Publications

THE IMPACT OF INDEPENDENT INITIATIVES: CASE STUDY OF ZAMBIA

When I left Zambia Saturday afternoon, one of the government newspapers was headlining massive debt reductions for Zambia, as we qualified for so-called “HIPC Relief.” But reporting on the same event, one of the independent newspapers that same day had an equally massive headline, “Zambia Tricked!”

 Earlier in the week, the other government newspaper carried a headline story indicating how much the debt relief would greatly assist the poor in the country.  Immediately next to this front page story was another headline story telling us that the last act of the sitting Parliament before adjournment this year was to award its members, and the President and Vice-President, sizeable pay increases, while denying any increase to grossly underpaid civil servants.

I believe that the juxtaposition of these headlines is itself a significant part of a larger headline story: the on-going saga of Zambia’s struggle to find equitable and effective relief from its extremely heavy debt burden.  The Honourable Patrick Kalifungwa has fully explained to you the extent and consequences of Zambia’s current debt situation.  My challenge now is to offer to you a picture of the structure and activity of civil society in Zambia in promoting an “independent initiative” to secure debt relief.   I want to briefly address six points:

1.      The framework of the initiative

2.      The record of its activities

3.      The specific recommendation for a “debt mechanism” as an example of “conditionalities from below”

4.      The connection of the initiative with the PRSP process

5.      More radical alternative dimensions of the initiative

6.      The lessons to be learned from the Zambian experience

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

 Before addressing these points, let me say something about Zambia and about myself.

First, about Zambia, a country of serious problems, indeed.   Problems in the economy, in the politics and in the social scene.  It is one of the poorest countries in the world, and has one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS infection.   But it is also a country of tremendous potential and promise.  Significantly, It is at peace, though surrounded by neighbours in conflict.  It has great agricultural possibilities of rich land and abundant rivers.  It has a new multi-party democratic system, struggling to be sure, but President Frederick Chiluba has assured the national and international community that he would abide by the constitutional requirement to step down when his two terms of office end next year.  (I had originally intended at this point to make some astute comments on the need for clear presidential elections, but as a citizen of the United States of America, I decided it would be better to be quiet!)  It has a free press, a very lively civil society, a strong women’s movement, and a highly competent justice and peace movement.  Everything I say about Zambia’s problems, then, must be situated in the context of Zambia’s potentials.

Second, about myself.  For you may wonder why I, a non-citizen of Zambia, am speaking here this afternoon on this panel.  Because of previous commitments, other members of my team, all Zambians, could not come to participate in this conference.  I have lived continuously in Zambia for twelve years.  I am trained as a political scientist, and concentrate on issues of political economy of development.  I am a Jesuit Catholic priest, and work on Sundays in a very poor parish on the outskirts of Lusaka – where the people and their situations poignantly remind me of the realities of the issues I write and talk about!  What I have to say here is influenced by my team’s perspectives, my academic training, and my pastoral experiences.

1.  FRAMEWORK OF THE INITIATIVE

 For the past two and a half years, Zambia has had an extremely active Jubilee 2000 campaign.   (Other activities preceded this formation of the Jubilee initiative, and we have built gratefully on these.)  A loose coalition of church groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, student groups, business associations, academics, and others, Jubilee 2000-Zambia has now established itself as a recognised and respected actor in the country.  This recognition and respect is a consequence of its strong mix of activities, which I will comment on in a moment. 

 What Jubilee 2000-Zambia stands for is very clear: (1) total cancellation of Zambia’s external debt of US$ 6.5 billion (more than US$ 650 for every woman, man and child in Zambia!) and (2) direction of any resources freed through debt relief to programmes of poverty reduction.  To be more accurate, we do not speak of “debt relief” but “debt cancellation”; and not of “poverty reduction” but “poverty eradication.”  It is better to speak the ideal that broadens our vision than the pragmatic that narrows our heart!

 Within that stance, Jubilee 2000-Zambia does not endorse the HIPC initiative, even in its supposedly “generous” form offered finally to Zambia last Friday in Washington DC by the IMF and World Bank.  (Indeed, it was one of our team who was quoted in the headline I mentioned earlier, “Zambia Tricked!”)  Reduction of debt stock by several billion dollars may sound impressive, but not when there is only minimal reduction of debt servicing.  From the projected US$ 177 million annual servicing in 2000, the “front loading” relief means that we still will have to service an average of US$ 165 million in each of the next three years, and US$ 215 in each the two years after that.  To put this figure into perspective, this is more than our health and education budgets – in a national of extremely serious health and education problems!

