Social-Humanities Studies Remain Key for Zimbabwe’s Progressive Future.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Whenever there are contemporary discussions about for example Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Zimbabwe, Africa and most of the Global South, there is always the question of ‘language’.  Both as an historical identity theme but also its algorithmic implications where and when it concerns the internet, social media and new technologies. 

These discussions tend to be somewhat lopsided in favour of what we now know to be very real technology.  Mainly because you cannot quite beat electricity, technological gadgets (computers, televisions, mobile phones, tablets) by word of mouth.  We tend to react to them more than they react to us and our contextual societal/cultural and in part, political-economic needs.

This is also dovetailed with what we know formally as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in our current and many other’s educational curriculums. 

Because its priority is what is obtaining largely in the physics realm. Where life is determined largely by given geophysical and technological facts.

While at the same time assuming a specific (global) universality of  physical/natural sciences as they relate to their ironic cultural origins in Western countries.

It is from this key point that we need to examine the status of social science studies in Zimbabwe.  

With an initially regrettable point being that they are being placed on an academic national backfoot. 

Almost as a repetition of our national academic history where social sciences, education, arts (music, theatre, painting, sculpturing), journalism, political science, economics, anthropology, sociological, religious and historical studies were frowned upon.

Whether as promotable professional qualifications for primary and secondary level education young Zimbabweans. 

Or within our current economic context, again based on technological and economic livelihood trends, for those that pursued these social science related qualifications and are faced with the dilemma of being caricatured for having them (kushoorwa).

The reality of the matter is that social sciences are in deep trouble.  Not in relation to their epistemological/ knowledge production importance.  

But more because they are less recognized as nodes of knowledge significance professionally or otherwise by Zimbabwean society.  More so by the state and private business/capital. 

This point requires a throwback moment. 

When, for example the Chiadzwa diamond rush occurred in Manicaland in the mid 2000s, young cdes abandoned school to seek fortunes in the now same said infamous diamond fields. 

Some of them would find these fortunes via arduous physical circumstances and return to the village to laugh at their former struggling teachers.  

Thereby demeaning the all-important teaching profession in Zimbabwe.

Or to give another example.  Those that were studying the ‘arts’ in high school were generally derided for pursuing potential careers in which no major money could be made. Hence most high schools have changed a pure arts curriculum to mix it up with business and science.  

With the key argument being that it is a ‘global trend’ for students to be eligible to go to universities abroad.

The truth of the matter is that in those educational systems that are ‘abroad’ they have never and most likely will never abandon their social sciences.  Be it in the teaching profession, history, journalism, political science or anthropology among others.

Contradict this with our newfound over-enthusiasm for STEM. Without cultural and historical context.  

And at the clear expense of social sciences that independently and academically investigate our national historical political and economic culture. 

Without the propaganda that we are witnessing today where even music, art, religion and history all appear to be for sale to the highest political bidder!

As a penultimate point, I once had a fairly deep but non-academic discussion on this matter of the undying importance of the social sciences with a colleague.

We argued about the meaning of African culture, its metamorphosis in the age of the demeaning of social science studies and the expansion of captive AI.  

We could not come to an agreement on the fact of how we are interacting, as Africans, with technology. 

The key differences we had were on matters to do with, as ridiculous as it may seem, the impact of the ‘light bulb’ or the ‘medium is the message' moment as argued by a Canadian- British academic, McLuhan.

I argued that we need to contextualize technology and assumptions of a more advanced global West.  He argued, in retort, that all of this doesn’t matter anymore because the world will invariably become one global technological village. 

I still disagreed as did he with me. 

I only sort of won him over where and when I assiduously referred to Antonio Gramsci and the theory of ‘hegemony’ while at the same time referring to Kwame Nkrumah’s argument on Neo-Colonialism as the last stage of Imperialism.   

Key to the discussion however was the fact that we cannot abandon our social sciences as though we are throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Or to put it into context, ‘kuramwira munda kumakudo’ (to abandon your fields to the baboons)

I am a firm beliver in the importance, necessity and historic importance of our social sciences. 

And I am not a fan of STEM within our national and African contexts.  Indeed while we may be able to compete haphazardly on this (STEM), we need to retain a grounded understanding of our own being. As Zimbabweans and as Africans.

And this comes from your local geography, history, literature teacher. Your local anthropologist who explains Great Zimbabwe.  

Or your historian who tells you of the liberation struggle, the working peoples struggle. 

