The Ministry of ICT (MICT) has
come up with a draft ICT Policy to replace the one launched by the government in
2005. In between these documents, a Strategic Plan for 2010 to 2014 was also
put in place by the MICT. Having gone through both policy documents (ICT Policy
2005 and 2012) and the Strategic Plan for 2010 - 2014, it is clear that there
are glaring inadequacies in both the policies and the process used in formulating
them. In this article, a review of some of the issues addressed in the Draft
2012 ICT policy is conducted, together with an analysis of the process used in
its formulation. It is the author’s
belief that such a scrutiny of policies and processes carried out by government
ministries is important not only in order to evaluate the performance of public
bodies but to enable the nation to move forward in an enlightened way. There is
no benefit in producing and glorifying policies and grand-standing their launch
if the people entrusted with the responsibility of implementing them are lacking
the necessary ability, capacity, or power to do the job.
The MICT produced the first
National Information and Communication Technology Policy Framework in 2005. This framework set out policy statements on:
e-Government/Governance, Education and Training Sector, Commerce, Agriculture,
Tourism and Environment, Health, Mining and Manufacturing, Transport, Gender,
Youths, Disabled and aged and Human Resources Development. This was followed by
a Strategic Plan five years later (MICT – Strategic Plan 2010-2014) in which
explicit goals, targets and milestones were set. Whether the MICT Strategic
Plan 2010-2014 was based on the 2005 MICT Policy is unclear. There was also a
list of ‘quick wins’ which included for example setting up ‘interactive
databases enhanced websites’ for ministries, establishment of pilot information
centres, establishment of an ICT
Government School
When setting out to review a
policy, an examination of the existing policy should be made in order to
identify gaps, the need to revise or rescind and to enable consistency. A research process for review is carried out
to investigate whether the policy is still consistent with new developments,
strategic directions of the country and changes in other government policies
and legislation. This should include an
assessment of the level of compliance by the various stakeholders with the
existing policy and whether any related policies need to be revised or
rescinded. New policies develop from past practices – good or bad. These past
practices can have an influence on government decisions, in other words the
leadership cannot ignore them. It is therefore important for the policy maker
to present a clear record of past practices regarding the implementation of the
previous policy.
According to the MICT, the 2012 policy
is based on a review of the 2005 Policy. There is also need to consider the Strategic
Plan for 2010-2014. It is therefore logical and reasonable to expect that a full
detailed review of the 2005 Policy and the Strategic Plan for 2010 – 2014 should
precede this document with a clear record of the achievements and failures
against the objectives. The relationship between the 2005 policy statements and
the 2012 policy statements must also be documented. Are some of the 2012 plans
completely new or continuations of those from 2005? The 2005 Policy for example
promises the establishment of a National ICTs Authority and National ICTs
Regulator – has this been achieved? If not – why? What progress has been made
in setting up Pilot Information Centres? Where is the documentation of
achievements in the areas of ICTs in education, e-Governance, e-Health, Human
Resource Development etc? Is it unreasonable to expect the MICT to produce
proper statistics regarding computers in schools and what it has actually
achieved in human resources development and raising awareness. How can the government
be expected to endorse the current policy if it does not know what the last
policy achieved and where it failed? Is this information available anyway?
Both the 2005 Policy and the 2010
Strategic Plan have one of the aims as the establishment of decent websites for
ministries; but the most remarkable thing about the MICT is the poor quality of
its website. For a ministry that is
supposed to be spearheading the development of ICT, the website does not
inspire confidence or hope, that is, when it is available. The content on the
website is antiquated, and has not been updated for a long period. It is also
populated by blank links. The reader is invited to visit the website (www.ictministry.gov.zw)
and click on the contacts link for example!
The striking image that greets the reader is the picture of the ‘Hon
Minister’, and beyond that nothing much of substance. A survey of the Zimbabwe
Government Ministry websites (http://www.zim.gov.zw/index.php/ministries) will
show that this is among the worst; if not the worst website. It stands out as
the only one among those surveyed where you have the picture of the minister on
the header. In contrast, the website for the Ministry of Science and Technology
Development (http://www.mstd.gov.zw) is of quite a good standard, very
interactive and informative. Some of the websites, with the MICT topping the
league, are disgraceful for national websites, would be better removed until
they are improved to a standard befitting national institutions.
If the MICT is to be taken
seriously in this technology age, it should up its game and put a little effort
in maintaining a respectable website. How much does it really cost to maintain
an up-to-date website? This is not even
about building a website – simply updating the information and making sure
simple information like contacts is available! However the point here is, it is
a waste of money and effort producing policies on paper and using them for
electioneering if there is no visible action on the ground, and then dusting
them off when it is time to produce another policy. It also brings to question the capability of
those afforded the responsibility of developing this important technological
area; an important cornerstone of the development of the nation.
A scrutiny of the 2 policies’
sections on ‘Status of ICTs’ in Zimbabwe in 2005 and 2012 brings up some
interesting revelations. One is left wondering whether there has been any
significant progress made in the ICT sector except for the obvious increase of
mobile phone users and internet subscribers (quoted in both policies) – a
natural growth world-wide. Alternatively one can be left wondering if it is
just blatant inefficiency or evidence of shoddy work? For example, both policies mention the
progress in the ICT sector as deregulation, massive computerisation of government
ministries (2005) compared to ‘computerisation of government ministries in the
main centres of the country’ (2012), establishment of Cabinet Committee on
Scientific Research, Technology and Applications and establishment of
regulatory framework for the ICTs sector.
In fact, comparing the two sections, the only difference in terms of
progress is that in 2005 electricity is mentioned positively with an
acknowledgement of rural electrification and in 2012 there is mention of
electricity shortage curtailing progress. The only significant difference in
the status of ICT between 2005 and 2012 according to the two policies is the
removal of duty on ICT hardware and software. The same repetitions are observed
in the policy objectives; which may of course have some similarities, if they
reflected a continuation of policies; but these should be clearly indicated. On
a lighter note, the policy objectives for 2012 start from (f) in the circulated
draft; leaving one wondering what happened to (a) to (e)! This can be viewed as a clear indication of a
recycled policy, lack of adequate effort and lack of careful attention which is
a prerequisite for a document of national importance.
A further look at ‘challenges
facing the ICTs sector’ will yield similar results to the above. The challenges
outlined are exactly the same; such as inadequate communications infrastructure,
ICT facilities, skills, limited institutional arrangements etc. Strangely, the
only addition on the 2012 policy is ‘insufficient awareness campaigns’! Now
whose challenge is this, and who is supposed to carry out these awareness
campaigns? What has the MICT been doing in the past 7 years if they could not
carry out this basic task? The main
policy statements regarding the ICT sector are exactly the same (compare
section 3.5.1 – 2005 Policy and Section 4.4 – 2012 Policy). The only difference
is in the numbering (letters vs numbers); a textbook example of trying to mask
a copy and paste job. Although it is
reasonable to have similar policy statements, if nothing has changed, that is; the
drafting of the 2012 policy is based on changes that have occurred, and
therefore the new policy should reflect these changes.
A scrutiny of the different
policy statements on e-Government, Education, Tourism etc will also reveal that
there is little or nothing new. As evidence of manipulation of the 2005 policy,
attention is drawn to the conclusions of both policies; instead of trying to
analyse them for the public; both conclusions have been pasted below. It is
acceptable and entirely reasonable that the drafting of the 2012 document could
not be done from scratch, and that this is a review/revision of the 2005 Policy.
What is not acceptable is when sentences are re-arranged and deliberately tweaked
to mask a duplication or copy and paste job leading to plagiarised policy
documents. The reader is left to judge on the amount of work done in trying to come up with
the ‘new’ 2012 policy; and the justification in all the funding consumed and
meetings held in coming up with a document of such poor quality.
2005
ICT Policy
19. CONCLUSION
This policy recognises that ICTs contribute
significantly to the reduction of social, political and economic inequalities,
increase national productivity, enhancement of wealth creation and
entrepreneurship and increase in efficiency in public administration. They also
strengthen democratic values and promote gender equality and the interest of
marginalized groups like youths, the disabled and the elderly.
In order for ICTS to act as effective
transmission vectors for the national development process, they need to locate
the interests of all citizens at the centre of development strategy. They also
need to be accompanied by supportive organizational and institutional change.
Access to information by citizens on issues that affect their lives and
capacity to 'voice' their perspectives and concerns is a key factor in
development. The huge investment required to create communication
infrastructure to achieve connectivity should bring advantages to all citizens
and not new forms of marginalization.
The ICT policy also seeks to ensure that
private sector interests and expertise create investments in which the ICTs
sector generates jobs, increases national productivity and empowers citizens
through the amplifications of choices brought by connectivity. In addition, for
ICTs to yield increased development benefits, creative leadership is required
from government, as the guardian of the public interest, especially in managing
markets and establishing institutions to achieve public policy objectives. In
this regard, a strong, committed and effective digital champion, always ready
to invest political capital to achieve policy objectives is required at the
highest level of government.
The policy further posits ICTs as
enablers of development strategies whose nature, scope and purpose are steeped
in ideology, power relations and authority. ICTs cut across all sectors of the
society and economy. The acid test for policy effectiveness therefore lies in
the extent to which the deployment of ICTs buttress the development of human
capacity, generates employment and income, creates wealth, enhances enjoyment
of health and well being and promotes participation and expression of voice in
favour of all citizens in the development process.