 Are we unrealistic, then, to ask what kind of debt relief is it that delivers little or no actual relief? 

 We also reject HIPC’s insistence on elements of the discredited Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP).  (Some Zambians say SAP stands for “starve African people,”  “stop all production,” or, in the local language of ciNyanja, “Satana ali pano” – the devil is in our midst!)

 For this reason, it is important here to recall the framework for the initiative of Jubilee 2000-Zambia’s call for total debt cancellation.  A joint pastoral letter issued in August 1998 by the three major church bodies, representing Protestants, Catholics and evangelicals, stated this very strongly in arguing that Zambia’s debt is clearly unpayable:

 “Zambia cannot pay back because the debt burden is economically exhausting. It blocks future development. Zambia will not pay back because the debt burden is politically destabilising. It threatens social harmony.   Zambia should not pay back because the debt burden is ethically unacceptable. It hurts the poorest in our midst.”

 2.      ACTIVITIES OF THE INITIATIVE

 What has our independent initiative attempted to do over the past two and a half years?   I can briefly summarise the activities as two-fold: popular mobilisation and policy advocacy.

 The popular mobilisation has involved us in programmes to educate and move the Zambian public – including, to be honest, government officials such as Parliamentarians – about the genesis, extent and consequences of Zambia’s external debt and the ways to get out of the debt trap. These programmes have included:

 Petition gathering to demand cancellation of debt: over 300,000 signatures (45% from rural areas) prior to the Cologne G-7 meeting in 1999.

 ·       Conferences, seminars and workshops involving civil society representatives and also government and international partners.

 ·        Wide use of the media, both electronic and print, including vernacular dramas on radio that reach audiences that would never attend a seminar.

·         Street theatre drama, in shanty compounds, that demonstrate the effects of debt on families and mobilise the audiences to demand cancellation.

·         Public rallies and demonstrations, for example a “procession” to the Japanese Embassy (the police would not give permission for a “demonstration”!) prior to the Okinawa G-8 meeting.

 ·        Regional workshops in eight areas throughout the country, to get the message out to people beyond the capital of Lusaka.

One measurement of the success of this popular mobilisation is the public opinion poll conducted early in 1998 and again in 2000.  Whereas little more than 65% of the respondents (mostly Lusaka dwellers) knew of Zambia’s debt during the first poll, over 85% knew of it during the second poll.  An interesting gender dimension to the poll – more women than men felt that the debt should be repaid!

The policy advocacy side of the initiative has meant at the local level constant contact with government officials, creditor nations, and the international financial institutions.  At the international level, we have been a very active partner with the world-wide Jubilee 2000 campaign and have cooperated with many other solidarity groups, in the South and in the North.   Our advocacy positions have included:

·         Call for total debt cancellation in order to put resources into sustainable development efforts that reduce
poverty, such as health and education services and productive programmes in agriculture and employment generation.

·         Design and push of a “Debt Mechanism” to assure handling of debt relief resources in an accountable, participative and poverty-reduction oriented fashion.

·         Presentation of the debt cancellation position before the first-ever Consultative Group meeting held in Lusaka, July 2000.

·         Active participation in the PRSP process currently underway, to pressure for an integrated approach to poverty reduction measures.

·         Active involvement in the recent HIPC negotiations, assisting the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development to present a position that even included a call by the Minister himself for outright cancellation of the IMF debt.

The effectiveness of the policy advocacy of our initiative has, I believe, rested upon two things: serious in-depth analysis of the issues and strong cooperation with partners pushing for the same points.  We have struggled to be part of the processes while not being co-opted – and this is not easy, believe me.

3.       RECOMMENDATION OF A “DEBT MECHANISM”

One of the strong points of our independent initiative has been the proposal for a “Debt Mechanism” to assure that any resources freed up by debt relief really do go to benefit the poor and not simply into more posh vehicles for government officials.  (As one campaigner put it, “Provide for the masses and not for the Mercedes!”)   This responds to a serious concern not only of Northern partners like might be represented here at this conference but also of the average Zambian.  Our recent public opinion poll sadly revealed that over 75% of the respondents felt that resources from debt relief would primarily benefit the government and the rich!