Including your teacher, journalist, spirit medium, pastor/priest who helps explain events as they occur in the contemporary.

Lastly, my colleague and I joked that the last social science standing in this convoluted age of STEM and AI, is probably religion. Though we (finally) agreed that everything does not belong to Jesus.  It belongs to progressive human consciousness.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rural Laughing at the Urban: Zimbabwe's Reverse Development

By Takura Zhangazha*

A close relative of mine, after a recent family function and a couple of the inebriating waters (maSuper) jokingly said,

 " Sekuru, munotiseka varikuno kumamisha asi hatina zvatinoshaya!...Tine mombe, mbudzi, huku, minda, mvura nerugare rwamusingawani kumadhorobha!"

Translated and paraphrased he basically said in good humour, 

"You laugh at us here in the 'reserves' but there are many things we have here. We have cattle, goats, chickens, ploughing fields, water and rural peace which you do not have in urban centres." 

Additional conversations centered around toilets, running water wherein he countered with arguments on how even in Harare we do not have running water on a regular basis. And asked about the difference with him and his well. 

He also boasted about his solar system and how it at least charges his phones and how after he affords a television and satellite television he will be able to watch football. 

His was a general comparative lifestyle analysis. In the midst of inebriation. But he knew what he was saying would stab at my own urban consciousness. 

Though he did not know that his humour driven input also had the double edged sword of a potentially catastrophic wish for an uncontrollable urbanisation of his (and my own) rural area. 

But his own personal experience of raising children who would eventually depart for Harare, Bulawayo, Mutare, Masvingo and Johannesburg taught him a key lesson. Moreso when the only return from their departures were grandchildren. Ones he had to look after, send to school and only watch them depart as they also came of age into the same cauldrons of the urban. 

There is however a shift, hence the humour of it. 

There is a new rural-urban prioritisation of Zimbabwean existence. Not necessarily because of its proximity to home but more because rural lifestyles can be modernised. 

And this is not a difficult point to make. The urban lifestyles are increasingly ephemeral for many young (majority) Zimbabweans. 

They argue that they need to retain a home where they are not asked about rent, bills beyond what the local traditional authority wants. Or also beyond the political party expects. 

Outside of the ambit of the urban municipality until a point where they feel they are comfortable with its rules and regulations.  

So there is a scramble for this type of land without too many questions asked. Inclusive of land barons after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP). 

 With the latter having taken control of new peri-urban residential settlements based on their proximity to major cities. And also their ability to weave their way through local councils (opposition or ruling party ones). 

Either way our property business boomed as a result of our default nationalisation of urban land for individual profit. 

What this urban planning mess has created however is an observatory angle from the rural. Not only because it is not sustainable but more because of the real social welfare back up problems it causes. 

Whereas the rural to urban problems were more significant, it is the urban to rural ones that are more significant now. 

Young Zimbabweans, due to the competitive nature or urban life are sending their offspring back 'kumusha'. Even as they live in new sprawling urban settlements in various urban corners of the country. 

Now, I gave the anecdotal example of my relative laughing at us 'urbans' struggling with everyday life.  

The main reason I did that is because the rural Zimbabwean is correct to laugh at the rest of us. Moreso those that think the urban lifestyle is always superior. 

It is evidently preferable as we were taught in geography about what was then referred to as the 'bright lights syndrome'. 

Except that with solar power the bright lights, after a struggle can be at your home or local shopping centre. 

So that's why the rural can easily laugh at the urban now. There are no inferiority complexes as of old. 

The key difference is in understanding national consciousness. 

We are all equal. Even if though in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s Harare, Bulawayo, Mutare, Gweru, Masvingo, Kwekwe and Marondera (I love that town) we were aspirants.

The question that arises is the sustainability of our lifestyles. 

The cdes in the rural are awaiting our return. Dead or alive (mostly dead) to prove a point. This being that we needed to balance both and not look at the rural as 'escapism'. But more a sense of belonging. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity 

When Tanzania Politically Sneezes, the Rest of Africa/Southern Africa Coughs.

Historically and in the Present.

By Takura Zhangazha*

In a very recent online discussion concerning democracy and governance with colleagues based in the Diaspora I was asked to talk about the Southern African Development Community (SADC).  This was in relation to the historical role the regional body had in the liberation struggles of as its name suggests of Southern Africa. 

It was a difficult question given the fact that we are no longer fighting liberation wars in the same said Southern African region. 

