Special Permits as Passes: Countering South African False Consciousness

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The South African government recently announced that it is no longer going to renew special permits for Zimbabweans that have been officially working and living within its borders since 2009.  It gave those affected by this at most the next twelve months to apply for normal work permits upon failure of which they would either have to voluntarily return home or in the worst circumstances, have to be deported. 

While I am not familiar with the legal import of this new executive order by the government of South Africa I know it feeds into specific narratives about migration, migrant labour and narrow nationalisms in Southern Africa.

In context the decision by the South African National Congress (ANC) ruling government is not surprising.  Given the fact that it did not do well in recent local government elections against the backdrop of nascent political parities that touted xenophobic slogans as their key campaign platforms it had to react to what is an emerging populist South African sentiment.  This being that foreigners, particularly black foreigners of whatever African origin, but more specifically from Zimbabwe, Somalia and Nigeria are not welcome in South Africa. 

The leader of the second largest opposition party in South Africa, Julius Malema had to issue an emotive but condescending public statement that he would never subscribe to such xenophobic sentiment.  Even if it costs him not only success in the local government but also national elections. His counterparts in the opposition however went ahead to form minority local councils based on riding partly on a reflection of what the general anti-foreign campaign sentiment reflected.  And took significant control of major municipalities at the expense of the ANC. 

As Uhuru Kenyatta, the president of Kenya, stated in a visit soon after these elections, he admired the maturity of South African democracy.  As we all should.   The elections reflected a specific realtiy that we cannot just shrug off.   A distinct, if not majority, number of eligible voters in South Africa do not like foreigners and their emotions can be whipped up by any campaign slogans that point in that direction. 

It is a reality that also, while being completely astounding, makes one reflect on a number of issues.

The first being the fact that in Southern Africa, the liberation of that country officially referred to as South Africa but that we once called Azania, is the culmination of a collective regional struggle.  In fact the independence of South Africa is one of the most unique ones in global history.  To the extent that even while the Global North was lambasting Muammar Gaddafi, the revered Nelson Mandela was busy defending him for his role in the anti-apartheid struggle. And this is before we even begin to discuss the role of SADC formerly known as either SADCC or the Frontline States in this liberation struggle.  Not forgetting Cuba and that history making battle of Quito Carnavale in Angola that not only brought Namibian independence but also contributed to South Africa’s.  To put it simply, even though South Africans will not want to hear this, their country is one that is constructed out of Southern African and beyond struggles against colonialism.

They may forget the Witwatersand Native Labour Association (WINELA)and how with indentured labour from as far off as Angola, the now Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe constructed not only the Johannesburg (its still called that!) and the settler political economy that they still value so much. (This is before we discuss the more long duree labour imported from South East Asia). It was a settler colony that barring the struggle efforts of not only the ANC and the Pan African Congress among a myriad of other movements would have succeeded in creating the equivalent of an Israel at the southern-most tip of the African continent.

But the alternative counter arguments are pretty apparent.  A key one being why are there so many Zimbabweans coming to South Africa.  Including one that says in a Trumpian sense, they should go back to fix their ‘own’ country.   Given the Zimbabwean political economy after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) and also an Africa continent wide assumption that departure from home- emigration- is better, this does not hold water.  At least historically.

We now know some of the reasons that there was no direct liberal interventionism in Zimbabwe during Mugabe’s reign.  It involved but was beyond the arguments around the FTLRP.   Hence the examples of Libya, Syria and Afghanistan that we see today. 

The key question is the way forward for the thousands of working Zimbabweans affected by this executive decision of the South African government.  It is easy to argue that if their papers are not in order, they should come back home.  And they would easily retort, come back home to what?  The Zimbabwean government has to counter this move on the basis of historical African solidarity and contemporary regional integration.  It has to protect our emigrant citizens for the value they bring to not only the South African national economy but also our regional economy and the historical regional migration ties that we can never wish away. Even if South Africans assume they are exceptional or that they landed on the moon and came back like the Americans.  

The Zimbabwean government also has an obligation not just for its own returnees but for all of us at home to create a more equitable society where we all have equal access to public services that those in the Diaspora would easily boast about.  If we build an equitable society beyond social media characterizations, we will be able to comfortably say to the cdes in South Africa, Tigashire, Sethule, Welcome!

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

 

A Clash of Consciousness in Zimbabwe

By Takura Zhangazha*

Sunday morning conversations are hard. Especially if they occur during early morning visits from intellectual friends.  Recently one such friend paid a surprising courtesy call and invariably our conversations ended up trying to casually examine a key question of Zimbabwean national consciousness.  My friend was more about the science of it and on my part it was more the activist element to it. 

While the conversation was random and all over the place we sort of began with questioning Zimbabwe’s education system and its impact on a perceived national consciousness.  We sort of agreed that Zimbabwe has a ‘bottle neck’ education system that is embedded in colonial and missionary moulded perceptions of individual success.  And in a Marxian and Gramscian sense designed to perpetuate class inequality by way of sieving merit by way of academic/educational qualifications of human beings.  This also includes assumptions of proximity to preferred Christian religiosity. 

What was however more problematic was our perspectives on tertiary education.  We discussed the fact of its bifurcation.  Either one went to university or to technical training college.  In our time and in both instances this would have been subsidized education either by way of government or by our parents.

Interestingly we both recognized that the expansion of university level education helped with easing assumptions of its societal superiority.  The more universities we had, the less university education became a status symbol of success.  And that this was/is a good thing because it reduced elitist tendencies about acquiring a university degree.

On further reflection we also realized that the dichotomy between university and technical college education is a significant contributor to national conciousness and political activism. And this is a particularly difficult point to make. 

This is because of the fact that it is the equivalent of trying to measure our own personal consciousness or how we perceive of our own country and its collective national challenges as they occur.

After the cde had left I thought about this a little bit more in relation to the contemporary Zimbabwean political economy. I realized that were significant issues in debating a Zimbabwean national consciousness in the contemporary and possibly for the future.

The first was that a majority of our current major political actors perceive it to be of importance that they are university educated to be what they either are or want to be in political leadership.   It is almost a retention of the initial colonial qualification of how a good African is the one that is educated in the ways of the white man. The more educated you are, the more eligible you are for leadership hence the plethora of politicians with PhDs or former first ladies that went through thick and thin to acquire them. There is nothing wrong with this per se.  Except that it gives an elitist perspective to politics and how it should occur within a society.

The opposite end of it is that this approach generally forgets the majority that would be led.  And this is an interesting point about our current national consciousness.  Whenever we see celebrities who are popularly referred to as ‘mbingas’ driving political and other debates, it would be trite to consider the bigger picture of their influence.   They reflect more the ‘underbelly’ of our national consciousness which is essentially materialist but also ephemeral.  The reality being that we are caught in a trap of desiring things we cannot have but admiring the few that have them. And electing them as our leaders.  In the vain hope that one day we will be like them. 

What emerges is a clash of national consciousness in our current context.  This clash is one in which elitist intentions are to keep popular perceptions of what our society should be at bay. Or at least co-opt them into accepting a hierarchical/unequal status quo.  With the irony being that the majority poor accept the profligacies of the rich and even aspire to them.  Hence Gramsci’s term of ‘hegemony’.  Almost like the joke that work is not fun but they pay you enough to make you have to come back every day. 

The key question however is what brought us here?  In the main it would be a political culture that is self absorbed beyond collective reasoning about what the future should look like.  We function at least politically like we are all main actors.  And in most cases with Messianic tendencies. What we then miss is the bigger picture.  Particularly one that focuses on what our futures may look like. 

Therein lies the contradictions and clashes in what would be our national consciousness.  Our short term approaches to the challenges that the country faces limit our ability to imagine what the future should look like.  Especially where our materialism is as simplistic as looking after our own while forgetting that they too live in a whole society and that unless we struggle for equitability we will still have to deal with the same problems beyond our lifetimes.  

But back to my conversations with my Sunday early morning visitor friend.  As I indicated earlier, we discussed Zimbabwe’s education system and assumptions of what is considered material progress. We touched upon the consciousness divide between university and technical or teacher college students of our generation and the nuanced elitism that came with that. And how it now affects a generic national consciousness with political leaders flouting degrees as determining eligibility for Messianic leadership. 

What however remains important is that we look at our contradictory national consciousness.  From our lack of ideological grounding through to a desire not only to mimic others but also reigning in a false consciousness that relates to profligate materialism.

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

 

Tswibidi/Twabam: An Abstract Take on A Young #Zimbabwe Material Consciousness.

By Takura Zhangazha*

So a young Zimbabwean cde in his professional work with me was in conversation explaining how certain things work.  He then used a specific turn of phrase about how you realize that everything is sorted.  This was a turn of phrase that related to a popular social media religious influencer called Passion Java.  And verbatim he sort of says that when all else is done (as planned) it will be “Tswibidi, Twabam”.  It was as funny as it was telling because there is no official language that recognizes such phrases.  Except for the new found language of young Zimbabweans that have a tendency to go with whatever suits their fancy. 

Upon reflection I realized that while the young cde who assisted me with a specific task did not really take it as seriously as I would, it was a part of his everyday consciousness via language and more significantly, via social media. 

And this is a very difficult point to make unless you are an engrossed academic or social media aficionado (please google aficionado).

The casual verbal statement of popular or trending phrases is generally indicative of an emerging cultural consciousness that cannot be ignored.  Even if it appears distasteful for some but in reality it is a bit more sophisticated, or even existential (if you are an academic that has Sartre or Beauvoir) tendencies. 

What it pointed to was an emerging hegemonic narrative about what Zimbabwean society is and what it can be.  Not only from the lenses of those that would be at the material/intellectual infancy of their lives but also those that would prefer a more ordered approach to what they consider ‘progress’ in Zimbabwean society.

It is a narrative that no longer resides in libraries let alone a critical consciousness revolutionary assumption of what our society should look like in the future.  It’s a reality based on its own reality.   In the moment. 

And I will explain this within the context of a Zimbabwean reality. 

On a number of occassions I have had abstract conversations with colleagues and cdes about what it is that informs the contemporary Zimbabwean consciousness. In most of these chats the answers have hovered around at least three aspects; materialism, pursuit of multiple recognitions and fashionability or high individualization of opinions (which is linked to the latter).

It is a regrettable narrative of an assumption of material arrival.  And this is across all classes (bourgeoisie , comprador bourgeoisie, middle class, working class, peasantry) . Or assumptions of what would be lived realities.   But this is where we are.  Something that Prof Masipula Sithole would have referred to as an assumption that we could all live the ‘good life’.  Which basically meant an urban tranquil existence while comparatively looking down at those that never ‘arrived’. 

But back to the young cde who was using language that dominates social media. All based on influencers and their perspective on things.  I admit that I do not know if he did it deliberately or by default. But what was clear is that it was almost part of his natural being as he spoke. 

His impressionability could have been taken as abstract.  The reality of the matter is that it is what a lot of young Zimbabweans are thinking and feeling at the moment.  At least those that have access to electricity and social media.  Be they in country or in the Diaspora. 

What we however need to realise is that this consciousness is as ephemeral as it would be ahistorical.  Social media influencers invariably will be here today and gone tomorrow.   Including those that claim to be prophets or people with access to money that are followed by elaborate, choreographed arrivals in Ghetto streets. 

There is an interesting perspective to this.  This being that we have to understand a specific reality about how young Zimbabweans view their society and their futures.  In the main this is about materialism, opulence in context and/or departure from a metaphoric cesspit that would be Zimbabwe.  Something which I find completely understandable particularly given the biased leanings of our mainstream education system which is designed to admire other peoples’ societies.

The challenge then becomes how we re-emerge from a national consciousness that while touting liberation and Pan Africanism assumes that we need specific historical gazes to be regarded as human.  That is a task that is as hard as it is time bound by way of age and/or a lack of understanding of the need for a new historical progressive consciousness. 

The task(s) ahead for Zimbabwe and its cohort of parents or people still enabling the next generation to flourish is to be a bit more realistic and perhaps re-examine our own individualistic values.  We need to look a bit more inward.  Our children are our collective children.  The more we try and assume an outward presence to their being. The more they become distant from us or what we consider our values. 

As an abstract but relatively personal conclusion, I will most certainly teach my children that in part, whatever their individual decisions, they are within their right to be here, at home, in Zimbabwe. 

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