Zambian Economic Reforms

Abstract

April 19th, 1968, has now become one of the memorable dates in Zambian history for on that day Dr. K. D. Kaunda presented to the nation at Mulungushi his economic blueprint for the proposed future development of this country. In it the President unequivocally analyses and exposes present weakness and difficulties, following this with a general policy plan coupled with specific intentions to alleviate the current problems. The analysis is bold and the solutions are striking, for the aims of the speech are clearly to produce such measures as will enable Zambia to control its own economic destiny. This is to be achieved by stimulating the agrarian sector, particularly at the level of the peasant farmer; restricting and prohibiting the operations of resident expatriate and foreign entrepreneurial structures and individuals within defined commercial and geographical areas; positively encouraging the country's citizens to fill the business void deliberately created by the exclusion of non-Zambians from certain fields of activity; and, finally, by government acquiring the majority shareholding in specific companies which are considered to be of importance to the economy. These shares are to be held by the existing parastatal organisation, the Industrial Development Corporation. The overriding principle behind this plan is Humanism and it is to this that the successes and shortcomings can be attributed. Whereas the concepts of individual initiative, profit motive and private enterprise are freely used and accepted, that of capitalism is anathema. This insoluble dichotomy arises because the theory of Humanism cannot accept gross individual profiteering and considers that in such cases the profit motive should be controlled and applied in the interests of society. The term capitalism, as used within the speech, could possibly be questioned as it appears to be linked with the interpretation held by the populace which inextricably connects and confuses it with 'exploitation', 'colonialism' and 'neo-colonialism'. If this were merely a semantic problem, it could be lightly dismissed but in fact it has had practical repercussions in policy making. Throughout the statement there is an obvious attempt to prohibit the growth of individual economic power beyond a certain