We are now more electoral in our political questions and contestations for power.  History may remain important but it is no longer central to any notions of retaining popular political support during elections.

Ditto Tanzania. 

That is one of the most liberatory countries in Southern and broader Africa.   There is no singular Southern African country that cannot claim that it did not receive help in both civilian and military struggles against direct settler colonialism from the people of the then Tanganyika which became the United Peoples Republic of Tanzania and Zanzibar.  Under the leadership of the now still ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCMP) party and through the years from Julius Nyerere, Al Hassan Mwinyi, Benjamin Mkapa, Jakaya Kikwete and John Magufuli. 

 Not only was it one of the founding countries of the the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU) now the African Union (AU).  It was also a founding member of the Southern African liberation oriented Frontline States (FS) together with Zambia and Mozambique.   The FS were to eventually become the historical precursor to two regional organizations.  These were the Southern African Development Coordination Committee (SADCC) and eventually what we now know as SADC.  

So whenever Tanzania politically sneezes the rest of Southern and broader Africa coughs.

This has been the case in the most recent disputed Tanzanian general election that saw the still controversial election of incumbent president Samia Saluhu and the parliamentary victory of the CCMP in both the mainland and also the island of Zanzibar. 

A decent number of Pan Africanists like myself are in shock at how the narrative of these recent elections have turned out.   Their elections have never been this controversial.  But as argued by some it was always going to come to a head. At some point.  Particularly after the discovery of rare earth minerals, gas and oil in the country and the death of former president John Magufuli who was keen on centralized control of the state.

The key question that is emerging is that what has changed in Tanzania beyond what we already knew about its electoral tendencies. 

The reality of the matter is that it is a society that has changed in its political outlook mainly based, as most African states are now, on a change of national consciousness. Contrived (foreign economic interests) or even if by default.  With the default element relating more to urban and rural divides and the rise of not only a new African cultural materialism.

But more importantly a generational praxis gap about the liberation struggle and contemporary lived political and economic realities of many young Africans.

Three things therefore come back into vogue when we reflect in a Pan Africanist sense on Tanzania and its recent political events and elections.

The first one is how its founding president Julius Nyerere once argued about the ambiguity of the meaning of democracy.  He once intoned, writing a Foreword for Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni’s biography that the ‘mechanisms of democracy are not the meaning of democracy’.    He also, in an address to the South Africna Parliament as invited by Nelson Mandela that ‘democracy is not like Coca Cola’.  And I am paraphrasing here, he probably said something that it cannot just be exported everywhere like a commodity.

In the second instance we have to reflect on our own continually disputed African elections and their cycles.  Or in South Africa’s case, their increasing conservatism despite having fought a protracted African liberation struggle.  

As Nyerere argued, we have to think beyond elections in their occurrence.  What matters most is what happens in-between them.

We cant think of elections as weather cyclones that occur every five or six years simply in order to share a populist national cake. We have to reflect more deeply on this and how younger generations understand the meaning of elections beyond mimicry of what happens in the global north that creates the likes of Trump and chainsaw totting Argentinian president Javier Milei. 

In the third and final instance, we have to understand the internal complexities of each our Southern African countries. Tanzania included. Beyond the internet and globalized media narratives.  For example I do not speak Swahili, nor if I was to go to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lingala. What the majority of cdes in these two aforementioned countries perceive as democratic progress may not be as universal as we deem. Or prefer.  Not because we are better educated not only in English languages but because we are sadly increasingly ahistorical in our understanding of universalism.

To conclude, the recent elections in Tanzania are indeed a blight on Southern Africa.  Not only because of the significant historicity of that country to the region and the African continent.   They can and should have been done better.  But it will never take away the importance of Tanzania and its iconic role in a people centered Pan Africanism.  No matter the undercurrents of global international relations, geo-political private capital economic interests.

All that matters for now, and it is sad it has come to this, is that Tanzania recovers. And that its people return to safety, security, solidarity across rural and urban divides.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity

 

 

 

Shifting Meanings of Art, Culture, Technology Across Generations in Zimbabwe

 By Takura Zhangazha*

We probably need to talk a little bit more about our arts and cultural spaces, actors, even industry(?) in Zimbabwe.  

This would also include the interaction of the same with politics, private business and the general public’s cultural progressive expectations of entertainment and finding meaning about everyday or even long term Zimbabwean life.

And I will start off the discussion with an obvious point about our ‘Arts’.  

And by the term ‘Arts’ I mean it holistically as it relates to theatre, satire, music, film, literature and the technological (media) mediums through which they have been historically conveyed.  As well as their changing inter- generational impact.

Whereas between the 1980s- 90s and very early 2000s, our Arts, as defined holistically above were conveyed through technological formats such as mainly radio (FM or Short wave frequencies), long playing records, radio/video cassettes and eventually compact audio and video discs. As well as via musical and cultural festivals or shows.  A greater official number of them were sponsored by the state or private business for marketing (profit) and propaganda (political) purposes. 

There was however also organic, grassroots and historical based Art, that relied more on physical interaction than it did the technological mediums it could be conveyed through.  Thought after our national independence it did a seismic crossover to radio, television and the attendant commercialization that came with this (record/cassette sales/ advertising contracts for artists).

I have raised this fairly generalized historicity around art and culture because it cannot be ignored.  And it can help us understand why today there has been significant changes to how it is publicly appreciated in the contemporary.    

With again the major change being the fact of the new technological mediums of its conveyance to the public.  

To state the obvious, the internet, social media and mobile telephony have distinctly changed how we all view holistic Art.  Not only its immediacy for our entertainment, self- valuation or reflections on our society and existential or idealistic realities.  

Whereas in the past we could have easily argued that Zimbabwean Art should serve the people in some ideologically organic or even highly politicized way as it related to the liberation struggle or workers rights and sustainable livelihoods for all, now we do not really think about it that way. 

Not only because of the changes as to how it is conveyed technologically but also because of the way the latter also changes its meaning.   So where we used to listen to the music of legends such as Mapfumo, Chimbetu, Zhakata, Majaivana, Dembo among many others for deeper reflections on our society.  This has now clearly changed. 

This together with the likes of Safirio Madzikatire (Baba Rwizi), Susan Chenjerai (Mai Rwizi), Phillip Mushangwe (Paraffin), Aaron Moyo and Simon Shumba (Mutirowafanza).  Including the amazing theatrical plays of Theatre in the Park (Harare), the amazingly talented Continue-Loving (Cont) Mhlanga’s Amhakosi  theatre centre in Bulawayo, Mai Musodzi Hall (Mbare), Zimbabwe Hall in Highfields Harare and the Masvingo Theatre club among others scattered in our urban centres.

Their artistic physical and digital dramas and within their contexts had a different meaning because of of how they occurred within their own contexts, values and preferences. As they related to then Zimbabwean society and what the general populace valued.    

This was slower and more deeply thought out Art. 

Mainly because the technological mediums of its conveyance that I have cited above were also slower.  It was also Art that had a fall back of very key state funding support that did not directly editorially interfere with content creation.  (Did you for example know that there was a once well funded Zimbabwe Traditional Music Dancers Association that once received grants from the state?) 

What was since happened is what can be referred to a significant cultural disjuncture in the history, practice and appreciation of the meaning of holistic Art in Zimbabwe.  

Not only because of the global changes in its technological mediums (internet, social media, mobile telephony) but also because of the cultural assimilation of Zimbabwean and African holistic Art by these mediums.  This included a quasi-privatization of Art via changes in economic programmes where it began to be seen as a luxury and not an integral part of an historical identity. 

In the process, our Art began to mimic not only the structural changes to its mediums but also following a new found celebrity trait that came with its rapid commercialization and privatisation.   As owned by what in cultural academic circles are known as ‘media moguls’ and now individualistic, materialist owners of the  internet and social media platforms.  As they also now interact more directly with political power/politicians and globalised private capital. 

To be particular to Zimbabwe, our Arts landscape has significantly changed as a reflection of global technological-cultural developments. And our easy cultural acquiescence in this. We generally don't defend our Arts as much as other countries are wont to do.  (Hatina nharo).  

Our new younger holistic Art practitioners are a product of their technological and attendant cultural time.  A few of them are the new Marechera’s who couldn’t care less about global ideological questions and would easily tell you as the latter once wrote ‘if you write for a specific nation or a specific race, then f*ck you’. Mainly due to their own commitment to their own view of what it means to be a genuine artist and their right to free expression.   

A greater number of others are both patriotic and link up with the state and private business for social media skits, clicks, likes and sponsorships that appear to be sustaining their livelihoods quite well. This would be the ‘ephemeral’ influencer generation that now appear to be the favorites of ruling Zanu PF politicians and tend to be given vehicles and large monetary payments based on the affinity of their content to the same said party.

There are others that are decidedly oppositional in their Art. Also for the same sponsorship and recognition reasons.

The fewer ones are those that still believe in the meaning of their Art as a somewhat objective reflection on what is happening in Zimbabwean society and how it resonates with the more youthful population of the country.   But they are unfortunately largely unable to harness the new mediums of conveyance of Art (social media and the internet) due to either the algorithmic tyranny we know exists or just to lack of funding and mimicry of cultural and highly sexualized cultural content from the global north. 

To conclude, our holistic Art in Zimbabwe has changed seismically.  It is now mediated by new mediums of technology.  Which in turn create new public expectations of it.   It is understandably steeped in new cultural mimicry of global trends and the ephemerality of social media which we do not own. 

Is there a way forward?  Sure there is.  It is one that resides in our own re-emergent cultural recognition and understanding that a progressive African society can never function without Pan African, free, organic, critical and stubborn non-mimicry holistical Art.  Across generations.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

     

Zimbabwe’s Forgetful Mode: We Cannot All “Make Money!” Mr. President.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There are many ways to look at Zimbabwe’s current political economy (where politics meets economics). 

One could easily begin to look at the state of the current ruling Zanu Pf party after its recent 2025 annual National Peoples Conference and go mentally hay-wire with speculation at its succession politics.  Which a lot of anlaysts have already done in the last week. 

Or one could look at our national fundamentals around the national economy (jobs, money, goods and services) and how the future is not as bright as the ruling Zanu Pf party presents it. 

And then there is the social element as to how to look at this.  One which would include our little talked about rural-urban and again urban-rural divides, drug and substance abuse and not forgetting our increasing over-religiosity, superstition and gambling tendencies. Even before we talk about 'class' and and 'class aspirations' as they are occurring in the country. 

It is easier for a lot of us to deal with our politics as they are occurring. Mainly because of what has occurred since the year 2000. You are either for or against one political party.  Or in support of specific populist narratives as they have occurred.  Mainly because we can all have a political opinion.  Moreso with the expansion of social media and its related influencers. 

But it all sometimes appears a bit ephemeral/temporary.  In fact, it arguably is.  Zimbabweans have a new tendency to move from one issue to the next.  In short-shrift time and attendant ease.  Which is what one considers to be the stuff of populist and celebrity style politics ala-carte the USA. 

There is however a specific political precariousness to this that we are not discussing.  Whichever way one wants to look at it.  We talk about Zanu Pf’s factionalism with a specific casualness. Almost as though we intend to sit in front of a television, lap-top or smart phone and watch a soap opera.  In the moment. Until soldiers start rolling tanks in the streets of our major cities (2017).  And then we shift in shock but more significantly in awe and in support of changes that with hindsight do not really change anything!

So we all have a visual and partially thought out impression of why Mnangagwa and Chiwenga have their factions.  And also why the opposition that we have known for at least 25 years (MDC, MDC-T, CCC, MDC Renewal, PDP, MDC-M), there are also highly personalized factions that are irreconcilable.

Even though, with application of a bit of common logic, we would/should be able to think beyond these factions in a broader, non-partisan national interests. 

There are many reasons why we are entrapped in this populism.  And they are quite literally inter-generational.

We have failed to understand our own society beyond its immediacy in our existence.  I know this sounds somewhat complicated but it is necessary to outline. 

And this is where history matters or cannot be whitewashed.  On a number of occasions I have had to remind young Zimbabweans of who we are.  Even if the populist winds are pointing in a different direction as to what can define the present. Be it money, religion and combined family material expectations.  

At the same time we find ourselves in an unfortunate political and economic conundrum where one has to ask themselves for example a question as to what is it that they work/struggle for? Or what is the purpose of life as do others in different nations. Except that in our case we are not steeped let alone willing to capture a specific historical understanding of who we are and who we can be.  We want to mimic more and leave the platitudes to the politicians. 

There is no future in that for the country. Such an approach would regrettably be ahistorical. 

If we continue to live in immediate political moments such as the ones we are living in now such as these Zanu PF political factionalism moments, we are refusing to imagine a different political and economic future. 

This may seem slightly philosophical (something that we should embrace a little bit more as did our ancestors), but it is necessary to consider.  

