As I start this on a Monday morning, it is just before we take our remaining running car for its annual MOT, which is known as IPO (Inspecção Periódica Obrigatória) here in Portugal. The last time it was done was two years ago, but now it has reached the grand old age of eight, it has to be checked annually. It is an easy task here: roll up, pay at the office, and generally, without booking, while you have a coffee in reception, it is completed within half an hour. The last time, they even lent me the Dayglo vests, as mine had been removed at the garage just prior, unbeknown to me. Unlike many bureaucracies nowadays, which see their role as being obstructive rather than constructive, they are helpful. There was one slight hiccup, as they handed the car back the senior technician said our stability lights had come on during the test due to an action by them. Of course, Rozanne being much more fluent in Portuguese than me, listened to him as I finished my second coffee. All I heard was a problem and got up and followed them without thinking, leaving my phone on the table only to be discovered at lunch. As always here in Portugal, something forgotten is always kept safe until collection. I try to make a conscious effort to check before leaving anywhere that I have all my belongings. Unfortunately as I get older, I not only forget the item but forget my own strict rule to check. Grrrr.
I sort of wish our bodies were like cars. You go in for a check-up, and if you are fine, you are sent home for a year. If not, you have to get it fixed. Unlike the human body, cars can nearly always be fixed, but the human body and mind cannot always be mended. Our daily runaround is now twenty years old and is presently in the garage, requiring some more serious attention after only needing minimum maintenance to date, unlike the newer car, which had to have a complete engine replacement at an early age. Despite this, more than three years later, we still go on long journeys with trepidation. Now, that is like humans.
“When someone lets you down or does you harm, you no longer trust them, or at least it takes a long time for them to regain your trust. That is unless you are a fool.” - Peter McSporran
The car passed its IPO, and on our way home, we stopped at our favourite local restaurant, where I had delicious liver before returning for my phone. In retirement, this is deemed a successful day.
“Mind you, on reflection, now they have given our cars a brain of their own in the form of a Powertrain Control Module (PCM), they are no longer fixable with a little first aid at the side of the road.” - Peter McSporra
From writing this blog and with my expertise I often have people contacting me for advice. I have even stopped offering professional paid advice although there is demand for someone with my experience. Now, when asked, I offer free verbal advice to friends or mutual acquaintances not organisations—no more arduous technical or financial reports for me. Over the years, two things have come to my attention in consultancy. So-called friends feel you should offer your skills for free or at least give a considerable discount; I am not talking about twenty per cent like on a new machine but rather a whopping fifty per cent, which in essence means they do not appreciate your worth. Of course, unknown chancers also want this; greedy poor managers think they are being clever in squeezing you but if one is unwilling to pay they are unlikely to get the best service. I found bankers were always guilty of this. The other thing is that some people ask for your advice under the pretext for them to sell you their ideas on the said subject matter.
Further, if you give them a negative appraisal, they will go on to argue their case despite you not being the person they have to convince. After all, you are just giving advice. Many ask for your guidance and, in your rejection of their ideas, will argue against you, although you articulate all the pitfalls. It is hard to give someone advice who, to achieve their flawed goals, do not heed you.
“Free verbal advice obtained without reference to the latest independent information on the subject should only be treated as an opinion, not advice. That is why it is free.” - Peter McSporran.
Funnily enough, after the event, I always double-check what may have changed in that particular industry and whether the risks that caused its previous failures still exist. Normally they do. Most failures are due to the sponsor being a poor manager or project lead, unable to mitigate against or ignoring the risks.
“People often ask for advice when they are actually seeking confirmation. They generally do not appreciate advice contrary to their vision or plans.” - Peter McSporran
In 1995, parts of Zimbabwe were in drought only three years after the previous serious one which devastated Southern Africa. Although this time was limited to pockets in the country rather than the whole. Chegutu and Gatooma were extremely badly hit. This is the worst type of drought to deal with mentally. As you suffer the rest of the country has a normal harvest. The world is inclined to remember that continents like Africa have always suffered droughts, many of them local, only making them headline news when they become regional. More importantly, they forget that drought, or lack of food production and shortages, can be due to human factors. Most commonly brought about by poor governance and policy, land confiscation, racism and not least, corruption. That is why, since 2002, Zimbabwe has been suffering from man-made droughts, continuously using any minor or more likely claimed shortfall in rainfall as an excuse to clamour for aid. I, for one, can remember when food shortages in Rhodesia and early Zimbabwe were unheard of when there were two million tonnes of maize stored in the Grain Marketing Board silos before the planting of the next crop to offset such events. Why store grain when you can better use the cash for yourself? Until democracy is restored and corruption defeated, Zimbabwe will continue to suffer artificial droughts as will most of Africa. In 1995/96, the Government introduced a 10% drought levy on tax payable; I wonder where that money went?
Real droughts took up much of our time at the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU), although the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) was still giving us headaches around the World Bank capital equipment loan facility. Once they eventually paid for the release of the equipment, due to Anthony Swire-Thomson's endeavours, the costs for the capital goods had risen due to the devaluation of the Zimbabwe dollar and the interest accrued. They decided to recoup these increased costs brought about by their own actions. Rather it was the inaction of the Reserve Bank in their tardy release of the funds received from the World Bank exclusively for that purpose. They decided to pass these costs and higher interest charges to the farmers. It went to High Court, and in 1994, Justice Chidyausiku ruled in favour of the AFC, and the case was lost. After consultation, it was decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I must point out that the CFU could not bring these actions about, be it land or claims such as this; it had to be an individual directly prejudiced, while all the CFU could do was support and advise where necessary. Luckily, there were always individuals willing to take up the court challenges, which in the event of a win, could and often would benefit many. The CFU always, provided the claims were legitimate and within the law, was eager to support them; I believe this was to change in the future, especially regarding land. In this particular case, Svend Johnsen was the lead appellant.
“A Union that sees its survival as more important than its members or tries to protect the rights of one member at the expense of another is bound to fail.” - Peter McSporran
In early 1995, in an appeal to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Antony Gubbay overturned Justice Chidyausiku’s ruling in favour of the farmers. Gubbay said a contract was a contract, and its terms should be adhered to. He himself, by then, was under huge pressure from Mugabe but, despite this, stayed in office. Gubbay served for 11 years as Chief Justice, delivering a series of ground-breaking judgments protecting human rights. These included freedom of speech and arbitrary arrest also asserting land rights. All these were subsequently ignored although written in law. In 2001, the Supreme Court itself was invaded, and under personal threat, Justice Gubbay relinquished his office. Like the farmers, he was ‘Jambanjaed.’
The High Court judge who ruled against the farmers, Chidyausiku, took over as Chief Justice. He had previously been a Deputy Minister and was in the Politburo of the Ruling Party. The judiciary was no longer independent; it became an instrument of Government, that is, ZANU(PF).
"When we embarked on the third Chimurenga program, the white farmers did everything possible to derail it and ended up enlisting the support of the white bench, which was led by the likes of Justice (Anthony) Gubbay. So we needed the likes of Chidyausiku to fight for us and resist the likes of Gubbay as best as they could," Mugabe said.
The truth is that Justice Gubbay, assisted by Judges Korsah and Ebriam, defended the rule of law, while the same could not be said of Chidyausiku.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comments