Existing and new public and private
sector institutions across all sectors of the economy are expected to formulate
sector based strategies/programmes to implement ICT flagship projects. Such
projects would, inter alia, promote awareness of the benefits of ICTs, develop
human skills in ICTs, enhance research and training capability, demonstrate the
benefits of public sector leadership and encourage private-public sector
partnerships. The projects would also establish appropriate legal frameworks to
manage markets, stimulate and promote innovations and inventions in the ICTs
sector and give voice to citizens in the development process.
2012
ICT POLICY
21.
Conclusion
This policy recognises that ICTs
contribute significantly to the reduction of social, political and economic
inequalities, increase national productivity, enhance wealth creation and
entrepreneurship, and increase efficiency in public administration. ICTs also
strengthen democratic values and promote gender equality and the interest of
marginalised groups.
The policy further recognises that in
order for ICTs to act as an effective catalyst for national development,
upgrading and substantial investment in high broadband ICT infrastructure and
capacity building, as well as enabling institutional arrangements, are a
prerequisite. It therefore follows that the policy is advocating for supportive
organizational change as a first step in seeking to achieve national
development through ICTs. Access to information by citizens on issues that
affect their lives and capacity to 'voice' their views and concerns is a key
factor in development. The policy therefore extols the need to put in place
policies that promote the achievement by Zimbabwe
The ICT policy also seeks to ensure that
private sector interests and expertise create investments in which the ICT
sector generates jobs, increases national productivity and empowers citizens through
the amplification of choices brought by unfettered connectivity. In addition,
for ICTs to yield increased development benefits, creative leadership is
required from government, as the guardian of the public interest, especially in
managing markets and establishing institutions to achieve public policy
objectives. In this regard, a strong, committed and effective digital champion,
always ready to invest political capital to achieve policy objectives is
required at the highest level of government.
As a means of recognizing that ICTs cut
across all sectors of the society and economy, this policy has sought to take
cognizance of the needs of the various members of our society. The acid test
for policy effectiveness therefore lies in the extent to which the deployment
of ICTs buttress the development of human capacity, generates employment and
income, creates wealth, enhances enjoyment of health and well being and promotes
participation and expression of voice in favour of all citizens in the
development process.
Existing and new public and private
sector institutions across all sectors of the economy are expected to formulate
sector based strategies/programmes to implement ICT flagship projects. Such
projects would, inter alia, promote awareness of the benefits of ICTs, develop
human skills in ICT, enhance research and training capability, demonstrate the
benefits of public sector leadership and encourage public- private
partnerships.
In conclusion, the draft 2012 policy does not present any
significant new ideas. It is inadequate,
of poor quality, and not based on a clear review or documentation of what has
been achieved or has not over the 7 years of its existence. As revealed,
documented and evidenced above, calling this policy ‘new/revised ’is offensive
and an insult to the public’s intelligence as it can clearly be seen as a
manipulation of the old one. Moreover, as pointed out, there is evidence that the
implementation of the existing policies is poor – as can be seen on the MICT
website. The Draft Policy should therefore
be ditched and re-written with meticulous care and attention which reflects its
importance as a national document. It is a public document which reflects on Zimbabwe as a
nation. A call is also made for a clear documentation of achievements over the
past 7 years for public scrutiny, not only for accountability purposes but to
enable the ICT agenda to move forward. It is from such a point that a clear-cut plan with
a clear vision on moving forward can be envisaged. A good policy will preserve
the MICT’s ability to serve the public and reach its objectives through logical
and consistent decision making. If the same aims and objectives are set again
without addressing previous failures and successes then the success of the
current policy is greatly compromised.
In the next article, the author
will discuss and make recommendations on what the Policy should include in the
area of e-Government; which refers to the application of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) for delivering government services, exchange of
information communication transactions, integration of various stand-alone
systems and services between Government and Citizens. Through e-Governance, the
government services can be made available to the citizens in a convenient,
efficient and transparent manner. The article will include a discussion and
recommendations on how the MICT can implement ICT policies that facilitate the
electoral process, security and law enforcement, among other areas.
The Zimbabwe
ICT Policy Framework 2005 and the MICT – Strategic Plan 2010-2014 can be
downloaded from: http://www.ictministry.gov.zw/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=1&Itemid=171
The 2012 Draft National ICT Policy Framework can be
downloaded from:
Alternatively, if the site is not available, the reader can
contact the author for electronic copies.
NOTES:
- PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CONTACTS LINK REFERRED TO IN THIS ARTICLE HAS SINCE BEEN UPDATED
- THE MICT WEBSITE HAS BEEN FACE-LIFTED AND LOOKS MUCH BETTER NOW - EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE THEY COULD DO MORE. BUT WELL DONE.
- A NEW REVISED POLICY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED - A MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT FROM THE DRAFT - AND IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE
- I AM SURE THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE!!!!!
