By Staff Reporter

The Government’s decision to give informal traders operating in undesignated areas of Harare until September 9 to vacate their trading sites has once again brought the long-running conflict between urban order and workers’ livelihoods into sharp focus.

Local Government and Public Works Minister Daniel Garwe has announced a comprehensive, zero-tolerance clean-up operation targeting illegal vending structures and stalls across Harare and the wider metropolitan province, with the exercise expected to be extended to other urban centres.

Government argues that unregulated vending has contributed to congestion, blocked pavements, undermined sanitation and created public health and security concerns. Authorities have consequently directed vendors operating outside approved areas to relocate to designated markets.

From a labour perspective, however, the central question is not whether cities should be clean, orderly and properly planned. Rather, it is whether the enforcement of urban regulations should result in the destruction of livelihoods without addressing the economic conditions that have driven millions of Zimbabweans into informal work.

The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) has historically argued that informal workers are workers whose livelihoods and rights must be recognised and protected.

The federation's own Informal Economy Department is specifically mandated to coordinate informal economy associations and contribute to policies addressing the rights of self-employed workers and precarious wage earners in micro-enterprises.

This position is important because Zimbabwe's informal economy is no longer a marginal part of the labour market. An ILO/UNESCO report has estimated that more than 80 percent of Zimbabwe's population is employed in the informal sector, underlining the extent to which informal work has become central to household survival and the national economy.

ZCTU's position has consistently been that the growth of the informal economy must be addressed through formalisation, social protection, organisation and decent work, rather than through periodic evictions and confiscation of goods.

In 2021, during another government crackdown on informal traders, ZCTU condemned the destruction of vending structures, warning that the approach was reminiscent of the 2005/06 Operation Murambatsvina, which left hundreds of thousands of people without livelihoods and accommodation.

The labour federation argued at the time that the destruction of informal-sector structures was being undertaken without adequate alternatives for the people affected.

That position remains relevant to the latest clean-up operation.

The fundamental labour argument is that being informal does not mean being without rights. Vendors may not have conventional employers, employment contracts or formal workplaces, but they depend on their economic activities to feed families, pay school fees, meet rentals and contribute to the circulation of goods and services.

The challenge for Government, therefore, should be to move these workers from informality into a regulated and productive economy rather than simply removing them from the streets.

The Government's announcement that local authorities have been directed to register compliant traders and place them in designated vending structures provides an opportunity to move the debate beyond eviction.

However, formalisation must not simply mean moving vendors from one location to another.

A meaningful formalisation programme should address the underlying barriers that keep informal workers outside the formal economy. These include the affordability and availability of vending infrastructure, licensing costs, access to finance, taxation, social security, access to markets, water and sanitation, storage facilities and protection from arbitrary enforcement.

ZCTU and informal economy organisations have previously participated in efforts to develop a national formalisation framework. A 2021 declaration involving ZCTU, the Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions and informal economy organisations called for a formalisation strategy centred on improved working conditions, poverty reduction, gender sensitivity, labour standards and stronger capacity for trade unions and informal economy structures.

This approach effectively shifts the debate from "How do we remove vendors?" to "How do we transform informal work into decent and sustainable livelihoods?"

That distinction is crucial.

Zimbabwe's history demonstrates that periodic enforcement operations can produce temporary changes to the appearance of cities without resolving the economic forces that drive informal trading.

When people cannot find formal employment, they do not necessarily stop working because a vending site has been cleared. They often relocate, change trading hours or establish new informal markets elsewhere.

The result can become a cycle of eviction, relocation and re-emergence.

ZCTU made a similar argument during the Government's 2025 campaign against street vending. The federation criticised the removal of vendors at a time when formal employment opportunities remained inadequate, arguing that the Government needed to address unemployment rather than treating vending as the primary problem.

This labour perspective does not imply that every pavement, road verge or street corner should become a permanent marketplace.

Cities require functioning roads, pavements, drainage systems, sanitation and public spaces. Formal businesses also have legitimate concerns when they compete with traders who may not face the same regulatory and operating costs.

But these competing interests require planning and social dialogue, not simply enforcement.

One of the central principles of labour policy is social dialogue. Informal traders and their representative organisations should therefore be involved in deciding where vending sites are located, how much they cost, what facilities they provide and how the transition to formalisation will work.

This is particularly important for women, young people and households that depend heavily on informal trading.

ZCTU's engagement with informal workers reflects an understanding that traditional trade-union structures must evolve as the nature of employment changes. The federation's Informal Economy Department exists precisely to organise and represent self-employed and precarious workers who fall outside conventional employment relationships.

Consequently, Government's proposed clean-up should become an opportunity for structured engagement between authorities, ZCTU, informal economy organisations, local authorities, formal businesses and residents.

The September 9 deadline should not become another chapter in Zimbabwe's history of removing informal traders only for them to return when enforcement subsides.

Instead, it could mark the beginning of a comprehensive formalisation programme.

Such a programme could include the mapping and registration of informal traders; affordable and properly serviced vending markets; simplified licensing; access to finance; social security and health protection; skills development; market linkages; transparent local authority charges; and mechanisms for resolving disputes between traders and authorities.

It should also be accompanied by serious efforts to rebuild the formal economy and create decent jobs.

The informal economy did not emerge in isolation. Its expansion is closely linked to unemployment, declining formal-sector opportunities, economic instability and the inability of many households to survive on formal wages alone.

As a result, removing vendors without expanding alternative economic opportunities risks treating the symptom rather than the underlying problem.

Indeed, a properly designed formalisation programme can potentially achieve both.

The labour test should therefore be straightforward: Will the operation leave affected workers without livelihoods, or will it provide a credible pathway into safer, regulated and more productive economic activity?

For ZCTU, the answer should be the latter.

Zimbabwe needs orderly cities, but it also needs decent work. It needs functioning municipal authorities, but it also needs protection for people who have created livelihoods in the absence of sufficient formal employment.

The challenge is therefore not simply to remove informal workers from the streets. It is to build an economy in which they can work with dignity, contribute to public revenue, access social protection and operate in safe and properly regulated environments.

The September 9 operation could consequently become either another cycle of eviction and displacement or a turning point towards genuine formalisation.

For the labour movement, formalisation should mean bringing workers into the economic mainstream—not pushing them further into poverty and informality.