China, USA: Abstract Battles Over Lowly Zimbabwe

 By Takura Zhangazha*

There are a number of new stories that are emerging about the role of China in Zimbabwe.  In the past the Chinese Embassy would have been less robust in defense of its bilateral aid to Zimbabwe.  And the Zimbabwean government, given its re-engagement policy would be a bit more circumspect about what it puts out into the public domain about how it views either global superpower’s perception of events that unfold in its own jurisdiction vis-avis the United States of America. 

The fact of the matter is that there is some sort of social media diplomatic spat between China and the United States of America (USA) over Zimbabwe.  It appears to be relatively causal but it obviously has deeper issues that we may not be privy to as ordinary Zimbabweans.   Not just because Zimbabwe’s ruling establishment evidently has closer historical ties to China but also because of given contemporary mainstream global media narratives on the role of the latter on the African continent.

But more specifically to Zimbabwe, there is the added narrative that China is exploiting our natural resources in order to prop up the current Mnangagwa government.  It is a narrative that again has multiple sources that are directly linked to what would be a newer potentially emerging global cold war  from China’s rising role in the political economy of globalization.  Not necessarily about who or what Zimbabwe is in the ‘global’ scheme of things. 

What however cannot be wished away at least historically is that Zimbabwe and China have always had closer relations.  Mainly based on the fact of the liberation struggle that China directly and militarily supported but also its role at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) where it vetoed (together with Russia) direct international sanctions on our country. 

Recently the USA and Chinese local embassies have gone into slight overdrive about their role in  Zimbabwe’s domestic politics.  As enunciated via their social media handles (surprise surprise with China).  Whether they are commenting about the need for by-elections in Zimbabwe (USA) or the alleged deliberate besmirching of Chinese bilateral aid and investment in Zimbabwe’s mining/agricultural economy (Chinese Embassy). 

What becomes interesting beyond populist discourse is reading between the lines of this new approach by both governments. 

The USA has a long standing official view on Zimbabwe which is based on the issue of sanctioning what it considers a ‘rogue regime’ since the 2001 Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA). And it continues to claim these are targeted sanctions.   

China on the other hand has an official foreign policy of ‘non-interference’ and utilitarian mutual benefit between countries’.  Never mind the status of ‘democracy and human rights’ in same said country. 

To paraphrase the Godfather movie, this, in China’s view would be ‘nothing personal, just business’. 

What is apparent is that Zimbabwe has thanks to its international re-engagement policy found itself inadvertently having to pick what it considers a better side.  In this instance, this would, at least according to some government statements be China.  Not only because of the UN veto in 2008 but because of the economic and Covid19 pandemic mitigation support that the latter has given the country. 

But is still boils down to domestic perception of either global superpowers’ role in Zimbabwe.  And in most populist instances be they urban or rural there is what Edward Said would have referred to as ‘Orientalism’.  That is a false and partially racist assumption that anything coming from the Global East is not only exploitative to the African but also not preferable when compared with that which comes from the Global West. 

The key considerations therefore then come to revolve around what do Zimbabweans want? Where there have been arguments against a Chinese new-colonialism, the alternative arguments have indicated a preferential alternative.  I do not know what the apparatchiks in Mnangagwa’s office think but the possibility of the matter is that their re-engagement policy needs to crosscheck Nkrumah’s statement on neither looking East or West but forward.  And embracing a progressive world view that thinks beyond the global international relations placement of Zimbabwe beyond the immediate for neoliberal convenience but for social democratic posterity.

Finally, Zimbabwe will always interact with the world in one form or the other.  From various ideological and historical standpoints. But we are better off making these contextual, historical and realistic perspectives.  Based on our own national values and beliefs before they are either fashionable, convenient or populist.  

So where the USA and China have divergent viewpoints about their foreign policy impact on Zimbabwe, it does not really matter.  What matters is what we Zimbabweans think is more important, in tandem with SADC, to be better partnerships for not only ourselves but also our Southern African region. 

As a final point, Zimbabwe has become emblematic of how to attempt to reverse colonial history and in the process is emblematic of a new form of African liberation globally.   But history should never cripple us.  Neither should it be the raison-de-etre of other countries’’ foreign policies toward us.   Be that as it may by way of global perception, China or USA should not make us their ideological playing ground. 

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

 

 

Zimbabwe’s Ambiguous Celebrity Culture and Its Emergent Politics.

By Takura Zhangazha*

In a recent conversation with a longstanding colleague from our college and university days we laughed at how different things now are about what is considered entertainment or celebrities in contemporary Zimbabwe.  The conversation took a number of turns.  With the most obvious being on the fact of the passage of time and its introduction of new technologies for communication for entertainment.  

The second angle we took in the casual conversation examined a little bit of the political economy of what remains of Zimbabwe's entertainment industry and its artistic independence.  In this we asked ourselves a number of added questions.  These included the fact that entertainment is also fundamentally about making some sort of living.  And that back in our younger days it was much more straightforward how this could be done. 

If you were a musician in the 90s, you could easily create even a one hit wonder of a song and the record sales would be enough to get you to the then and still now envied leafier suburbs of your city.  At least until your next hit song. 

If you were an author/writer and you produced a bestseller the publishing houses back then such as the Zimbabwe Publishing House or Baobab books would have to ensure your royalties are paid depending on sales.   And you would be all over the school curriculum meaning that the print run of your book(s) barring piracy would always be a steady source of income.  Though it was least likely you would live the life of a platinum album musician since reading is always going to be harder than listening and dancing. 

We then turned, in the conversation, to the reality of what is obtaining.  And in doing so we remembered a little bit how we used to argue about the dual nature of our cultural and even celebrity experiences.  

From wanting to watch what turned out to be not so real American or British wrestling, or taking in copious amounts of American Rhythm and Blues (R+B) music and television culture that it was in part clear where we would eventually be headed.  At least culturally.  

And this was a place where an intrinsic and organic value of our own cultural appreciation would be lost to what would be global trends.  Not just because of technology (including radios, colour TVs and mobile telephony/music).  But also because we would with hindsight arrive at a place where we lose our own intrinsic understanding of a specific cultural identity.  And become more global than we reflect our local realities. Based on the desires to be as fashionable as it would have arguably been at the establishment of the then Rhodesian settler colony to be religious within the ambit of Christianity. 

As our access in part via either high school or ending up at college or university expanded our view of the world there are certain things that we desired.  And primary among them was recognition at reaching specific societal and urban success heights.  Whether be it in a career or the cultural products that were more fashionable to consume (including music, movies, sport, food or beverages).   

What my colleague and I realized is that we have now come full circle to looking at contemporary cultural developments from not just an understanding of for example what is ‘hegemony’ in neoliberalism.  But more significantly from the perspective of young Zimbabweans through related comparative analysis based on our own experiences. 

The young Zimbabwean of today consumes cultural products in at least two respects.  Almost in a fashion that would be similar to how those of us growing up in urban or rural areas did in the late 90s. 

Initially with desire for differentiation (especially by way of individualism, economic class and geographical location).  How many contemporary songs claim that the singer rose from the dusts of the ghetto?  And you have to ask the question, "To go where?"

In most cases as of old to be where all the rich people now live. And this is most likely to be in the suburbs.  Except with the rider that they did not have to pursue education as much as my age group did.  Which is all fair and fine if only just to be analyzed. 

And this brings me to the key point of what this cultural framework constructs in reality.  It constructs as it has done elsewhere a specific celebrity politics and activism that looks for ephemeral and materialist attention before it acquires default substance.   It is our new reality.   In this we have to return to a firm understanding that the mediation of our national politics, economics and social wellbeing is now done via a relatively ubiquitous cultural base that admires the global north.  Not only for its lifestyle but also its politics as supported by its individualism, materialism and class differentiation(s).

So it becomes understandable that our politics and political economy may come to accept the most exploitative among us as those that should lead us because they are millionaires as approved by global capital.  Or those that sing the most popular songs on social media even if they do not sell records or get income from that popularity which in most cases is based on what is referred to as a youth dividend. And in other instances the most prayerful and miracle-creating pastors/religious persons as those that hold the key to a new national material success. 

Whichever way we want to look at it we probably need to become more realistic. Or we will repeat history.

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

Formal Education, Career Ambitions and Material Desire in Zimbabwe.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

This week it was very interesting to occasionally watch the public interviews of candidates aspiring to be judges of Zimbabwe’s High Court.  This is a constitutional requirement in relation to the selection of first time judges and the interviews are conducted by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). With the names of successful candidates being forwarded to the President for final approval and appointment. 

Even though I am not a lawyer my occasional curiosity to observe the interviews was based on what I considered as the public display of a ‘constitutional process’.  As well as to also generally see the quality of aspiring candidates and their ability to tackle whatever the JSC was going to throw at them. 

Including wanting to see how at least on social media live platforms how some Zimbabweans were going to react to not only the process but also the quality of the candidates for the third most important judicial office in the country (after the Constitutional  and Supreme courts). 

What struck me was both how educated and experienced some of the publicly interviewed candidates were.  Some with decades of experience, others with multiple masters degrees either in law or ancillary courses.

While I cannot be an arbiter of how well any of them performed, I then realized an important element that we generally overlook.  Both in our personal and professional lives.  Which was balancing our formal education with our career options as they are linked to what would potentially be our materialist ambitions. 

And upon reflection I realized that the general and publicly, even popularly, appreciated assumption that education is the key to success that we were taught from a young age still remains key.  Not just for young Zimbabweans but even older generations.   Except with the question that keeps emerging during and post the Mugabe government era on what sort of education is this that would be key? Both Mugabe and Mnangagwa appeared more keen on what they have referred to as Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) as the future and priority of government education policy. This is in keeping with global trends that are largely focused on technological innovation and commodity production.  With a deliberate abandonment of social sciences and the arts as either being too abstract or at best having to link themselves to again, STEM. As is expected within the global neo-liberal economy where production and the worship of 'free' markets defeat all else. 

So as young Zimbabweans are nudged toward those fields and upon reflection on the JSC interviews I asked myself a question on what could it be that is the end game motivation of formal education? Not only in relation to STEM but also across the social sciences, law included?  In this I realized that material well being appears to be the cornerstone of it.  While there can be a dabbling in various nationalisms and development theories, to be educated is considered to be generally materially successful. 

Hence in our Zimbabwean context dating back from the late 1990s to present whether one had a diploma in one course or the other, the continuing desire to acquire either undergraduate degrees or PhD’s is directly linked to moving forward with the material side of life.  And being recognized for it. 

What this has created is an educational system that quite literally frowns down upon others who either did not get to specific levels or who even after trying so hard to do so are considered still unable to meet the material success criteria or their vaunted formal education.

But there is also obviously the reality that formal education does not always get you material success in Zimbabwe.  There are many that regrettably consider it as non-consequential in our national context because of what they call the ‘hustle’ or ‘entrepreneurship’.  Which is a direct derivative of neo-liberal political economies in which depending on your political or economic elite links can get you to some sort of material success.  To the extent of deriding for example two of our country's most important professions/careers such as in nursing or teaching that are now sadly frowned upon.

What is however more important is addressing the question of how Zimbabweans now view careers as based on formal education.   And this can be done in at least four respects.

The first being that every job and career matters.  No matter how you got there.  What is more important is that there be equitable distribution of social welfare for all of us. You can be working in security, banking, education, law,  health or journalism but should not be fundamentally motivated to want to get another formal qualification on the basis of material desire.  If we make our society a more equitable society we would not have these ubiquitous and in some cases unrealistic ambitions for everyone to want to live in Borrowdale Brooke, Harare by hook or by crook. Or send their children to expensive private schools as though they will never live in real Zimbabwean society.  That is to say, if we realise that everyone has social and economic rights, career ambitions will not get in the way of our collective well being.  We will compete less for jobs such as for example sitting on the high court bench and be focused more on our own professional capacities beyond the material.

This then brings me to the second point as it relates to a need for us to embrace a new careerism.  We cannot continue to function on an assumption of escapism from our initial careers. Even though we are allowed to depart from them, the initial angles we should take for example to teaching is that we believe in it.  Where we look at it from a materialist lenses we shortchange not only the profession but also the nation.  The key issue is to strengthen the representative ability of either unions or the governments understanding of the importance of these professions as key to a better future for the country and its subsequent generations.

In the third instance, we need to learn to curb our material ambitions with our professional realities.  And this is a particularly difficult point to make.   The neo-liberal economic system that we live under encourages us to be consumerist in our approaches to life.  And it also further encourages us to assume inequality as a key to recognition for again materialistic success.  Questions such as do you have a car, where do you live, do you own a house, a property, are pretty much common and they regrettably motivate us to ignore the actual reality that while we all need housing, transport, health services and education for our kids, an individualistic approach never cuts it. 

Fourthly and finally, where we consider assumptions about the future of formal education we should consider at least one key thing.  This being that we need to impart to young Zimbabweans that everyone gets a fair start to life but also that no matter where they end up on the education rung ladder, they will live in an equitable society.  No matter where they work, their professional qualifications or their geographical location. And in this, a certainty that careers in whatever field they choose deliberately or by default are never about material envy but fair, equitable and transparent appreciation of their efforts.  As complex as this may appear. *Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)