Taking some hints from Uganda, we have proposed a Debt Mechanism that establishes a tripartite committee composed of representatives from civil society (e.g., NGO’s, churches, trade unions, business groups), Members of Parliament, and relevant government Ministries.  This committee would oversee the handling of the resources.  The resources themselves would be placed within a Social Fund, established with distinctiveness either within or outside the regular budget, and oriented toward poverty reduction programmes.

This Debt Mechanism for Zambia has been laid before members of Parliament, officials in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, international partners, and the general public.  The reception for the general idea has been favourable, though the particular structure has received many questions.  And to be honest, the government that warmly embraces Jubilee 2000-Zambia in its call for debt cancellation becomes considerably less enthusiastic when we propose how freed-up resources might be managed!  Moreover, focus on this proposal became less prominent in the recent push for civil society’s participation in the PRSP process.

But the movement of Zambia into some HIPC relief, however minimal at this time, calls for us to push this independent initiative even more strongly now.  We want to set a precedent that Zambia can indeed manage these resources in an accountable, participative and poverty reduction oriented fashion.  This is an excellent example of something we have advocated for passionately in recent years: not more “conditionalities from above” – imposed by outside creditors, but the chance for “conditionalities from below” – generated by local civil society.

4.      THE INITIATIVE’S CONNECTION WITH PRSP

Allow me to say just a few words about our initiative’s relationship with the PRSP process, since the poverty reduction strategy is a major topic to be taken up tomorrow at this conference. 

Jubilee 2000-Zambia has entered fully into the process, and there are twelve representatives of civil society serving on the eight Working Groups.  My own office serves as the focal point for coordinating civil society’s independent input into the process, promoting wide public awareness, facilitating grassroots participation and providing keen analytical contributions to the debate. 

 But Jubilee 2000-Zambia also has all the appropriate skepticism about the PRSP that should be expected as we relate to this new approach offered by the IMF and World Bank.  (Does PRSP really mean “public relations strategy paper”?)  From our Zambian experience, we have three major reservations:

First, the PRSP process should not be viewed as a resource attraction and allocation exercise but as a major development planning exercise.  It provides a chance for government and civil society together to do some visioning, make some planning, and set some priorities.  With the 1991 passage from the socialist economy of the Second Republic to the neo-liberal capitalist economy of the Third Republic, “planning” became a dirty word and we have sadly missed an opportunity for sustainable and integral development.  But PRSP can and should provide that opportunity for us now.

Second, the PRSP process should be disconnected from the HIPC initiative process.

We should not be rushed by arbitrary points in the HIPC calendar.  Unfortunately, Zambia entered into an “interim PRSP” in June this past year because of the pressure from the IMF.  I say “unfortunately” because civil society was excluded from the design process and from the concomitant “Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility” negotiations.  PRSP is distinct from HIPC and should not be confused together with it.

 Third, PRSP should not be subjected to the discredited conditionalities of the structural adjustment programmes.  The macro-economic framework within which effective poverty reduction is to be situated should be flexible and adapted to the specific needs of the country.  In Zambia, we may need to move away from the dogmatically rigid free market approach of liberalisation and privatisation and budgetary restraint if genuine and sustainable poverty reduction is to take place.  This will be a test as to how acceptable truly “home grown” approaches will be to the IMF and the World Bank.

5.       MORE RADICAL ALTERNATIVE DIMENSIONS OF THE INITIATIVE

 There are two important dimensions of this initiative in Zambia that offer some alternative models to the current debt relief approaches. 

The first is the proposal for an international arbitration mechanism that would allow Zambia and other heavily indebted poor countries to place their case before a neutral body for decisions regarding legitimacy of debts, conditions of payments, etc.  This proposal is for a type of international court, possibly associated with the international tribunals of the United Nations.  It would mean that the creditor nations would not relate to the debtor countries as the most powerful actor, but would themselves be subjected to fair and impartial examination and settlement of claims.  Many of the Jubilee 2000 groups in the North are pushing for such an international debt arbitration tribunal.

