Sunday 16 October 2011

Re-thinking and re-debating the Zimbabwean Diaspora


Re-thinking and re-debating the Zimbabwean Diaspora.
By Takura Zhangazha.

There are many Zimbabweans that are no longer resident in the country for many reasons. It is now generally agreed that it was mainly the political and economic crisis of the late 1990s through to present day that caused their phenomenal exodus into the Southern African region, Europe, North America, the Australian subcontinent, North America and the Middle East . The overall effect of this emigration in Zimbabwe has been fundamentally the weakening of the state’s popular legitimacy via the process of its own citizens seeking better lives in foreign countries, particularly with regards to better employment opportunities,  social service provision and the enjoyment of human rights.
The effect of this emigration on Zimbabwean domestic society, as documented by international non-governmental organizations, the media and academics, has been equally phenomenal. And because it has been almost fifteen years since the massive exodus of Zimbabweans began, it is necessary for us to place into perspective what the Diaspora means for  those that constitute it and to those that are still in Zimbabwe.
To begin with, the Diaspora is a Zimbabwean political, social  and economic  reality no matter how many times the government seeks to deny it the right to vote, dual citizenship  or easy access to passport renewals and applications. Further still, it is an established fact that the Diaspora helped the country through its worst post independence economic crises via remittances to relatives and friends at home.  Even the government tried to take advantage of these remittances by setting up schemes such as the now somewhat forgotten ‘Homelink  and allowing a thriving parallel money market in the mid 2000s and onwards.
In this regard, the Zimbabweans citizens who were and have been in the Diaspora over the last fifteen or so years were part of the solution to the country’s economic crisis of that time, even though they may not view it that way. They were also new standard bearers of societal ambition and living the potentially full or ‘good life’ as it were due to the fact that it became a common Zimbabwean standard for its young and middle aged citizens to aspire to leave their country of birth. This equivalent of the ‘bright-lights’ syndrome affected all of us in the early 2000s and at some point every young adult Zimbabwean considered the option of following relatives in other parts of the world. 
For others still, other peoples countries proved too  difficult to live or find work in permanently but they retained opportunities such as cross border trading and the buying and selling of manufactured products (clothes, car parts, basic commodities) to the extent that they added a new dimension to ‘Diaspora’ that also now included it being considered a status of being ‘in-between’ countries. 
But what primarily concerns this article is the issue of the more or less ‘permanent’ Diaspora. I call it ‘permanent ‘because most of the colleagues and fellow citizens I have talked to have stated that they have no particular intention to come back to Zimbabwe on a permanent basis. They will occasionally come to visit, attend the odd wedding or funeral, but after all is said and done, will never come back to call Zimbabwe home in the manner they did before they left. This is because  a number have since either acquired permanent resident status or citizenship in their host countries or are too committed to trying to get either to rule out the possibility of a permanent and voluntary return to Zimbabwe.  
Taking into account the above cited issues, the citizens that are still resident in Zimbabwe together with the government need to seriously begin to look at the bigger picture of how to re-intergrate the Diaspora into our society.  This would entail understanding our fellow citizens that are resident in other countries holistically and not just for their ability to be able to cast a ‘vote’ in favour of one or the other political party. We must begin to consider the necessity of starting a new ‘big debate’ on this very important national matter if we are to retain some semblance of loyalty from those that have left our borders permanently of the new generations of Zimbabweans that have ties with us, even though they have been born or have  grown up abroad.
A few pointers as to how this debate can be begun is by zeroing in on the policies of our ministries of Foreign affairs, Home Affairs, Finance and that of Labour and Social Welfare, not only about dual citizenship,  but also about initiating a formal and broad consultative process about the concerns of the Diaspora vis-à-vis their country of birth. This includes a review of the economic investment mechanisms that the previous government had put in place, the establishment of a retirement/pension plan for the Diaspora as well as family intergration and responsibility social welfare unit to ensure that families left behind are not exposed to the vagaries of poverty and societal abuse. And these consultations must be underpinned by the truth that Zimbabwe values all of its citizens wherever they are, and is actively seeking to invite them back. Primarily because, it is indeed their country too. 

3 comments:

  1. A broad-based and long term diaspora engagement policy is needed. There's no need to reinvent the wheel as the experiences of older diasporas and their home countries can be looked at and borrowed from. In particular, the Indian, Afro-Caribbean and West African diasporas in the UK are cases in point. In West Africa, leading states such as Ghana and Nigeria have implemented various levels of diaspora engagement policies and have harnessed immense financial,cultural and human capital from their diasporas in return for such confidence building measures as dual citizenship. Liberia and Rwanda have followed suit as well, with major diaspora conferences held in foreign capitals and addressed by those countries' presidents. There's a recognition that spatial distribution of the national population in response to globalisation is inevitable, and as such the concept of nationhood had to move with this phenomenon and redefine itself to be adequate to the reality of modern times. From Europe, we have nations such as the Irish, whose diaspora is said to be much larger than the settled population at home but whose sense of nationhood has not only survived this global scattering but in fact thrived as a result of it.
    The problem as i see it in Zimbabwe is to do with the preponderance of a static if not aggressively retrospective nationalism within the dominant political party that defines the diaspora as an existential threat, a constituency to be treated with both condescension and caution. In the context of Zimbabwe's contested politics and national identity, it nigh impossible for there to emerge a new official thinking within the state about the diaspora unless there has been thoroughgoing reform within the old party, enough to make it comfortable with the reality of the nation's new, globally spatial character.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree and would hasten to add that I think there might also be need for reform in the 'mew party' as well becasue hey tend to over politicise the Diaspora

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Takura for your very enlightening article. I seek to expand on what you refer to as the permanent diaspora, as I have encountered many who have the same idea. People cannot help but feel disenfranchised and ostracized from their own society due to the fact that so much vitriol and scorn has been directed towards citizens who, as you rightly indicate, have played their part in propping the nation at such a time when it was in free-fall, all for nothing but political expediency. That certain parties cannot campaign in certain parts of the world is no fault of those who have settled in those places and as such cannot be used as reason to marginalise them. So much negative pronouncements have come out of the political establishment directed at the diaspora populace, one would think it is a criminal act to legally leave the country. This I feel has destroyed that sense of belonging in most of those out there and whilst they retain family connections in the country, they feel much more accepted wherever they are.

    ReplyDelete