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)