While we cannot live in a past consciousness (for example the liberation struggle), we cannot also accede that history to a simplistic, populist and materialist present (neoliberalism mixed with religion).  Let alone an uninformed future of global economic and cultural mimicry (kuteedzera zvavamwe/ open for business).   

So we need to recover a more organic and progressive national consciousness. For many of cdes my age, this is almost a no-go-area.  Almost like as Thomas Mapfumo sang in his song, “Dangerzone”.  For cdes in their 30’s they are more keen to heed Mnangagwa’s convoluted and ambiguous but unsustainable advise of ‘make money!’ While failing to answer the question that no matter how rich you are, you still live in a broader society and in any event, the ‘money!’ you have been advised to make, however you make it, will dissipate.

Or those in their early twenties and beginning to explore the Zimbabwean political economy in admiration of ‘mbingas’ or the publicly and politically rich may not understand that no one above their age group and in power is looking for an equitable Zimbabwean society.

To put it as simply as I can without giving you the usual relevant but important quotes of Fanon, Nyerere, Biko or Nkrumah. Or even Marx, Gramsci and Lenin, we are faced with a crisis of national consciousness in Zimbabwe.  Almost like an ‘age group’ differentiation of what Zimbabwe can be.  One that is also ‘gendered’ through marriage, materialism and how our children are preferably educated and raised.

We know for a fact, in as capitalist and unequal society as ours, we cannot ‘make money!’ in the manner that Mnangagwa is always advising us.  It is an elitist and cutthroat competitive argument that does not build a better more equitable Zimbabwe.  Almost like watching the much discredited movie ‘Wolf of Wall Street”.

We must return to our national liberation ethos.  Our post-independence anti-neoliberal struggles and in the final analysis, no matter the ages of our current government leaders, understand organic progressive generational praxis. 

In this, Zimbabwe is a country that does not belong to those that claim to be ‘vene’ (owners) as though they are inimitable oligarchs.  It basically belongs to a hopeful, progressive and compassionate people.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

Zanu Pf’s “Liberation Capital” 2028 Succession Battles: A New Nationalist State Embedded Capitalism

 By Takura Zhangazha*

This is a slightly complicated article. So it is easier to get some of my own definitions out of the way for your ease of understanding. I have also put some sub-titles for your ease of reading.    

* “Liberation Capital”- refers to the Private Capital acquired after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) of 2000 and ongoing Urban, agricultural, mining, tourism and general resettlement land) as controlled by the ruling Zanu Pf Party

*  “Succession Battles” - refers to the ruling party’s political contestations on who can/should/will succeed current president Mnangagwa

* “Land Baron”- refers to those that benefitted from the economic ambiguity of the FTLRP cited above, including those that acquiesced to it

 Introduction.

Ever since the ouster of one of Zimbabwe’s luminary liberation struggle leaders Robert Mugabe from executive presidential political power in 2017, there have been many evident conversations around who, again within the same party, should succeed his successor.  

The current president Emerson Mnangagwa was post 2017 seen as the most able to bridge a gap between former liberation struggle fighters and nationalists as determined by the historicity of the liberation struggle against colonialism.  

He was deemed not only the most senior after previous nationalists but also one of the few who could command a healthier respect from a military that was composed of former guerrilla fighters who had ascended to positions of army colonels, lieutenants and commanders. These would be the likes of current vice presidents Chiwenga and Mohadi and others who are currently serving at the highest level in the security services of Zimbabwe.

The unwritten rule during Mugabe’s tenure was that there was an eventual succession plan after what was anticipated to be his voluntary and in part benevolent departure from power.  This was as explained by war veteran cdes such as Wilfred Mhanda (cde Dzino) and cde Freedom Nyamubaya who outlined the anticipated hierarchy of succession in the then liberation struggle but which also never became a reality.

In their outline, they had been advised, even after national independence, that those that were the original surviving nationalists such as Mugabe, Nkomo, Nyagumbo and other who were at the forefront of negotiating the Lancaster House agreement were to be supported as the ones to take the country forward immediately after independence.  They would eventually give way to those that were the guerilla commanders who were more radical such as Commander Tongogara, Lookout Masuku and other members of the then separate high commands of either ZANLA or ZIPRA to be at the apex of political executive authority in the country. These were considered half nationalist-half military.

And this unwritten succession plan would go on sequentially to those who were full guerillas such as Chiwenga and others that I cannot mention but who claim they bore the brunt of the war at the various fronts. 

Then it would follow that those in the then training camps, through to those that were war collaborators and be completed by those that were part of post independence youth brigades. 

Before we as Zimbabweans could easily say we are done with our liberation struggle history and its organic kneading of our politics. 

Mugabe’s Mis-anticipated Long Duree Rule and the Rise of Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC)

This was obviously disrupted not only by Mugabe’s long duree holding on of power and delaying of succession but also the emergence of a labour backed opposition movement in the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) at the height of not only a national but global economic crisis between 1997 and 2000 caused by neoliberal economics (World Bank/IMF) and what we now refer to as climate change.

This was as serious a challenge to Zanu Pf’s hegemony as ever since 1980 and that of ZAPU as led by Joshua Nkomo. 

The FTLRP of 2000

What happened thereafter politically is common knowledge around the role that war veterans of our liberation struggle with the support of a united Zanu Pf decided to do with the programme that we all now refer to historically as the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP)- and with thanks to Professor Sam Moyo for helping coin this term.  

The multiple elections that occurred after the 2000 constitutional referendum (2002, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2023)  were indicative of a shift in our national consciousness.   It was clear to many urban based Zimbabweans that politically Zanu Pf was no longer invincible.  More so by the time we had the SADC mediated inclusive government of 2009-2013. 

The FTLRP as Part of the National Political Economy

But by then the FTLRP had become embedded in our national political economy.  White farmers had been quite literally in radical nationalist fashion been kicked off the land they either inherited, had purchased for many years by the ruling party.  And even within the ambit of the inclusive government were never going to recover that land with any sense of immediacy. 

This led to the creation on either side of the political divide of what we now refer to as ‘land barons’ (LBs)

Now these LBs did not just look at land in an historical sense of restitution. They looked at land as primarily private capital.  Be it urban land, agricultural land and also mining land.   And they knew that when Mugabe at his many rallies announced the FTLRP as irreversible, all they had to do was play the game right in relation to newer statutory laws, including black indigenization policies about their claim to ‘revolutionary ownership’ of the ‘new land’. 

This also included opposition political party funders, functionaries/leaders and members particularly in the urban areas who had the protection of various ministers of local government so long they towed the political-economic line.  

A New Nationalist State- Embedded Capitalism

This national political economy has birthed what we can now refer to as a new nationalist elitist state-embedded capitalism (NNSEC).  One in which the state as the harbinger of the FTLRP can easily get into various forms of private capital to control the national political economy. Be it in mining, urban land development, agriculture, rural development (privatization) and religious allocations of fixed capital for political survival of the ruling party. 

This includes the financialisation of state capital, primarily land, for climate carbon financiers and claims to be part of a global neo-liberal (pro-private capital) village. 

So Where Do Current Zanu Pf Succession Battles Fit into All of This? 

It would appear that the ideological economic framework for the country has been pre-set by Zanu Pf after the 2017 ouster of Mugabe.  The removal of indigenization laws and the oxymoronic nationalization and privatization of land as capital is no longer in dispute.  The question that emerges is one of who controls the levers of political power and economic largesse stemming therefrom. Even in trickle down format. Or downstream industries.

 Either by courting the West or the East and ensuring a new elite economic class for control beyond loss of power.   Both via direct political control and secondly via controlling the narrative on what can popularly be deemed nationally benevolent national progress.

As has been publicly reported by credible mainstream media, all is not well in the Zanu PF presidential camp.  Be it rumour or reality, we do know based on what happened in 2017 that there is no smoke without fire in Zanu Pf about issues of who is ultimately in control.  At least until their next congress in 2027.  

But as ordinary Zimbabweans we are allowed to comment on what we see, hear or even perceive. 

Conclusion

And in this, we are seeing a battle for what I have defined above as battles for what can be considered a uniquely Zimbabwean ‘liberation capital’ after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) being key in Zanu Pf’s succession battles as they play out on their and opposition social media platforms. And in their physical realities (rallies, conferences, and pending Congresses). 

It creates new nodes of competitive individual and almost cartel/mafia like wealth that we are now suffering for.  And where sometimes we are purchasable for it (tisataure mazita).  Across economic, political, social and religious sectors. But more significantly among more individualistic and materially oriented younger Zimbabweans who could not care less about the ideological nuances of the First or Second Chimurenga.  And where we lose them, the values and the younger generations simultaneously we may never recover.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity

 

 

After the UN General Assembly 2025: Beginning the End of an Egalitarian Global World Order

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The United Nations (UN) recently held its annual General Assembly (UNGA80.)

It was its as social and mainstream media generally advised us the 80^th anniversary of its founding.  As Africans we remain grateful for the UN and its role in our own struggles for national liberation.   Despite the contemporary reality of the fact that we do not have any veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Not for a lack of trying.  Even Zimbabwe is trying to at least get a rotational role in the same global organ and for now appears to be doing a lackluster job of it.   

Watching and listening to the speeches made by various heads of state and government at the UNGA80 one could be forgiven for asking the abstract question, “is the World at a crossroads?”  Particularly in relation to what we had assumed was a universal world order based on democracy and human rights? 

The speeches were relatively poor beginning with the host nation the United States of America (USA) whose president Trump was more concerned about escalators, tele-prompters and the invincibility of his country’s global hegemony.  

Other states were more focused on the genocide occurring in Gaza and their newfound recognition of the state of Palestine.  With the African states referring to the need to reform the UNSC (one that still falls on deaf ears) and the important challenge of the impact of climate change.  Or in a few cases the capitalist and cultural impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its primary owners.

All in all, the UNGA80 did not have any peculiar global resonance as in the past when it was addressed by the likes of for example, Fidel Castro, Kwame Nkrumah, Nikita Khruschev, John F Kennedy, Samora Machel, Julius Nyerere and even our very own Robert Mugabe.   It did not give any aura of a sense of progressive global egalitarianism and the universality of human rights. 

Instead it appeared to be more about a new global strategic repositioning around superpowers. In a nostalgic “Cold War” sense.  Where again countries were being pitted against each other with regards to their loyalties to the east or the west.  With questions emerging on whether your country is with Russia or Ukraine, Israel or Palestine?  Or simply put,  a question on whether your government is with Putin or with Trump? One that many African and global south governments rarely answer directly.

What is evident with the rise of new nationalisms and what Trump referred to as a necessary closure of borders by member states of the UN is an increasingly polarized world where and when we look at the ‘never again’ principle of preventing world wars. 

Instead there is continual escalations of conflicts/wars based on exploitation of mineral wealth (Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo).  While geo-political interests between the European Union and Russia, China and the USA continue to take center stage around tariffs, trade and military technology/.  Inclusive of emergent culture wars that are emerging from techno-feudalists and AI. 

What is apparent is that we are in a global age of the end of a neoliberal global dream of a false equality.  And this is not an easy point to make.   The re-emergence of capitalist motivated nationalism and racism, cutting of global solidarity international aid and the face offs between the USA and China/Russia indicate an evident change in the previous comfort zones of global politics. 

We, as Africans at least should have seen this coming.   And now again we have to leverage our natural resources and peace against at least three global superpowers, namely Russia, the USA and China. And their variegated subordinates in the form of the Middle East’s Emirs and Kings.  

All the while facing a volatile political and economic environment where our governments are perpetually squabbling with their citizens and attempting to mimic ‘mafia style’ politics of perpetuity in power for either oligarchs or long-standing ruling parties.  In the assumed name of electoral democracy.  As recognized by the UN and other pro-democracy international bodies.

What we may need to be more honest about as Africans is the fact of our placement in the global order of issues, commerce, capitalism and the Livingstonian assumption of ‘civilisation.’

What the UNGA80 showed is that the revolutionary progress made for human equality and national sovereignty is under serious threat.  And that there is a clear hierarchy within global world politics.  With the West moving to reassert its capitalist dominance and ensure historical revisionism that deliberately makes the world unipolar again. 

Because of these developments we need to return to a more robust and historical Pan Africanism.  While non-alignment has helped in our economic development programmes in one way or the other, Africa’s engagement with eh rest of the world needs to be more grounded in our own value and less global capital’s interests.

In the final analysis, while we have new nodes of African consciousness as shared on social media, the realistic questions are around Africa’s placement in the contemporary global events as they are occurring.  We have to grasp the reality that we are low rung interests to the USA, China or Russia.  And that we regrettably remain exploitable politically and economically.  Hence we are led to our own deaths in the Sahel and Mediterranean sea.  Even if we were to become football stars in major European or North American sporting clubs. 

We just need a serious reality check after the UNGA80. It is no longer the UN we grew up knowing.  Its global egalitarian values are being diminished.  And while we cant stand up with immediacy and ask that this be stopped we may need to redraw our placement in global politics.  As Africans. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity