By Takura Zhangazha*
Recent media reports have indicated that in the last two
years, Zimbabwe’s Diaspora has remitted at least US$ 1, 4 billion dollars into the country. The majority of these Zimbabweans reside in the United
Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, the United States of America and Canada. The
veracity of these statistics lie in the fact that it was the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe
that announced them with the caveat that such remittances show confidence in
the national economy (also to be read as the political situation in the country).
As to the latter point, I am sure a sizeable number in the Diaspora would probably express some reservations at such an assertion.
Since the turn of the last century, our Diaspora has generally had
a tendency to remit money for the purposes of assisting family to mitigate our
harsh domestic economic environment. It would be
hard to argue that in the last two years these economic circumstances have
significantly improved in order for the
reasons for the remittances to have changed.
It is more plausible to argue that while the Diaspora has tried as much as is possible to invest in movable and immovable property back
home, their remittances still play a large part in assisting friends and family
to attempt to overcome prevalent economic challenges. Not that the Diaspora is fundamentally altruistic.
The remittances are also used to shore up investments in property and smaller
business concerns such as public transport, small scale farming and mining. In most cases this can be viewed as
more the giving of the ‘fishing rod’ as opposed to the ‘fish’ to relatives back home.
What is however of greater significance are the changes
in political perspectives of the Diaspora. Over the
years it has become less invested in the politics of the country.
There are
fewer meetings of Diaspora political party branches and less activism on issues
directly related to Zimbabwe in the foreign countries of residence. With this
has also come lesser inclination to fund raise for political or civil society
outfits that are based in Zimbabwe.
The reasons for this state of affairs are varied. Among them is the fact
that countries of destination have become a lot tougher on migration and are less
inclined to grant political asylum. This
limits the activism let alone political umbilical cord the Diaspora has with
the country. Furthermore, there are younger generations that make up the Diaspora, likely
with citizenship of the host country, that do not have as organic a link with
Zimbabwe. They are not able to understand the necessity of continuing
political, let alone, familial linkages with the country their parents originate
from. Especially if they are already citizens of the country they are already living in.
Thirdly, much more difficult economic circumstances in host countries
and the foreign multi-currency monetary framework in Zimbabwe has led to a
change of livelihood priorities. It has also led to significantly less
interaction between home and abroad due to the fact that help that was easy to
give both in economic or political terms is much harder to do so.
And then there is the seeming lack of hope for initially envisioned democratic political change and the intransigence of both ruling and opposing political
establishments. The Diaspora has always
wanted recognition and a role, primarily because of its contribution to the
economy, but also its ability to transfer knowledge and experience it has acquired
over the years back home.
Neither the
mainstream opposition nor the ruling party have structurally granted this
wish. Even in the new constitution, the
ambiguity of dual citizenship, which would have been a trump card were it
clearer, remains a key disappointment for the Diaspora. It is also a dual
citizenship that has not seem a deluge of applications, despite its ambiguity.
Not that, there is no
semblance of continuing support to either of the mainstream parties, it is just
no longer at the same levels or as intrinsically important to the Diaspora. Its
more or less a wait and see attitude that has come to also be characteristic of
many Zimbabweans at home.
A key question that therefore re-emerges is that of whether the
Diaspora can be re-engaged beyond its remittances? The democratic answer would
no doubt be in the affirmative. What is
required is a direct re-engagement of the Diaspora beyond political party affiliation.
That would entail the Zimbabwean government establishing a holistic Diaspora
policy beyond trying to ‘formalise’ remittances, which would include their right
to vote, clearer and democratic dual citizenship and transparent economic investment
frameworks.
Civil society organizations that have an interest in the Diaspora have
to also embark on wider consultative processes on a holistic Diaspora national
policy which understands long term political, demographic and economic realities
as they exist. Where minds are put
together, the Diaspora can reclaim its shared rights to the country with
domestic national support and understanding.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blgospot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment