By Takura Zhangazha*
Zimbabwean political conversations over the last twenty years have generally become predictable (black or white, either-or)
They are conversations that we have chosen and in a greater majority of cases, given. They are also somewhat highly emotive about what should either be a political or economic way forward.
In the emotional output there is also always comparative analysis with other countries and how ‘things’ are done there. From our neighbour South Africa, through to the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Europe and in some cases Russia and China as models to follow or in some cases emulate.
In most conversations the big issue is usually about money, individual wealth and infrastructural development. And these are conversations that are happening beyond physical spaces as enabled by social media and its hegemonic (cultural/perception) influence. Some of the debates also ridiculously refer back to the settler colonial era and its racist modernization programme for the then Rhodesia.
No doubt these are important conversations. Even more when they are about the immediacy of individual livelihoods and the role of the state.
A role that in the same debates is placed in electoral frameworks and language about who to vote for. Or who we should have voted for. While at the same time ignoring the fact of the passage of time between the same said electoral processes. As well as coupling it with departure from the state for assumedly better state pastures that arguably meet individual livelihood needs.
The elephant in the room however is how we view the role of the Zimbabwean state. Especially from an ideological perspective.
Given the fact that as Zimbabweans we have been classified as highly literate by not only our government but also international organizations, we tend to be highly opinionated. Not only about various issues such as religion but more significantly our national politics.
And at very personal or individual levels. It becomes a mere coincidence that we find ourselves flocking with like-minded individuals and create default political or social collectives.
The question that emerges is why have we been like this in the last twenty or so odd years.
The easy answer is the historical fact of Zanu Pf’s hegemony since independence. It was key in shaping our contemporary national consciousness. Its shift from socialism to neoliberalism with Economic Structural Adjustment programmes (ESAP).
The latter introducing the country’s population to an unprecedented hedonism and consumerist culture that quite literally has broken down many of our common and progressive societal values. Even after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) that began in 2000.
The FTLRP’s greatest irony is that while it was predicated on righting a colonial wrong, it appears to have created a new economic elite that have no qualms about mimicking the colonial Rhodesian state. It is a mimicry thatģ is evidently inorganic. It does not belong the people nor does it reflect the values of the liberation struggle.
It’s a mimicry that fits into global narratives as determined by global financialized capital. A development that points to the fact that in Zimbabwe we no longer have our own national ideological outlook on our political and economic realities.
We are over-emphasising our desires for recognition for doing the right thing. Yet we have not clear idea about what is the right thing that is being referred to. In our economics we function like we control the Federal Reserve Bank of America. In our politics we assume electoral politics should be like those of the global north. And in our social life we assume religion will solve everything.
Where we return to the elephant in the room, we are faced with an ideological deficit in at least two respects.
The first being an evolving detachment from the people centered values of our liberation struggle. We no longer function as a collective whole that looks out for the societal well being of the other. And this in the name of mimicry of other societies yet we should know about where we came from and who we intrinsically are and should be.
The second element has been a Fanonian ‘pitfall of national consciousness’. Since the year 2000 our own narrative has been of a failed state and anticipating national failure no matter what happens. Or unless there is a change of government and subsequent recognition by the global north. The reality of the matter is that it does not work like that. And as Amilcar Cabral once said, “No matter how hot your water, it will not boil your rice.”
Our national dilemma is learning to believe in ourselves again. And to do so with the people. A matter which requires renewed ideological clarity on not only the role of the state but also what it can and should enable. Without abstract mimicry.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment