths occur, with vehicles, which are apparently more lethal than guns, vehicle are not banned.  Even recommended speed rates for hitting children are not imposed, less enforced, around areas where children predominate.   Compare legislation controlling health and safety on the roads with that imposed on the tobacco industry.  The principle objectives are similar, to save lives, except motor vehicles kill mostly third parties rather than cigarettes kill smokers themselves, if they choose to smoke.

As ludicrous as that may seem, legislators still have not considered limiting vehicle manufacturers with the speed that their production vehicles may travel.   There are no health warnings in the cockpits of these killing machines on four wheels!   To achieve ‘do-gooder’ status, really no vehicles should be allowed to travel beyond a nation’s speed limits.  Their ability to do so actually encourages, if not causes, crime.  With geo-positioning technology vehicles could be limited easily to speeds outside driver control, right down to that magical 20mph in areas where children might be likely jump in front of motor vehicles.  Yet nothing is being done with this line of thinking.

There are just so many variables, one might guess it would make traffic law enforcement just a little too difficult, but speed trapping will unlikely contribute to the reduction in road deaths.   More scientific speed limiting will and vehicle manufacturers should have been more involved in that process.

Visit Andrew’s Simply Wild Photography photo blog… you will not regret doing so!

 

The Social Media Threat: Myth or Revolution

By Andrew Field – Follow on Twitter
Zimbabwe has a poor record for press freedom and transparency.  The suppression of the private press by the former ruling party is well chronicled, yet freedom of expression is so fundamental to the constitution. Somehow the more open and technologically advanced media, such as the internet, or more specifically social media, has evaded the thinking of crinkly, party political, old salts (or the ‘chefs’ as we know them) who seem to call the shots.  That is, until now.

If the former ruling party had its way, social media subscription and usage would be purged.  It is a case of ‘if it’s not for the party, it is forbidden’. The people would not be able to express themselves, as the constitution allows, freely and without fear or prejudice.   This would be a grand strike against mythical neo-colonialism and century old imperialism, which still pump up the political vocabulary! The people should, of course, be free to uphold their opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.  Well not quite.

You see, there is a little caveat in the constitution which provides for legitimate suppression of this freedom where free speech may interfere with the interests of say defense, public safety, public order, the economic interests of the State, public morality or public health.  That just about covers everything any would be activist might wish to touch upon.  It is a broad enough caveat, with all those old imperialists hiding behind the chivuru (ant hills), for any would-be law-enforcer to stifle the thoughts and expressions of any activist!

Despite this, and at its recently held party congress in Bulawayo, ZANU(PF), which still assumes to be the absolute ruling party and sole legislator, resolved to ‘crack down’ on social media.  For such a ‘crack down’ to happen this would mean the purging of to the entire internet or at very least a few of its activist users, perhaps by mean of incarceration.  People would be prevented from blogging, tweeting or sharing their thoughts on social media platforms.  It certainly seems like the ‘liberation party’ is fearful of democracy being liberated.

Contrary to this archaic, autocratic thinking, the party’s own, more youthful perhaps, science and technology department are proposing the increase usage of social media for canvassing Zimbabwe’s youth.  The party’s existing methods of communication are no longer vogue and in line with modern trends, so they argue.  Clearly the old school and the Young Turks have different ideas and the former are certainly not being courted by anything which smacks of any popular freedoms, especially those of expression.

Zimbabwe’s youth is well educated. They must surely see through such resolute, antiquated thinking coming from the party’s senior citizens.  One wonders, in fact, how this archosauric party manages to pull the wool over the eyes of its apparently sharp party youth.  Surely they must realise how their freedoms have been eroded during past decades, how the economy has declined to their prejudice, not to mention that tiny circle to which party patronage is solely devoted, again to their detriment.  What is in it for these clearly gullible youths?  Take away their social media and the party can kiss goodbye to the social media savvy vote.

Social media in Zimbabwe has exploded.  Government has facilitated this before lamely realising its potential as a weapon of democracy.  The mobile networks are advancing their technology from the simple ‘speak and messaging’ era.  Now, the ‘browse and social network’ epoch, the technology of tomorrow, is being released and utilised from mobile phones.  Per capita usage of mobile phones has reached a staggering 15-20% – (53 per 1000 in 2005) and, as well can be imagined, a huge portion of this is in the hands of the youth.

The septuagenarian leadership is, apparently, ever fearful of a revolution on its doors steps being generated by social media, much like that which happened in North Africa.  One has to question why they should be so troubled, especially when social media generates fodder for intelligence eaves dropping.  It is a valuable resource. By all their accounts, the ‘liberation’ party is so manifestly popular with the people and, given the chance, ‘the’ party would sweep the polls and resume its absolute power and control… so they say and yet still may.

So why would a happy and content, party partisan, population ever consider fomenting violent insurrection on the platform of social media?  Surely that eventuality is as ludicrous as the proposed ‘crack down’, or is there something these awful politicians have to fear; may perchance lose; or are perhaps hiding from their incredibly, so it would seem, loyal subjects?  Are there grounds for people to agitate and revolt and is the undercurrent so thick and strong now that this has our leaders trembling in their boots before the first stones are thrown?

Visit Andrew’s Simply Wild Photography photo blog… you will not regret doing so!

 

Corrupt States: Outcome Choices – Democracy or Revolution

By Andrew Field – Follow on Twitter

One may ask, is there some correlation between democracy and corruption? It would seem there is. Those countries with autocratic or ‘president for life’ dictatorships, or those that suffer democracy challenges, seem to have a higher ranking, for being lofty in their corruptness, than those with more stable democracies. The recently released Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index for 2010 appears to suggest this when compared with other indices.

It is common purpose for lesser free nations to impose extreme controls to sustain their autocratic rule, and this depends upon an array of punitive legislation; a strong securotocracy of partisan service chiefs; systems of patronage, where Peter is robbed to pay Paul, in other words, the party faithful; and a generally kleptocratic ethos, opening up the stratagem for filthy corruption. Sound familiar? Zimbabwe is no stranger to this and is certainly no alien to its poor ranking on the corruption scales.

Zimbabwe, which was ranked joint 154th (with 11 other nations), of the 182 countries surveyed, joins a few other countries in the Sub-Saharan Africa region with similar poor ranking and likewise dodgy democracy records. Within the SADC region Zimbabwe is brought together with two others at the bottom of the corruption cesspool, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The top three (least corrupt) in SADC are Botswana, Mauritius and the Seychelles (Namibia and South Africa follow, regionally, in 4th and 5th place respectively).

If one looks at the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index rankings… there is a striking resemblance in their rankings, give or take a few juxtaposed grades and one major exception. Swaziland ranks highly amongst least corrupt, but is rated low on the democracy rankings; synonymous with its monarchic plutocracy, perhaps. Despite this, generally, rank correlation between democracy and corruption is distinctly apparent.

The EIU index places Zimbabwe, Angola and the DRC at the bottom of the SADC democracy standings, while Botswana and Mauritius are top ranking (most democratic) SADC nations (the Seychelles seems not to have been surveyed by the EIU). Here of course is another exception, the Seychelles has strayed from democracy in recent years and perhaps it is only time before the corruption sets in there; if the supposition is correct.

If this hypothesis is anywhere near decent, then, clearly, the solutions to Zimbabwe’s corruption lay with re-democratization of the nation. The people seem to want this, but are far from ready to demonstrate their will. Some years back, Zimbabwe was actually ranked 65th in the TI rankings. This is when the economy was faring reasonably well and the then popular party was getting its own way in power sustenance. There were no threats against the king. Perhaps the corruption ranking was skewed.

Then, about came change…the politicians went and spoiled it all. There was popular resistance to constitution change, which would have entrenched the Mugabe regime; then mindless forays into the DRC to fight another dictator’s squabbles; land seizures, theft and gluttony; denial of freedoms; suppression of transparency; explosion of inflation and consummate hunger; and now indigenisation; and some even say a military coup by proxy.

The people began to resist autocratic leadership and from there on it has been a slide down the slippery slope of political self indulgence, benefiting only the kleptocracy and its patronised bureaucracy. Zimbabwe skidded to its worst on record corruption ranking in 2009 become the 11th most corrupt nation of 180 countries surveyed. All that in just 10 short years, the root cause being simply to sustain a single individual in power, so they say; with his lackey coterie reaping the trappings of his protectionism and patronage. The once popular party now has some of the wealthiest politicians; one has to presume, being the product of lousy, edacious graft.

Some may take heart that Zimbabwe has actually climbed the rankings in 2010. Can we say this is probably the prize of a Government of National Unity (GNU), with ‘new kids’ on the block? Well perhaps not. It does not seem that those ‘new kids’ will be any different. There is a growing cynicism, a new mood, which suggests any new broom, brought about by greater democracy, may not sweep quite as clean as it should. This goes against the theory.

More recently people have been pointing at the nation’s pro-democracy Prime Minister and his apparently scandalous personal affairs presently in the public domain. This is sad and consequently issues of trust are now being raised, personal failures translate to susceptibilities elsewhere. Add to this Zimbabwe’s recent, wealthiest in the World, discovery of diamonds, and one might surmise, unfairly perhaps, that the scales will tip even further down the corruption order, no matter how democratic the nation becomes.

This should be troublesome indeed for Zimbabwe’s new breed of politicians, while the older ones look over their shoulders. The race here must be who gets to the post first, true democracy or the powder keg of violent revolution. We should draw from the fact that famine may purge southern Africa in the months ahead… if we are to believe this, then Zimbabwe could well run short of food, a clear melting pot for dissent. North Africa chose violent revolution, and while the parallels are few; corruption, personal and political self indulgence were core causes. In those primers there are parallels aplenty for Zimbabwe.

Visit Andrew’s Simply Wild Photography photo blog… you will not regret doing so!