Indigenous economic systems: thought and practice
South Africa, Botswana and, to some extent, Zambia have been hailed as economic miracles within a continent doomed with economic turmoil, upheaval and instability. However, recently more critical voices have started to emerge.
What are the sources of that praise and what is the basis of the more recent critique? What makes Botswana, Zambia and South Africa so special, it seems, is that here, in southern Africa, they are examples of uninterrupted liberal democratic rule going back to independence. For example, those who praise the quality of Botswana’s economy tend to base their arguments on a liberal democratic tradition (Beaulier, 2003; Nyamnjoh, 2007; Picard, 1987; Solway, 2009, 333). Here neo-liberal economic theories involving free trade, specialisation and the division of labour are dominant, while the marginalisation of women and other groups is a throw-back to the debates by classical economists. Moreover, the focus on a glowing review of the impressive economic performance of Botswana and South Africa also glosses over accompanying poverty and inequality.Understandably, and given challenging and potentially unstable circumstances in neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe, and now Mozambique, the two former countries’ stability can be regarded as promising (du Toit, 1995; Solway, 2003). With South Africa and its cycles of political anxieties on her northern border and Zimbabwe gushing refugees to the West, it is certainly refreshing to note that Botswana and South Africa have held regular elections at five-year intervals since their respective independence (Buhlungu and Malehoko, 2012; Danevad, 1995).
These strains cannot be understated. Add to their liberal democratic qualifications, Botswana and South Africa and, to some extent, Zambia have had enormous economic good fortune, avoiding the descent into the kind of politics that characterise many primary commodity exporters.
Undoubtedly, the role of sound leadership both for Botswana and South Africa is an important determinant of the remarkable economic growth experienced in the past decade. It is not surprising, given this level of praise, to find Paul Nugent (2010) remarking that, when writing of Africa, it is possible to posit a pattern common to pretty much all African countries, with the possible exception of Botswana and South Africa. To understand how economic thought has been couched in southern Africa, a grasp of indigenous economic thought and how these have developed over time, is necessary, particularly the historical impositions incubated during the pre- to post-colonial eras.In southern Africa, particularly due to the length of colonialism, indigenous people sought ways to develop their products despite efforts to suppress their endeavours to commercialise their knowledge. For example, only in the 1990s and under the post-apartheid government in South Africa was government seen to support indigenous approaches to trade, commerce and business cultures based on indigenous knowledge systems, such as curios and muti (indigenous medicinal plants). Despite the policy pronouncements regarding the development of IEKS- based products and services, indigenous peoples often do not get the full benefit of their knowledge. Countries such as Zambia, Botswana and South Africa have developed indigenous ways of thinking that are based on Ubuntu principles of philantrophy that survived decades of colonial oppression and post-colonial neo-liberal interventions. Ubuntu is an African philosophy that states that one’s standing in society is inextricably linked with one’s relations with others. If respect (inhlonipho) is reciprocated, then this will ensure a harmonious society (see Ndhlovu, 2011, 85).
During the pre-colonial era, economic thought in these countries was characterised by international trade and economic exchange of goods based on traditional market systems centuries before the arrival of the European colonialists.
According to Pouwels (2005), the bantu- language speaking people of southern Africa developed extensive trade links with lands as far away as China and India, from which they received porcelain, beads, and Persian and Arab pots. They traded domesticated beef, iron, ivory and gold (Pouwels, 2005). In Zambia and South Africa, economic exchange was based on the currency of cattle and livestock. In many instances, land was lineage-controlled, and cattle ownership dominated trading circles. Thus, through owning cattle, chiefdoms could gain power over a large number of groups and thus control trade goods and trading arrangements. The basic economic and social unit was the extended family, the lineage or the clan. The means of production was owned by the lineage that acted as a corporate unit and made decisions about family sustenance.The economic understanding began to change under colonialism whereby indigenous peoples were actively encouraged to abandon their indigenous knowledge systems of commerce and market exchange. During this period, southern Africa was drawn increasingly into a world economic system that was dominated by the industrialising nations that colonised them and, in particular, there was growing trading contact with the south eastern coast of Africa, going to the far south. IEKS were denigrated and labelled ‘primitive’ and in extreme cases ‘illogical’. Recent post-colonial critiques point to failures of neo-liberal market-driven economic approaches in addressing the fundamental socio-economic issues facing southern Africans. They specifically cite under-investing or under-allocation of resources in successful programmes as having a negative impact on intended beneficiaries (Cameron and Ndhlovu, 2000; Chamlee, 1993; Nandy, 2002; Tadasu, 2006; Yarrow, 2008). On his part Nandy (2002) decried the failure of a series of structural adjustment developmental projects to decisively deal with poverty, dubbing it a myth from which many have not woken up. Nandy’s concerns call for a significant change in the manner in which economic understanding is defined, understood and treated.
According to Ayittey (2011), cognisance must be taken of kingdoms that had to compete with many rulers in order to take advantage of new trading opportunities and possibilities for expansion.Despite the onslaught on indigenous systems, they remained resilient. Thus trade in goods deriving from indigenous economic knowledge systems has for a long time thrived because there is a demand for the products based on culture. Such a market is not only limited to the indigenous people but is also found among tourists who seek products unique to this region (Ndhlovu and Lessassy, 2011). The informal trade in curios at the Durban Beachfront, the Johannesburg street vendors, the Muti trade along the Warwick triangle or the Gaborone Central Market or Lilongwe traders’ corner are examples of industries based on IEKS (Ndinda, 1999). While trade in products based on IEKS provides economic opportunities for the small, medium and micro-enterprises, the vast majority of IEKS holders continue to languish in poverty in South Africa, Botswana, and Zambia.