By Takura Zhangazha*
Political perspectives in Zimbabwe, at least after the recent
2018 general election, have tended to have a sense of immediacy and
urgency. Spurred on by the fundamentally
zero-sum power games that our national elections are or their highly polarized
nature, we tend to not look beyond our noses as to what it all means. And this in most cases makes our national political
consciousness excitedly ephemeral/temporary or informed by a stubborn loyalty
to political processes we, individually, initially encountered as outsiders or
as direct immediate and past long term active participants.
The only catch is that after the 'event' of the 2018 elections, the reality that ‘in the moment/event’ driven excitement
about the former process was and is largely responsible for our current
electoral and populist levels of national consciousness.
Beyond just being populist our national consciousness is
pre-occupied with the immediate. Whether
it be issues to do with the parallel market rates of the United States dollar
(which we ironically want to claim as our own) or the pre-occupation with highly
individualized (and loyalist) politics, we remain relatively short ‘termist’ in
our understanding of the role of the state and its control( or lack thereof) of
the national political economy.
And this is understandable for two main reasons. The first being that the 38 year (and
counting) rule of the ruling Zanu Pf party has made many a Zimbabwean realise
that the state is no longer intended to be people-centered or truly democratic. Robert Mugabe’s hold on the state in
particular and embrace of radical nationalism underpinned by an intention to
(eventually) embrace free market economics shattered the pragmatism that would
have made us keen on thinking and acting for national posterity or the collective good/public interest. Instead, what obtains is a general perception
that the state is at the mercy of whoever is in power. And that occasionally we somehow get the
chance to attempt to choose these powerful people every 5 years.
The second reason why there are these limitations to what
would be a democratic national consciousness is largely as a result of an
increasing continental embrace of a culture of consumerism as motivated by a global
embrace of free market/neo-liberal economics.
This however is not a problem peculiar to Zimbabwe. It cuts across the Southern African region
wherein a cross-border embrace of foreign/global capital (East or West) exists as a cornerstone of ‘economic development’.
These reasons however do not preclude an attempt at seeking
to map out the political and economic course that Zimbabwe is likely to take in
the next five years. I have used five
years as a time-frame largely because already conversations in highly politically
polarized Zimbabwe are beginning to pitch elections scheduled for 2023 as the
next ‘big’ political event to capture national attention (as aided by a Diaspora that has its own preferences).
The reality of the matter, which many will refuse to concede
in our age of individualized and religion influenced political activism, is
that a lot more than elections is going to occur between then and now. And it
is necessary to try and map what will likely occur in the next five years in order
for us to begin to think of our country beyond our day to day experiences/hardships
and highly personalized political loyalties.
That is to seek to predict the overall
and holistic path that Zimbabwe is likely to walk in the next five\ years. And this is specific to the country’s political
economy, its social development and its placement in international
relations. In a manner that is a bit
more realistic than it would be depended on superstition and religiously motivated
pre-suppositions.
In the first instance, Zimbabwe’s national political economy
is definitively set by the current ruling establishment to be one that is
neo-liberal or strongly pro-free market economics. For many a Zimbabwean this may make sense for
now given how all the major political and economic players have been trying to
court that elusive creature called Foreign Direct Investment (together with its
attendant ‘hegemonic’ recognition).
Hence the statements attributed to Mnangagwa and his officials
while he has been visiting the United Nations headquarters and New York city
announcing that Zimbabweans should brace for ‘austerity’, a phrase and course
of action that is increasingly facing greater resistance from its very sources
of theoretical origin. ( adevelopemtn we rarely see because of our acceptance of populism and non-critical embrace of ideas that come from capital as a panacea)
This policy intention essentially means Zimbabweans are
going to witness a prioritisation of private capital’s interests in relation to
the national economy. But not just any
small capital. More probably mega
capital that comes with stringent conditions on a high profit return of investment. No matter whether the capital is from the east
or the west. That also means there shall
be state disinvestment from public services and the elevation of the ‘free
market’ as the solver of all economic problems.
Suffice to say that even if Mnangagwa’s government gets the initial
global capital goodwill he is looking for, it will only be short lived. His government’s honeymoon will be temporary
because the 'free market' tends to be apolitical.
At least by default. Once it gets
in head into the tent, it tends to want to occupy the rest of it. And it takes no prisoners. Austerity in our contemporary times tends to
backfire spectacularly and with negative political consequences for those in
power but more significantly for the majority poor.
So in the next five years, the national political economy will
be lulled into a temporary sense of ‘investor’ security. Only for the same to
scamper at the slightest possibility and threat at a loss of intended profit.
Secondly, with regards to the social set up of the country,
it means there shall perpetually be a potential conflict over and about the
threat of the withdrawal of much vaunted capital .
The withdrawal of publicly funded social
services in favour of private owned ones will lead to the entrenching of an
already existent individual and materialist narcissism that will undermine the
collective social fabric of Zimbabwean society.
That is, everyone is already seeking to ‘cover their backs’ economically
at the whim of the ‘markets’ and therefore will have limited time for a
progressive and democratic national consciousness. And there will be no immediate sources for
it.
Young Zimbabweans will seek alternative sources of a
national consciousness that will however remain largely embedded in Christian
religiosity and with limited scope for objective thought and values.
Unless checked by new social and ideological
movements, Zimbabwean society will become more apolitical and embrace petty celebrity/cultist
politics as the primary vehicles to give pretense at political change or
activism. And in most cases, innocently
so. As motivated by a globalized social
media access and presence that creates Zimbabweans and Africans more and more
in the image of the ‘other’. By way of lifestyle and by way of expectations of what would
be considered success (who is the next Bill Gates from Africa, anyone? )
In international relations, Zimbabwe’s placement will rely
more on the endorsement of global superpowers than it will on its own
contextual understanding of its placement in the world. Largely because we are seeking what the
ruling establishment refers to as ‘re-engagement’ and also making reference to
the Commonwealth system in press interviews, our foreign policy is hinged on a desperate
pursuit of a recognition we will never control.
Constentations as to who has the ear of, for example, the Americans or the
Chinese will be the sum total of how we present ourselves to the World. And in this, we will fit snugly into a long
duree neo-liberal/free market narrative that suits the global powers that be. Being ‘open for business’ will turn out to
being ‘open for pillaging and abandonment’ unless there’s material and political
profit to be made. Our desperation, as
led by the ruling establishment, means we are more susceptible to being
partners in economic convenience than having all weather friends.
The 'base and superstructure' approach used by Marxists (such as myself) may
help to explain our way out of the conundrum we are faced with over the next
five years.
A neo-liberal/free market (the base) economy is more likely
to lead the country down the road of oligarchies and a withdrawal of socio-economic
rights as guaranteed by the state. The social
(superstructure) lives of Zimbabweans will inevitably lead to a dissipating
critical national consciousness aided and abetted by a rise in religiosity, superstition and a desperation for money. Crude as that may seem.
But perhaps, just perhaps, the internal and externally lived
contradictions of the neo-liberal route Mnangagwa’s government wants to take us
to may lead to the emergence of a new national consciousness. One motivated by an intrinsic and organic understanding
of democratic political and economic values of equality for all.
Those of us on the democratic and socialist left understand
that possibility. We will just have to
work harder to achieve the requisite levels of national consciousness. In the next five years. Plus.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment