Electricity Cuts, Lifestyles and Modified Behaviour in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Electricity and access to it is a big issue in Zimbabwe at the moment.  Not least by admission of our own government but more importantly by the lived realities of many urban based Zimbabweans, civil service workers, social service providers, informal traders and formal or informal private business owners. I have mentioned ‘urban’ Zimbabweans because that is where the medium and commodity that is electricity is most used, most craved and because of low connectivity to the national power grid in rural areas, most needed.

So understandably emotive urban conversations about power cuts are focused on determining (as with every other problem the country has) what the cause of the heavy load shedding is.   The reasons range from allegations of corruption about alternative energy supply tenders (Wicknell Chivayo and cohorts), connected politicians and actors’ inability to pay humongous energy bills, the shortage of water in Kariba, inefficiency at the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) and most significantly, the inability or refusal of consumers to pay for electricity. 

The cabinet minister responsible for the supply of electricity, Fortune Chasi,  has already indicated that he is of the firm persuasion that people must pay their debts toZESA. 

In other relatively privileged conversations, not so influential persons have strongly recommended in tandem with the intentions of government that electricity tariffs will eventually have to increase for domestic household and commercial users.

Some informal elitist opinion would immediately point to the possibility that those who can pay should be able to do so as long the commodity is available.  In fact, one of the elitist jokes doing the rounds is that ‘it is no longer pragmatic to pay a Multi Choice digital satellite television monthly subscription if there’s no electricity?’ Or alternatively, it is better to pay in order to get the commodity that is electricity to be available to you personally. Never mind those that cannot afford because for our elites, it would be assumed to be better if they were off the grid altogether!

With an ever expanding urban population, electricity supply was always going to be a major problem for Zimbabwe.  And not only just because of the demographics but also the changing use and need for electricity.  New(ish) gadgets such as the ubiquitous (smart) mobile phone, laptop, smart television, digital decoders, wireless network routers, the need for internet access and rechargeable audio speakers, everyday electricity use was always going to rise spectacularly.

These examples of electric gadgets are not just for the sake of tech-savvy perceptions of the same.  They are reflective of a changing Zimbabwean (urban and peri-urban) lifestyles.  Even if one cannot really afford some of the gadgets, the intention is to own or share one laptop, mobile money phone and (bar-stool) football match motivated satellite TV decoder.  

For mobile telecommunications companies (MTCs)  power cuts as evidenced by a recent glitch in connectivity for Zimbabwe’s largest one, Econet,  the electricity shutdowns also have  as serious dent on profit and reputation. Even though the most affected by the latter is the small to medium enterprise that relies heavily for example, on mobile phone money transactions.  So where there’s no readily accessible electric power, there is basically no individual happiness of access to social media but more importantly limitations to accessing private profit (with some sort of state tax) on the basis of a keen desire by many Zimbabweans to be ‘online’. 

Or in the case of political activists of any hue, there is potentially no capacity to mobilise via social media for assumedly urgent political causes.  A development that would no doubt be welcome to either the ministry of home affairs, the police and domestic or other ‘intelligence’ agencies.  The key issue in this instance is that whereas in the last year we have had internet shutdowns, we now have electricity shutdowns. A situation in which the primary source of the medium (electricity) being the message is not just its content (social media) but its mechanism (again, electricity). 

What the last month of these severe power shortages in Zimbabwe also indicate is that electricity is not just an anticipated ‘medium’ or ‘commodity’ that enables a ‘normal’ literally powered (urban) existence but that it is now highly personal.  Almost to be popularly considered a private right more important than a number of others that would be less immediate or linked to technological or ‘modern’ aspects of our everyday lives.  Hence the scramble for options such as domestic solar energy, electric invertors and gas stoves, if you can afford any or all of the above.   Or alternatively to ask the ‘urbane’ question, if you don’t have electricity and what it allows you to access, what else can you have?

And there’s the rub.  The Zimbabwean government has embarked on a default privatization of access to electricity that most of us do not see out of desperation for the commodity.  By the same default, they have come to control what we can access on social media and mobilise for when our mobile phone batteries are flat or the MTCs have run out of petroleum gas or solar power fuel to keep their base stations operational.

Even if we are sometimes in the right loop about solar energy and mitigating climate change, which factually we, in the global south and in Zimbabwe have contributed an almost negligible amount to be accused of having significantly caused by way of our economic or social activities.   

So our electricity crisis puts us as Zimbabweans at a difficult standpoint.  None of us in urban or rural areas want to miss out on the ‘bright lights’ but we may miss out on how the same was used to help determine our expectations of what it is to live among the ‘enlightened’. With a fully charged mobile phone battery, a private hospital that’s got a backup system for electric power and a landlord with an inverter. We will suffer and we will hopefully continue.

By the time our local minister of energy gets to a relative comfort zone of declaring a normalcy of supply of domestic and industrial electrical energy, we will still have to first ask ourselves the questions of how do we charge our mobile phones, exchange mobile money or watch television and have lighting in our domestic functions if we do not have money.  Hence in some circles the debate is ‘if you cannot pay, you do not get.’ The latter being a casual turn of phrase that is for the few, not the many, despite our expanding urban demographic.

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

Considerations on Zimbabwe’s Future

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s future is rarely discussed in holistic terms in everyday conversations.  This is because the future is always in the immediate.  This may appear contradictory or even complex but it is reflected in the everyday struggles of Zimbabweans to make the proverbial dollar out of fifteen (15) cents. It is almost as though our national mindset is now auto-tuned to what I will call ‘short-termism’.  That is, an approach to our political and economic existence that emphasizes the immediate as opposed to the future. 

In this, an immediate follow up question would be, what has caused this ‘short-termism’.  The answers are varied and in most cases highly politicized.  They range from blaming the ruling Zanu Pf party’s fast track land reform programme (FTLRP) for ruining the national economy and good governance.  Through to sanctions, corruption, hyperinflation and of late the decision by the government to abandon the use of multiple currencies in favour of the return of the Zimbabwe dollar. 

Whatever reason one chooses, it is also apparent that there is a lot of public anger/angst at the present political-economic situation.  And where there’s anger, there is also a search for some sort of catharsis or a moment of immediate relief. Hence in some cases anger is shown via public demonstrations or strident, rhetorical and in some cases violent language on the streets of social media. 

What is however more complex is a systematic and ideological understanding of how Zimbabwe got here in the first place.  Even after the departure of Mugabe and the introduction of what has come to be dubbed the ‘new dispensation’ of his successor Emmerson Mnangagwa.

The arguable reality of the matter is that the country has come full circle from radical nationalism (under Mugabe) to moderate neoliberalism (under the inclusive government) to full scale neoliberalism (under Mnangagwa. 

It is the latter’s policies and ideological model that matters the most in any discussions about Zimbabwe’s short and long term future.  Mnangagwa’s tight embrace of the free market and cosying up to global capital through his promotion of the ‘ease of doing business’ is the base that helps us outline what is in store for Zimbabwe’s political economy.

In relation to the political and most times politicized future, the economic ideological base that is neoliberalism will require Zimbabwe’s political institutions and practices to pass the test of ‘international standards.’  Basically our electoral processes and systems together with the functions of the three main arms of government- the executive, the judiciary and the legislature will be more regularly subject to measurement by regional, continental and global institutions and treaties.  

This does not mean they will strictly adhere to these standards but Mnangagwa’s government will most certainly do some serious public relations on that front.  Hence even after the ‘coup-not-a-coup’ the ruling Zanu Pf party went ahead with calling for elections with the primary objective of ‘international legitimacy’ which with the benefit of hindsight, they appear to have acquired.  

This however means that the art and meaning of politics in Zimbabwe will be highly ‘performative’ and populist, especially in the run up to constitutionally anticipated elections.  Politics will be undertaken in order to satisfy the basic expectations of a hegemonic neoliberal audience and global capital. Not necessarily the people.  The latter, it is hoped by Mnangagwa and his supporters will benefit by way of an anticipated ‘trickle-down’ effect of a ‘free market’ political economy.

Where we examine what possibilities lie ahead with the national economy, it is much clearer to explain.  The Zimbabwe government has declared itself as pro-private capital and the free market.  Its economic policies increasingly also indicate so as outlined in its Transitional Stabilisation Programme (TSP). 

This essentially means the future holds a host of realities that range from eventual privatization of state assets/entities, the expansion of the private sector into social service delivery also known as public-private partnerships and the reduction of the regulatory role of government in the economy/market.  So those that will bear the brunt of ‘austerity’ are ordinary working people of Zimbabwe.  Costs of goods and services will definitely become unaffordable to many.  The priority will remain private capital in servitude to what many an economic pundit and the World Bank or IMF will approve as global best practices of ‘emerging economies’.   Economic benevolence will however be shown during electoral periods in order to curry favour with voters. 

This brings us to the third consideration on the future of Zimbabwe, namely its social environment.  Over the years and as a direct result of attendant political-economic hardships endured by a majority of people, Zimbabwe has become a highly individualistic society.  For students of global political economy this is arguably a result of neoliberal economic policies that deliberately focus on the individual and the market.  

In Zimbabwe’s case, the breakdown of social services and abandonment of the welfare system under Robert Mugabe’s tutelage and now being followed through by his successor has meant that socially Zimbabweans focus on their individual and immediate needs for everyday social services.  This tendency toward individualism has also been strengthened by a global consumerist culture for goods and services that again, focus on the individual. Hence many young Zimbabweans are always seeking out ways and means to emigrate to countries that can make their individual lives ‘better’.

This is a trend that is least likely to dissipate in the near or distant future.  For collective perceptions of reality, citizens will continue to turn to religion for a sense of self-worth and belonging.  Especially those religions that emphasize wealth individual wealth accumulation. 

To conclude, I will revert back to my opening line on how for many Zimbabweans, the future is in the immediate and not in the long term.  And as I have argued in later paragraphs, this future is perceived in highly individualistic ways.  In order to get out of such a future we will have to learn to always think about the bigger ideological future as a whole and seek pragmatic ways to try and ensure it is people centered, welfarist and fully considers those that will come after us.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity. This article first appeared on Zimbabwe's factchecking website zimfact.org  More of his writings can be found @ takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com

Magaya Abuse Allegations and Evils of Commodifying the Female Body

 *By Takura Zhangazha

A local weekly, the Sunday Mail newspaper recently carried a very disturbing story on allegations of sexual abuse of female worshippers by well-known clergyman Walter Magaya.   Titled, ‘Magaya Bombshell’ the story gave accounts of some of the worshippers and how they were either victims or witness to the alleged sexual abuse.  One of the victims also claimed that ‘…the police were compromised and so were most of the journalists…’  so recourse to the law or the court of public opinion was by implication, difficult. 

After the story had been published, social media also had its say on the allegations.  And one of the alleged victims cited in the Sunday Mail’s story took to Facebook to accuse the paper and journalist who broke the story of ‘using her’ to fix the clergyman.  The newspaper and its journalists in turn released video snippets of the alleged victim’s interview and promised a follow up story in its next print edition. 

In one of the videos shared by the paper, the victim makes reference to Magaya having given her US$1500 in fifty dollar notes and how she had knelt down in gratitude, a point I will come back to later. 

This particular story has caused a lot of debate on social media probably because of the popularity/populism of the celebrity religious pastor involved.  And with all matters religious the debate has focused more on the (im)morality of the figure in question. Together with the societal behavior influence he yields as a result of his ministry and his wealth.

Across the Atlantic, a billionaire financier and friend of a former and a serving American president, Jeffrey Epstein was recently arrested and faces charges of sex trafficking. For more than ten years Epstein had been accused of sexually abusing minor girls. He had even managed to strike a deal with prosecutors that stopped a federal investigation into the allegations.  Using money and probably political connections he had been almost immune from indictment.  At least as reported in American media, he will be put to his defence in that country’s judicial system. 

I have cited the allegations against Magaya and Epstein in tandem because they have a number of things in coomon.  Even if one is a clergyman and the other a billionaire financier.  The first common factor in the allegations is the alleged use of money to either pay off the abused or to lure them into abuse.  Epstein reportedly paid his victims ‘hundreds of dollars’.  Magaya reportedly offered US$1500 prior to the abuse.  It would almost be as though the fact that they have money would justify their actions. 

This is where the evil (I use this word deliberately) of the commodification of the female body comes into the picture. 

One of Magaya’s alleged victims describes the scene in which she received money as having knelt before him crying with gratitude.  It’s not difficult to picture the power dynamics at play here: standing ‘prophet’+ money and a kneeling vulnerable woman.  The assumption of power and the right of exchange is entirely with the money giver.  And the female body here is the designated/arbitrarily valued commodity. 

The same with Epstein who not only allegedly paid his victims but also recruited them to recruit others, that is to become commodities that lure other commodities. 

While we have to defer to due legal process the allegations are therefore a reflection of the tragic circumstances in which many young and economically vulnerable young women find themselves.  

But these two cases are the direct result of a neo-liberal global political-economic system that creates powerful men who live as though they are above the law and can purchase anything they want because they have money. And making this appear to be as normal as it can be.  In most cases such individuals function with an impunity garnered either from political protection, instilling fear in alleged victims and ensuring they avoid the glare of the media using either, again, money or influencing media owners. 

On the latter point of avoiding the public glare, it is also significant that they also seek to influence public opinion.  In the case of Magaya and judging by some social media responses, it is clear that members of his church are keen on defending him. In doing so they cast aspersions on the alleged victim’s credibility or morality.  Or they may get the alleged victims to retract previous statements published or given to the mainstream media. And because for many Zimbabweans, money, particularly, the $US, is a fetish in and of itself, the transaction between the alleged abuser and the abused makes the story one of morality than it would be of a crime. 

Again we must ask ourselves what causes such vulnerability of young women to predators.  It is largely the political, economic and cultural system as a whole.  Economic in the sense of high levels of poverty and exclusion from mainstream opportunity for young women and men that come from lower but quantitatively larger economic classes. Political in the sense that this system is nurtured by a neo-liberal, highly individualistic consensus between holders of political power and those that own capital (money). None wants to bring the other to account because of what appears to be a mutually beneficial relationship. 

Cultural in relation to how it mixes religion with monetary, lifestyle and even sexual desire.  Neo-liberalism has created a very strong culture of individualism in Zimbabwe and beyond.  And these individuals have aspirations of ownership and lifestyles that they may never be in a position to acquire in reality.  Even if they try the  route of the promises of prophets and their hedonistic churches.  Or even via access to the wealthy elite (normally politicians and connected owners of big business or state tenders) who equally wield such power over young Zimbabweans. All they see is what they envy, the power of it. Hence the limited public outcry or the satirical social media banter over such allegations. 

But more regrettably, as a final point, there are some (young and old) who would envy such power or are assiduously working to acquire it. 

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

Zim Political Opinion: Source, Recipient and a Return to Class.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Acquaintances of mine are in the regular habit of asking me a broad but utterly unanswerable (emotive) question.  Every other time we meet up they may ruefully and after a couple of potshots at the current government ask, ‘What is the future of this country?’  I have an answer that I now also routinely reply with, but I will give it at the end of this write up. 

The more significant point about my acquaintance’s question is that they ask it because they already have answers to it.  Hence in conversation, they already gives their generally cathartic take on the country’s economic state of affairs, offer one or two pro-business and pro-$US solutions that should, in their view, also protect their interests.  Both by way of the ability to make enough money to meet the requirements of increasingly consumerist lifestyles. 

And it is is all fair enough.  The political economy of Zimbabwe is such that opinions and perceptions of opinions really matter.  The key question is whose perceptions are these that appear to have a fairly strong grip on the urban and rural political psyche?

I mention urban and rural opinion as distinct because they indeed are somewhat different perception spaces.  Not least because of communications’ infrastructure but also the historical (and colonial) view of the urban as the more sophisticated and knowledgeable about what goes on in the (post-colonial) nation-state. A situation that still obtains in our contemporary times due to the urban centric reach and geographical preference of information communication technologies (ICTs), inclusive of mobile telephony and social media. 

Despite the geographical dimension to political opinion in Zimbabwe, that is to say, the urban citizen perceived as more enlightened due to its historical proximity to technology and the (former) colonial center than the rural, we will still need to answer key questions of current/contemporary motivations of the same.

Public and popular opinion in Zimbabwe is largely driven from a perception of what would be ‘knowledge’ or ‘education’.  Those that shape it in the immediate are publicly expected to be the most educated.  This is as historical a point as it applies to the contemporary. 

In the immediate post-independence era (the 1980s to be specific), it was the most educated, coming from the hearts of the global superpowers who were to determine what popular/populist public opinion would be.  Those educated in the global north and east at the height of the cold war would return home to become cabinet ministers or high level civil servants at the expense of those that were coming from the direct experience of the liberation struggle.  Marechera would write about this in his little known novella, The Black Insider. 

Hence we eventually had to contend with the relatively convoluted idea of the ‘one party state’ as well as economic structural adjustment as a battle of our public intellectuals come political leaders as they demonstrated their ideological loyalties.

The key point here was that there was an intellectual source for assumptions of progress as perceived by the public.  By the time we were into full-fledged economic liberalization via ESAP, again the public opinion followed that of the educated in the 1990s.  Until times became politically desperate and organized labor began to talk back to the received wisdom of the free market.  

Counter narratives to the latter emerged based on the fact that ESAP was not working and these came again from the intelligentsia.  Except that it was in two respects.  Labour had built its own intellectuals who were left leaning and who had begun to influence working people’s perceptions of what should be national progress.  Mainstream intellectuals from business, the clergy and academia realized this growing influence and worked closely with labour to help form the intellectual framework for the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as an alternative to the free market oriented ruling Zanu Pf party.  

This alliance was however a short lived one of equals.  Business and the clergy with the passage of time became the primary drivers of public opinion output for the mainstream opposition, particularly during the years of the inclusive government. 

Zanu Pf was however to counter the progressive direction of the new opposition by reverting to the populist intellectual recess of nationalism and historical injustice.  But at the same time attempting a Chinese version of state capitalism tallied with radical indigenization of the economy.  This however required instruments of propaganda and the threat of force for it to be reluctantly accepted as ‘progressive’. 

Therefore between 1999 through to 2017 the two dominant strands of how to influence public opinion were pre-dominantly motivated by the mainstream political parties and their apparatchiks.  And as the years toward the coup-not-a-coup got closer, both influencers were increasingly similar in their ideological tone, reserving their most acerbic attacks on each other to personalities as opposed to ideas. 

And this is where it becomes important in relation to our contemporary circumstances.  While in the past public opinion was influenced by a clear political partisanship (the party you belonged to or voted for determined many opinions) . 

In the period after the 2018 ‘harmonised’ election, public opinion has been largely motivated by considerations on the state of the national economy.  In populist terms this has also had the personalized dimension of considerations on who is best placed to solve what we consider to be the national economy’s fundamental problems. 

The solutions proffered by a majority of public opinion leaders (clergy, academics, columnists, political leaders) have invariably had one model as a solution.  This being a neo-liberal framework where whatever the government does, it must return to the global political economy by opening up the Zimbabwe to economic market forces. 

I know that this already sounds sophisticated beyond measure. But so do those that push this as the one size fits all solution to Zimbabwe’s socio-economic woes.  So it comes in cultural packages.  That is, it comes with relative sophistry and an assumption at a sense of belonging to the best thinkers, best systems in the world.  For example, talking about monetary policy would immediately necessitate a comparison with how the American Federal Reserve Bank works.  Or the touting of joining of the Rand Monetary Union immediately evokes images of a Zimbabwe that is similar to South Africa. Or even just a sense of belonging to our southern neighbour.  Basically it couches its language in that of a promised land (hence to this day we are faced with the tragedy of multitudes of young Zimbabweans and Africans migrating to the global north)and also fundamentally of envy of other countries' economic policy.  All without historical suppositions as to how those countries that appear to be the best have poverty and violence riddled underbellies. Or how historically they may have arrived where they are on the backdrop of historical injustices motivated by colonial conquest. 

And in doing so, seeking more a proximity to the already globally wealthy minus an understanding of their or more importantly our own local context by trying to see 'cause and effect' beyond political personalities in power or in opposition. 

This is why when the Mnangagwa government seeks a ‘return to normalcy’ via the ‘ease of doing business’ the language is essentially bereft of contextual meaning.  Instead it is lauded in the capitals of the globally powerful because it means we are an open sesame to global capital. 

So if you ask the question who is now shaping political public opinion in Zimbabwe, the answer is that it is hardly us as a majority of Zimbabweans. Far from it.  We are complicit in singing the tune of an already established system, neoliberalism, which though we are in deep envy of, we regrettably do not fully understand.  Hence sometimes a majority of us will insist on privatization of public services such as health, education, transport or water provision largely because we admire the system too much or we choose to be ignorant of it. Or we revert to our materialistic and hedonistic individualism mode ( so long we still have the capacity to cater for our personal as opposed to collective needs).   In most cases, the former is true.

We know there are alternatives, but we choose to ignore them.  Even when critical comrades in the global north are not only giving examples of these alternatives but also starkly warning us of the inherent dangers of neoliberalism, austerity and racism.

But back to my acquaintance’s rhetorical question about where is this country going?  I always answer it with a quote from Thomas Mapfumo’s song (and album by the same title), ‘Varombo kuVarombo, Vapfumi kuVapfumi’ –direct translation- ‘the poor to the poor- the rich to the rich’.  If probed further I state that Mnangagwa’s government is on a determined path of ‘reclassifying’ or a return to class society proper in Zimbabwe. 

First by way of lifestyle (your income should be reflected in your lifestyle- under the guise of fighting corruption).  Secondly and more importantly by rewarding capital and the rich with societal exclusivity as in capitalist societies.  Even if austerity affects the poorest, they shall remain in their place in the long term.  And not only is it probably government's hope that not only will they remain there but that they will come to accept it.  All in the vain hope that they too shall eventually make the ‘middle class’ by 2030. And the most paradoxical statement/joke of the year may just be 'it will work, it will not work.'

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