Against the Odds: A History of Zimbabwe Project

13. The ‘October Revolution’, 1989–1991

— 161 — By 1989, Zimbabwe Project had developed into a budding bureaucracy with a soul and had, a year earlier, successfully managed a change of leadership without any apparent hitch. Adjustments had been made to the loan fund that enabled it to be more systematic, integrate more effectively with education programmes and hopefully take co-operatives to higher levels of commercial viability, while also maintaining an element of welfare assistance for those who needed it. Self-Reflection Outsiders admired the organisation and did not stint with their praise. A student on attachment during fieldwork for a Masters in Social Work in July-August 1988 wrote, ‘the most striking observation concerning the organisation is the style of administration which appears to be very democratic and tends to rely heavily on the individual’s commitment to duty and their sense of responsibility’.1 She commented that such items as telephones , vehicles and travel allowances were not as strictly controlled as elsewhere and that policy was formulated by staff at quarterly meetings. However, she also noted that those same meetings were dominated by a few individuals since most of the staff were not specialists and could not contribute effectively, while assessments for assistance tended to be based on emotional responses. Evidently, Colly Masuku’s earlier claim that the lack of specialisation was a thing of the past was not entirely true. Skills were certainly needed to run the organisation’s programmes efficiently but the moral commitment of staff was also 13 The ‘October Revolution’ 1989–1991 — 162 — Against the Odds: a history of Zimbabwe Project required. The question remained: was it possible to build an organisation where both were combined and the hierarchical elements of most bureaucracies were softened by democratic participation in decision-making? Did there have to be a con- flict between professionalism and commitment? Would Zimbabwe Project ever manage to strike a balance between the two? This was to become a significant challenge to the organisation through the coming years. The Oxfam UK representative who visited Zimbabwe at the beginning of 1989 to review programmes the organisation was supporting was impressed by what she saw as a combination of democratic and business-like approach. She wrote: I attended a very well run meeting at which the staff of the new CSFS and Zimbabwe Project began in an egalitarian and open manner to define the working relationship between the two organisations …. Of all the Oxfam-supported projects I’ve visited in several different countries, this one seems to me to be making the greatest contribution to the establishment of peace as well as to development work over a large geographical area.’2 But within the organisation, the mood was not so upbeat. In March 1989, Robin Wild, concerned by a somewhat unprofessional atmosphere, wrote a memo to staff entitled ‘The Future of Zimbabwe Project’.3 He made the startling suggestion that every member of staff should resign and seek re-admittance to re-employment justifying their position and stating the value of the role they were playing to the work of the organisation. Todd responded that this would work to the disadvantage of the less articulate and less philosophical, but that perhaps it was time to downsize, place all closed files in the National Archives, find a home for the Research and Evaluation Department in ZIDS,4 move to Adelaide Acres and operate from there. None of this happened, at least not then, but ferment had been brewing and ultimately resulted in major changes for Zimbabwe Project. What was going on? Several issues were problematic , both at the operational level and at the philosophical level. Operationally, there was both too much and not enough democracy. While staff might be involved in day-to-day decision- — 163 — The ‘October Revolution’ making as well as broader policy formation, Tobaiwa’s comment was apposite – the process was dominated by a few individuals. Not, perhaps, because they had an authoritarian approach, but rather because they understood issues others did not, and hence the latter could not participate competently in discussion. Philosophically, the relationship between ZimPro and cooperatives was open to question. Did ZimPro consult co-op members when making policy, and if so, to what extent? Or were they following their own agenda? Could it be that the relationship between ZimPro and donors was being replicated in the relationship between co-operatives and ZimPro? ZimPro leadership had complained directly to donors...