By Takura Zhangazha*
A friend once vehemently argued that
neoliberalism was good. This was at an
afternoon lunch with other activists where I had made what I thought were fair
points on the new importance of what I referred to as contextual social
democracy. Both as an ideological mechanism
of understanding the current challenges Zimbabwe faces as well as a key pointer as to the nature of a
preferable people driven and democratic state.
What I however did not immediately discern
was that my friend had used the ‘liberal’ part of ‘neo-liberal’ in relation to
arguments about human rights. That is,
his assumption was that as long as there was the word ‘liberal’ it related to
human rights, a subject that was very close to his heart.
And its not my friend alone. It is a general and probably somewhat genuine
mistake a lot of people make. At least
in Zimbabwe where they conflate issues to do with political ‘liberty’ and economic neo-liberalism.
It however helps to put issues into
perspective. The first being that liberalism is indeed about the
individual. And their rights to exactly
that, being individuals. In Eurocentric
narrative, it means that the individual is always wary of the role of the
state. And how it affects their (very) individual well being. So liberals are generally skeptical of the
state in respect of their rights. As
individuals.
But this does not end in the sphere of
political or civil liberties. It also
extends to the socio-economic sphere where liberalism then refers to how
individuals must be allowed to undertake economic activities with limited
interference from the state. In this,
the ‘free market’ becomes supreme and the state must retreat.
It is closely tied to capitalism and regrettably
in our African context tied to repressive political orders where certain rights
were more significant than others in pursuit of profit/happiness. Hence the slave-trade, colonialism and
neo-colonialism.
So when we discuss 'neo-liberalism' in our own African context, we need to understand that the concept is as political as it is economic.
Political in relation to its philosophical underpinnings of the democratic rights of the individual. Economic in so far as it has become part of a hegemonic discourse that not only protects but also promotes global capitalism and its attendant free market (liberal) economics.
As we fought it during our own liberation struggles and our post independence struggles against poverty and (comparative) underdevelopment.
But if I revert back to my colleague and his (with respect) simplistic understanding of neo-liberalism, there are broader perceptions or lack of them that relate to the same political-economic concept. Because we are so enamoured with an admiration of individual success that comes with assumed individual effort, we are prisoners of a false and non-contextual consciousness. (Ditto our new found popular and alarmingly superstitious religiosity.)
My colleague's acceptance of neo-liberalism as a progressive ideological pretext to resolve Zimbabwe's ( Africa's) economic problems essentially point to a trapped consciousness that does not intend to think outside of the postgraduate university qualification, economic conference and a ubiquitous consumarist lifestyle television/ social media output.
In itself that is not a bad thing. The only problem is that when it comes to leading public opinion makers (such as my friend), it has a tendency to muddy the waters of a necessary search for progressive social democratic consciousness.
The rhetorical question that is asked by those that would accept neo-liberalism not only as an ideology but a way of life is what is the alternative?
In our Zimbabwean and African context, the alternatives are limited due to (again) the global hegemony that neo-liberalism has become. Especially as maintained by global capital(ism).
But they exist and there is one key one that would take into account both the historical social and economic injustice that was colonialism and also the contemporary socio-economic challenges of our post independence polity.
I refer to it as contextual social democracy. That is an ideological framework whose characteristics are the organic intention to establish a social welfare state that respects human/individual rights but embraces a purposive belief of giving every Zimbabwean a fair start in life. The latter would be an access to social and enabling services such as health, education, transport/communications, water, land and energy. Such a fair start then enables the broader pursuit of innovation that does not undermine the broader public interest in its democratic economic and political form.
At its heart is a people-centered understanding of our common humanity and equality. And a society in which receiving medical treatment, going to school/university, moving from point A to B, talking on the telephone/internet and owning basic housingor turning on the tap for water is not viewed as the privilege of the few. But the rights of the many.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
Political in relation to its philosophical underpinnings of the democratic rights of the individual. Economic in so far as it has become part of a hegemonic discourse that not only protects but also promotes global capitalism and its attendant free market (liberal) economics.
As we fought it during our own liberation struggles and our post independence struggles against poverty and (comparative) underdevelopment.
But if I revert back to my colleague and his (with respect) simplistic understanding of neo-liberalism, there are broader perceptions or lack of them that relate to the same political-economic concept. Because we are so enamoured with an admiration of individual success that comes with assumed individual effort, we are prisoners of a false and non-contextual consciousness. (Ditto our new found popular and alarmingly superstitious religiosity.)
My colleague's acceptance of neo-liberalism as a progressive ideological pretext to resolve Zimbabwe's ( Africa's) economic problems essentially point to a trapped consciousness that does not intend to think outside of the postgraduate university qualification, economic conference and a ubiquitous consumarist lifestyle television/ social media output.
In itself that is not a bad thing. The only problem is that when it comes to leading public opinion makers (such as my friend), it has a tendency to muddy the waters of a necessary search for progressive social democratic consciousness.
The rhetorical question that is asked by those that would accept neo-liberalism not only as an ideology but a way of life is what is the alternative?
In our Zimbabwean and African context, the alternatives are limited due to (again) the global hegemony that neo-liberalism has become. Especially as maintained by global capital(ism).
But they exist and there is one key one that would take into account both the historical social and economic injustice that was colonialism and also the contemporary socio-economic challenges of our post independence polity.
I refer to it as contextual social democracy. That is an ideological framework whose characteristics are the organic intention to establish a social welfare state that respects human/individual rights but embraces a purposive belief of giving every Zimbabwean a fair start in life. The latter would be an access to social and enabling services such as health, education, transport/communications, water, land and energy. Such a fair start then enables the broader pursuit of innovation that does not undermine the broader public interest in its democratic economic and political form.
At its heart is a people-centered understanding of our common humanity and equality. And a society in which receiving medical treatment, going to school/university, moving from point A to B, talking on the telephone/internet and owning basic housingor turning on the tap for water is not viewed as the privilege of the few. But the rights of the many.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment