Had the Stabroek News printed my letter ‘Africa has done as well as China and India economically’ (SN, 6.5.08) in its entirety there would be no need to respond to D Ramprakash’s statement in the letter “Guyanese should be wary of Western vilification of “Third World” Leaders (SN 08/05/2008 (SEE BELOW) as I had already contended that The West had caused a collapse in Zimbabwe and I had highlighted the case of Mozambique when the Portuguese left in droves after Mozambique Independence (25 June 1975) causing all the farms and factories to lack skilled employees to operate them at full capacity.

“Then there is the erroneous statement by Mr. Sean Brignandan that “the food industry in Zimbabwe collapsed because the organisational ability of the white farmers (who were in the business for generations) was not there” (‘Africa has done as well as China and India economically’ SN, 6.5.08). Much of the white-owned land was used to grow not necessities for the hungry but luxuries for the sated: mange tout, radicchio, French beans and tobacco. Redistribution would enable the poor to support themselves and to produce staple crops for the landless. Land reform in Zimbabwe is an urgent necessity. Mr. Brignandan, what is the land reform programme of the MDC opposition, ensuring that in your answer you quote the documentary source?”

The MDC was being supported by primarily the white farmers so Mugabe turned loose his supporters on them.

In Mugabe’s case, I would have given the poor landless farmers a larger plot of land and gave them fertilizer which would have prevented a conflict with the white farmers.

Or, Mugabe could have simply nationalised 20% of the white owned farms and given it to the landless farmers.

Mugabe’s actions against the white farmers were a political decision (because they supported the opposition MDC) and not based on economics.

Hence, his decision to ask for the white farmers to come back to Zimbabwe so that the food industry can be profitable again.

While hindsight can be a great thing, it would have been better had Mugabe not acted to destroy the businesses that supported his country (a bit like Burnham starting the KSI which was going to put a lot of Indian businesses out of business had it been successful). Why was KSI not successful? Because it lacked the trained managers who had real world knowledge about the industry.

IF you gave everyone land then the value of the land would drop leading to your properties (residential, commercial and industrial) value being eroded away unless you have a buyback policy that ensures a certain guaranteed value for the land (also the land that is given away may not be able to be used as a guarantee to get loans; it is only the produce that can be used as a guarantee). So people who had work for decades to build businesses would find themselves in poverty because some businesses are backed by property assets. And, it would not necessarily lead to an increase in production (ref: Peeping Tom lady friend who had a lot of land but could only plant a couple of beds leading to the land being over grown by weeds) as people who moved off the land are not able to return to the land for an extended period of time. There are always exceptions.

Try taking 100% of the workforce away from Microsoft and put in people who are trained in software engineering and see what happens to its profitability and share-value. Just because they are trained in software engineering does not automatically make them able to run Microsoft at optimal performance.
SEAN BRIGNANDAN/SEAN ADAMS