The second is more distinctively a push from the South.  This is for selected debt repudiation or abolition.  It is based on the historical facts of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, ecological exploitation, unfair terms of trade, etc.  This argument sees the South as the creditor and the North as the debtor and asks quite simply but profoundly, “Who owes whom?”  Frankly, I urge this audience, before yielding to the temptation to reject out of hand these claims for reparations, to recall the very real efforts at justice taken in recent years in Europe in the face of the legacy of the Holocaust or the current call for addressing in the United States the issue of reparations for African-Americans because of the legacy of slavery.  

One aspect of this reparations argument is pertinent to Zambia and several other southern African countries.  This is the so-called “Apartheid-caused debt” – debt accumulated because of the activities of the Pretoria regime to sustain Apartheid.   My team has just completed a major study, to be published next year, that documents the large proportion of Zambia’s current debt stock that is directly due to necessary borrowing to restore infrastructure damaged by South Africa and its ally, Rhodesia, to redirect normal trade routes cut off because of the conflicts, to host liberation movements and refugees, etc.  As Zambia’s first President, Kenneth Kaunda, recently stated, there certainly is a moral case for international reparations arising out of this Apartheid history.

6.       LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM OUR INITIATIVE

In conclusion, what lessons can we draw from the experience of Zambia’s independent initiative to promote debt relief and to assure that it is targeted for poverty eradication?  Let me suggest a response according to what is called a “SWOT” approach – a look at strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats relating to the initiative.

 Strengths:  Jubilee 2000-Zambia has succeeded because it has very competent and dedicated people working with it – I want to mention publicly the members of my team in Lusaka: Chrispin Mphuka, Charity Musamba, George Makaha, Catherine Kachidza and Muweme Muweme.  Good analysis makes a difference, as well as good public relations contact.  Moreover, our strength comes from close cooperation with other members of civil society, and the openness of the government and IFIs to include us in many key points of discussion and negotiation.  The international network – assisted by the great work of the Jubilee 2000 campaigns – has been an immense strength for us and we are greatly appreciative of that.

Weaknesses:  We face some difficulties as the government is cautious when we press on accountability and transparency issues, such as promoting the Debt Mechanism.  And the IMF and World Bank are not always receptive of the critiques we offer or open to the suggestions we make.  Another weakness of the campaign is the poverty condition of the country, which understandably diverts popular attention more to immediate issues of survival than long-term issues of debt cancellation.

 Opportunities:  Nevertheless, certainly the best opportunity we do have now is the interest of the public in the issue of debt cancellation.  Our regional meetings involving grassroot communities have seen extremely active participation.   People are not apathetic, though they may be skeptical! 

Threats:  Next year, 2001, is an election year in Zambia, for presidential, parliamentary and local government elections.  To be honest, attention on this may derail attention on debt cancellation and Zambia’s effective orientation of resources toward poverty reduction.  What the current ruling party will do to retain power is a question in everyone’s mind, supporters and opposition alike.  Progress on debt cancellation is fragile when power struggles and corruption are active.

But let me finally conclude on a note of hope.  Jubilee 2000-Zambia has recently made a decision to become “Y-2001-compliant”!  Our campaign will continue because the justice challenge continues.  We have borrowed a slogan from our colleagues in Latin America and now say: “Jubilee-Zambia: Beyond Debt! Beyond 2000!”  “Beyond debt” because debt is seen as the symptom of a deeply flawed international economic order – we must also look at issues such as trace and investments.   “Beyond 2000” because the struggle for justice is certainly not determined by the flip of a calendar page! 

 The organisers of this programme chose Zambia as a case study to show the impact of independent initiatives.  I hope that my overview of the six points of framework, activities, debt mechanism, PRSP, alternatives and lessons has provided you with a helpful analysis of that case study.  So I ask you to join me and my friends back home in Zambia as we say loudly and clearly: “Give Zambians a future!  Cancel Zambia’s Debt!”

Thank you.
Peter Henriot, S.J.

[Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Parliamentary Forum of Parliamentarians for Global Action ''Debt for Development: Debt Relief Targeted to Poverty Reduction'' Rome, Italy 11-12 December 2000]