Daniel Garwe: Harare Vendor Ultimatum Sparks Zero-Tolerance Clean-Up

• On August 27, Minister Daniel Garwe issued a seven-day ultimatum for Harare street vendors to vacate their trading spots, threatening a "zero-tolerance clean-up operation."
• This directive contradicts Zimbabwe's stated formalisation strategy, which emphasizes inclusion and infrastructure over enforcement, and was issued without providing alternative markets or a transition plan.
• The Vendors Initiative for Socio-Economic Transformation (VISET) warned that such removals without viable alternatives would disrupt livelihoods and increase insecurity for vulnerable workers.
• The current enforcement action echoes past failures like Operation Murambatsvina in 2005 and 2017 removals, which displaced vendors but did not resolve the underlying economic reasons for informal trade.
• Zimbabwe lacks sufficient formal employment, making the informal economy a critical source of income, and past enforcement has only shifted the problem without creating sustainable solutions.

The government's actions appear to contradict its own formalisation strategy, which aims to integrate the informal economy through supportive measures rather than punitive removals.

Zimbabwe's Minister of Local Government, Daniel Garwe, issued a stark ultimatum to Harare street vendors on August 27, demanding they vacate their trading spots within seven days. The directive warned of a "zero-tolerance clean-up operation" for non-compliance, with municipal police subsequently deployed to prevent traders from returning to their usual locations. This sudden enforcement action has raised significant concerns regarding the government's approach to the informal sector.

The ultimatum was delivered without any prior provision of alternative trading spaces for the displaced vendors. There was no credible transition plan published, nor was any evidence presented that potential alternative sites could adequately support the businesses being uprooted. This lack of preparatory infrastructure or a clear relocation strategy stands in sharp contrast to the government's stated policy on formalizing the informal economy, which emphasizes inclusion, infrastructure development, and social protection, explicitly rejecting enforcement as the sole solution.

The government's actions appear to contradict its own formalisation strategy, which aims to integrate the informal economy through supportive measures rather than punitive removals. While a government is certainly within its rights to modify or abandon a policy, critics argue it cannot credibly claim to be implementing one while simultaneously pursuing its direct opposite. This discrepancy highlights a significant challenge in Zimbabwe's informal economy policy.

The Vendors Initiative for Socio-Economic Transformation (VISET) voiced its concerns on September 4, cautioning that removing vendors without providing viable alternatives would severely disrupt livelihoods and push vulnerable workers into deeper insecurity. VISET underscored a fundamental principle: formalisation should not simply equate to displacing individuals from their current sources of income. The economic reality in Zimbabwe is that the formal sector cannot absorb the large number of people currently working informally, a point exemplified by long-time vendor Cephas Muchegwa, who noted the scarcity of industrial jobs and the presence of unemployed graduates. Urban centers require order, including functional roads, sanitation, and public spaces, but this order cannot be divorced from the prevailing economic conditions.

This recent Daniel Garwe Harare vendor ultimatum evokes troubling comparisons to past government interventions. In 2005, Operation Murambatsvina (meaning 'Drive Out Rubbish') saw the widespread destruction of informal businesses and homes across Zimbabwe, ostensibly to restore urban order. This operation led to immense social disruption, with the Zimbabwe Council of Churches condemning its human cost and a visiting South African church delegation likening the removals to apartheid-era forced evictions. Despite these drastic measures, the informal economy persisted.

Similarly, in 2017, Harare authorities again targeted informal traders. At that time, VISET advocated for the construction of adequate markets before any vendor removals, an argument that remains pertinent today because the underlying issues have never been resolved. In both previous instances, people eventually returned to the streets, as these locations continued to offer access to customers and income. These past enforcement actions failed to create formal employment or viable market alternatives; instead, they merely displaced the problem without addressing the root causes of informal trading.

For any successful transition of street traders, the government would need to provide accessible, serviced markets in locations frequented by customers, alongside transparent allocation procedures and protection from harassment. Crucially, traders would require sufficient time to relocate without their incomes being destroyed. The current administration has yet to demonstrate that these essential conditions are in place, instead opting for immediate enforcement.

This approach creates significant regulatory uncertainty for the informal sector, impacting operations and raising the specter of arbitrary enforcement actions. The government is now confronting the informal economy at a time when household incomes are already strained, and rural livelihoods face their own difficulties, potentially exacerbated by climate conditions. While enforcement can alter *where* informal trading occurs, it cannot, by itself, resolve *why* people engage in informal work, underscoring the need for a more comprehensive and inclusive Zimbabwe informal economy policy.

This article highlights the significant discrepancy between Zimbabwe's stated informal economy formalisation strategy and the government's sudden, forceful eviction of Harare street vendors. Lawyers should advise clients on the increased regulatory uncertainty and potential for arbitrary enforcement actions impacting informal sector operations, and monitor for legal challenges to such directives.

Source: Original reporting via The Conversation