By Dr Mandlenkosi Mpofu
On Wednesday evening, a friend sent me a screenshot of the Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (ZERA) statement announcing the new fuel prices. This was the second surge of fuel prices in two weeks. The announcement jolted those Zimbabweans fortunate enough to be online into yet another frenzy of posts, outrage and debate.
When I casually dismissed it as a sick joke, my friend forwarded links from credible news sources, accompanied by a heavily frustrated voice note:
‘Ah manje lapha mfowethu iyafika ku 3 dollars, vele by the year end iyabisiku 3 dollars 50 at least. Ah lababantu laba vele angazi ukuthi bacabanga njani. Ah kubuhlungu kakhulu Mpofu, kubuhlungu mpela, uyazi it’s like omunye muntu vele kabamkhumbuleli. It’s like they delight and they enjoy ukubona ama masses and everybody else suffering, you know. And they always are good at shifting the blame, phela those guys can blame anything and everybody else, except themselves… So lanxa bebhala okuyi communique kwabo lokhuya bakubeka sengathi it was inevitable ukuthi bakhweze and ekukhwezeni kwabo bakhwezela ukuthi kuncedise abantu. And yet they are making lives very difficult for people …. They are so insensitive; they just don’t care! ‘
Despite a long life under ZANU-PF rule, I still found myself, somehow, believing that this was possibly a hoax, perhaps some kind of misinformation, a fake post that ZERA would soon disown. Surely fuel could not simply jump beyond US$2 overnight. No way!
Only days earlier, on the day the United States-Israel bombardment of Iran began, I had told a friend who is based in Abu Dhabi that if the conflict dragged on, fuel prices in Zimbabwe could hit US$2 by year-end. I don’t recall his exact response. We both felt like laughing at that thought. I was probably expressing a distant concern about the global and local implications of the war, certainly not an imminent reality. I still cannot believe how far I was behind ZANU-PF’s thinking.
More questions, no answers
I studied the ZERA statement more carefully. It assured the public that the government was monitoring ‘the security of supply of petroleum products in the market’. I am not sure what that meant, but the justification followed immediately, couched in concerns for the fears of worried ‘stakeholders’. The country had ‘more than three months’ supply of petroleum products, ZERA assured the worried public.
The justification intensified, with a hint of care: due to piling ‘cost pressures’ (not important enough to explain to the public), it had become necessary ‘that prices be reviewed for two weeks’ in order ‘to avoid fuel shortages and arbitrage’.
In short, the government imposed astronomical price hikes to prevent shortages, while simultaneously assuring the nation that it had sufficient reserves.
Is there a better way to define contradiction?
The framing was even weirder. What did the two weeks mean? Zimbabweans, it seemed, were expected to draw some comfort from the idea that the pain might be relieved. Obviously, if we go by the previous two weeks’ experience, the price cannot come down.
When pain is care
As my friend aptly explained in his voice note, the price hike was an act of love, a caring government looking out for the interests of its citizens and shielding them from an even more dire situation.
This is the most unbearable aspect of many decisions taken by ZANU-PF for as long as we can remember. The most inconsiderate decisions are presented as acts of benevolence, even when they are clearly more burdens on citizens who are already struggling from other bad policies and decisions.
The ZERA statement exemplified this tone. An insane decision announced via a condescending statement that suggested that the government had done the country an unimaginable favour. The diesel price, it heroically proclaimed, had been ‘set with a view to mitigate the impact of the increase’ on key sectors. Yippee!
The message was hardly disguised: great care has been taken by your government, things could have been worse.
Indeed, the statement, almost ominously, noted that without government intervention, ‘the price of diesel would have been US$2.20’. Zimbabweans, it was clearly pronounced, were being spared an even harsher prospect. Cut and paste from the statement two weeks back.
However, many people probably identify with my friend’s chilling prediction that fuel could reach US$3.50 by the year end. There is also no guarantee diesel will remain below the US$2.20 threshold for long.
The bitter Irony
I listened to the voice note once again, but this time from the government’s point of view. Surely, a war in Iran, a country that is very far from Zimbabwe, had pushed fuel prices through the proverbial roof globally, not just in Zimbabwe. The government had acted decisively and with considerable care to protect citizens and keep prices at manageable levels. Consumers could only be grateful.
This was a pure demonstration of the serious leadership under the Second Republic, a fulfilment of the slogan ‘leaving no one and no thing behind’. There could be no better gesture of care.
Public anger amidst regional comparisons
Zimbabwe’s online communities inevitably went wild.
My other good friend, Jealousy Mbizvo Mawarire, spoke for many when he tweeted that Zimbabweans had just witnessed ‘an extortionate & criminal increase of 39%’ with no close comparison in the SADC region.
Others pointed out that in fact, some service stations were already charging above the official prices, not surprising in an economy that is only sound in government rhetoric. Others ridiculed the fact that Zimbabwean petrol was blended, yet it was incomparably expensive in the region!
Comparisons with neighbouring countries painted an even darker picture. Despite facing the same global pressures and insecurities, few had raised prices beyond the equivalent of US$1.50 per litre. Some, like Botswana, had not adjusted prices at all, while Zimbabwe’s caring government had hiked fuel prices for the second time in just two weeks.
Other posts reflected the unavoidable fact that almost everything was more expensive in Zimbabwe than in all our neighbours. They only beat us in salaries.
The Defenders
Government voices were quick to sanitise the government’s decision and to rakasha opponents.
They dismissed regional comparisons as flawed. The state’s fuel policies were not designed to meet regional benchmarks. Countries like South Africa, Mozambique and Namibia benefited from their proximity to the coast, making fuel imports cheaper.
When landlocked countries like Zambia and Botswana were raised, the argument shifted. Zimbabwe had acted fast to pre-empt impending danger. Others would follow very soon. Watch the space. And so on.
Another popular line of defence was dollarisation. Using the United States dollar makes our imports more expensive; it was argued without much evidence.
None of these explanations, however, quelled public anger.
Unreasonable domestic taxes
Zimbabwe’s domestic fuel taxes lie at the centre of this debate.
Several posts claimed that the government had increased fuel taxes from approximately US$0.50 to around US0.80 per litre. Reducing these taxes would provide relief to consumers already burdened by the high cost of living.
Lightning does strike twice Zimbabwe
The government’s behaviour is unfortunately not new.
In January 2019, a 130% fuel price increase triggered nationwide protests. The state responded with a violent crackdown that left several people dead.
The questions that were asked then can also be raised today. Why does a government that rose to power on the promise of alleviating economic hardships after Mugabe’s long insufferable rule appear unwilling to shield citizens from such shocks?
Grim reality
My friend’s sentiments captured the thoughts of many Zimbabweans. This is not a government that listens. It is not a government that empathises or takes responsibility.
Its first instinct is to justify painful, selfish decisions. When justification fails, it shifts blame elsewhere.
Some went further, alleging collusion between political elites and powerful, untouchable players in the fuel sector. Such claims resonate in a country where wealth appears concentrated within those close to power, many of whom flaunt it almost shamelessly.
We also need to recall that the Minister of Finance has previously claimed that the government made budget surpluses through fiscal discipline. These claims were used to justify pitiful civil service salaries and the state’s unwillingness to provide many basic services.
Why are countries without such surpluses able to better cushion their citizens?
The department of suffering
My friend’s voice note reminded me of a conversation from years back. Following another controversial announcement by the Second Republic, a neighbour proclaimed in frustration:
‘You know what? ZANU-PF has a department whose job is simply to provoke Zimbabweans! Every time they meet and ask each other, ‘What can we do today to make the lives of these people more miserable?’
I have asked myself many times whether my neighbour said these words in jest. It is hard to think of any other way to interpret what is, by all intents and purposes, a selfish, inconsiderate and cruel decision taken by a government that claims to act in the name of the masses.