Zimpapers Logo

Lovemore Chikova Development Dialogue

Soon after independence in 1980, the majority Government sought to enhance rural development to ensure previously marginalised areas were uplifted.

This made sense because the white minority regime had neglected rural areas for several reasons.

One of the reasons was that no whites lived there and because of that the then racist government applied its racial segregation policies that favoured the few whites in urban areas.

Later on, when the liberation struggle set on, whites increasingly viewed rural areas with disdain since most liberation war fighters were recruited from those places.

When the liberation war fighters returned from training in neighbouring countries, they blended with people in rural areas, making it difficult for the whites to easily recognise them.

As a result of the white regime’s marginalisation of rural areas, the Government faced a huge task to balance development between rural and urban areas.

It was a tough task, considering that the rural areas had been neglected for a long time, for almost a century, in fact.

One of the focus areas for the new Government at independence was to develop service centres in rural areas into industrial and job creation centres that could easily bridge the gap between urban and rural areas.

Industrial development had taken root in urban areas where the settler regime concentrated all its resources, creating two economies in one country.

There was the white economy supported by industrial growth in cities and the black majority living in underdeveloped rural areas without industries, roads, clean potable water and many other provisions. One of the projects the new Government embarked upon after independence was the creation of growth points in various areas in all the provinces.

According to the ruling Zanu PF party’s assessment of the first five years of independence as captured in a booklet titled: “Rebuilding Zimbabwe — Prospects, Problems and Prospects”, growth points sought to transform rural areas.

Through the Public Sector Investment Programme, the then Ministry of Local Government and Housing spent about $20 million providing piped water, access roads, sewer reticulation, bus terminuses, bus shelters and many other provisions around centres identified as potential growth points.

The programme was carried initially at 11 growth points and 55 district service centres, all in communal lands.

The rationale behind starting with communal lands was because these areas had been completely ignored in the past and it is where the majority of the rural population was concentrated. It was a fact that before independence, there were few centres that had essential infrastructural services in rural areas, and these were created as labour dormitories or retirement centres to Africans working in the existing towns. The growth points were expected to be centres for rural development, as they would provide services desperately needed in the rural areas and create employment through industrial development.

These would inevitably grow into centres of beneficiation of the abundant natural resources existing in the rural areas, and provide markets for agricultural produce.

The opening up of space following independence meant that many people in rural areas would be attracted by the excellent conditions that existed in the urban areas.

This was set to trigger massive rural to urban migration, a situation that would overwhelm urban areas in terms of provision of social services.

The growth points would eventually provide people living in the rural areas with alternative employment and many other issues that were likely to attract them to the urban areas. It is important to note that even if the white regime was racist, it had attempted to develop growth points in the rural areas, albeit as a way of trying to pacify locals so that they would abandon resistance to unfair policies.

The first attempt was in 1969, but this was done without abandoning the colonial view of segregation policies pursued by the white minority government.

In fact, in 1978, the Ian Smith government came up with a policy document called: “Integrated Plan for Rural Development”, which identified some areas to turn into growth points.

The identified areas were Chisumbanje, Jerera, Gutu, Mataga, Wedza, Murehwa, Nkayi, Sanyati, Mushumbi and Maphisa.

After independence, more areas were added to the list that would cut across the country.

The bottomline of all these efforts, the colonial era one and that pursued by the new Government at independence, is that they failed to turn most of these places into the envisaged levels of growth.

Growth points failed to live up to their billing as their growth remained stunted, failing to satisfy the needs of rural people, especially in terms of employment.

The identified growth points failed to gel with the wider national economy and their contribution remained limited and the ills they sought to harness like rural to urban migration actually increased.

The failure of these centres to rise to the occasion does not mean that they are not useful anymore to the current developmental trajectory.

The concept of growth points can be revisited and be given a fresh impetus, especially as the Government implements the devolution concept. Growth points have a huge potential to become the major drivers of devolution if they get enough resources for implementation of various projects that can turn them into centres of excellence. What is needed is to come up with a deliberate policy that considers the economic situation in each province, and then anchor the development of the growth points on the strength of the particular areas.

For instance, provinces that concentrate on agriculture as the major economic activity should have growth points that specialise in agriculture-related activities.

The processing of agricultural produce can be done at particular growth points, instead of having farmers travelling long distances to sell their produce.

Industries that feed off agricultural raw materials can be encouraged to set up shop at the growth points through the invitation of entities willing to invest in such areas.

Growth points in mining areas can as well develop on the basis of concentrating on activities that have something to do with the processing of minerals and other mining activities.

For example, a growth point near the Chiadzwa diamonds fields can actually host a diamond processing factory, and eventually end up having shopping malls centred on diamond products.

What is important is that despite the failure by the growth points to rise to expectations, the little that Government did to invest in some basic infrastructure in some of the areas yielded some results.

The upgrading of centres like Mupandawana in Gutu and Gokwe from growth points to towns, points to the potential the concept has in transforming rural service centres.

There are other centres that have also shown potential of growth like Murehwa, Kotwa, Lupane, Chivi and Jerera.

What is needed under devolution is to revisit these growth points and empower the locals through establishing infrastructure that provides the basic requirements of setting up industries and other developmental projects.

A number of areas need to be looked at when it comes to making growth points game changers for rural development and devolution.

There is need to have an efficient transport system to ensure access to markets and facilitation of easy movement of people and goods.

An efficient transportation system can play an important role in the movement of raw materials to the small industries that are expected to sprout at such centres of growth in the rural areas. Some have argued that the failure of the concept of growth points in Zimbabwe meant to turn rural townships into industrial zones was partly because of poor transportation.

The provision of reliable energy is another case for the success of the growth points.

Electricity availability fits well into the broader development of rural areas, and has the potential to catapult growth points into establishing industries.

Government should be commended for taking information communication technology to rural areas through the establishment of kiosks in some areas. But more still needs to be done to ensure that potential industries at such growth points have access to new technologies that can spur industrial growth.

With the setting up of the Zimbabwe Investment and Development Agency (ZIDA), whose operations will be decentralised, growth points can be useful in the attraction of foreign direct investment (FDI).

Through ZIDA, provinces can anchor their devolution projects on the attraction of investors who can set up shop at service centres, especially in areas that can give them                                                                                             returns.

The case for growth points still exists because such areas have the potential to uplift disadvantaged regions into the mainstream economy, and thus contribute to the welfare of communities.

What is needed is to revisit the concept and draft a policy which spells out how these centres can be developed.