I have a number of friends in private business and by dint of the same, in private capital. Some of them are exceedingly wealthy. Others are in between.
Monday, 12 May 2025
Kagame, Ramaphosa are Not Being Honest With Africans
Thursday, 8 May 2025
Admiring What We Should Not: Africa’s Populist, Tragic Inferiority Complex
By Takura Zhangazha*
A colleague asked me
recently, “What is the source of globally progressive ideas?” It was a very casual conversation and I
replied that history provides key lessons of what can be considered ‘progressive’. By this, and with hindsight because the conversation
did not last as long as it should have, I have had to think a little bit deeper
about the question posed.
Indeed what is the source of progressive ideas? Globally and nationally? I think in the first instance I was correct to
indicate that history, global, continental and national is the primary source
of progressive ideas of universal human equitability.
Following in this is the question of what is considered ‘progressive’. Even if only based on the occurrence of history. On this one the answer is relatively easier. Progressive ideas tend to be those that
uplift all of humanity. Based not only
on historical experiences such as world, regional or national wars but also a
specific idealism that seeks a better future for all of us.
And this is something that should be universally accepted as
a given. Except that it is not. Particularly from an African perspective.
The main reason being that historically (here I go again
with history and progressiveness), Africa was always viewed as the dark
continent. Quite literally and metaphorically.
You can crosscheck the first European/Portuguese maps of the continent
in your local National archives or museum.
And then after that you can also revisit colonial cultural (literature,
music, zoology and education)materials on Africa to come back to the realization
of where we are placed in the imagination of global superpowers. And their populations.
The key issue however is now in the contemporary. Based both on assumptions of a universal equality of all nations and human beings while simultaneously retaining nodes of racism that should have been discarded a long historical time ago. Particularly after the Second World war whose victories against the German and Italian Nazis are being celebrated this week across Europe.
Awkwardly for not quite
clear ideological reasons Zimbabwe’s current president Mnangagwa is part of
these victory celebrations in Russia as they are occurring this week.
And I am yet to see a global north leader, in recent times,
attend a victory parade in Africa against how we defeated colonialism.
But that is a debate for another day.
The main debating point of this article is
the fact of our continued historical and also ‘ahistorical’ inferiority complexes
as Africans.
In our aspirations to be considered modern, successful and materially ‘arrivalists’ we have tended to ignore the fact of what academics have referred to as ‘mimicry’.
When you
mimic other societies or even seek to belong to them you lose the essence of
your own historical being. With or
without national historical ceremonies such as a National Independence day
commemoration ceremony.
What has since emerged is a a cultural and socio-economic
conundrum. Part of it historically deliberate
based on colonial historical dynamics and part of it based on our own African
complicity (by way of governments and individual materialistic
aspirations).
Basically we, as Africans are admiring what we should not. This
is in at least three respects in the contemporary.
The first being our admiration of society in the global
west/north where in the final analysis we are not wanted beyond our basic
skills. Hence the evident rise of anti-immigrant
and in particular anti-people of of colour
immigrants governments in the
aforementioned societies. Yet we still want to go there and regrettably suffer
and die in for example the Sahel, the Mediterranean trying to get there.
The second example relates to our lifestyles as Africans and
in particular as Zimbabweans. This is as
it relates to a generic question as to what makes one and one’s family
happy? Is it the big kitchen? The Trip to Dubai or Cape Town? And why are any of the above the definition
of happiness? Or whether a child writes
a United Kingdom (UK) Cambridge versus a Zimbabwe School Examinations Council
(ZIMSEC) examination?
In this the catch then becomes whose lifestyles do we intend
to mimic? And why if not for our own
cultural, political and economic inferiority complexes?
The third and final instance of where we should stop admiring
what we should not is the fact of a complex historical existence. One that is
found in the legacy of colonialism and post-colonialism after variegated
liberation struggles (violent and non-violent).
It is a history that cannot be wished away. No matter the Rolls Royce that one may drive
or be driven in. A history that we perpetually
need to be conscious of at the back our minds.
No matter the new economic or political trends that can topple or keep a
government electorally or otherwise on the African continent.
I will conclude on a slightly anecdotal note. I have a few friends that admire current American president Donald Trump and what he is currently doing with his evisceration of global aid and putting his country first.
And others too
who admire the current Russian president Vladimir Putin for how he is
demonstrating defiance in the face of acrimony in the face of global
disapproval. In our conversations I
tend to ask the rhetorical question, “so what does it mean for Africa?”
This is because global politics is not a movie. Its not “Rambo” coming to save us in Africa. Or an attempt to prove our knowledge of what
is real imperialism and its post imperialistic tendencies.
Nor is it about us trying to mimic the Trumpian “The Art of the Deal” or
observe what essentially is the Machivellian “ 48 Laws of Power”.
It is about us rising above the parapet of the narrative of
the global north, as colonially and racially defined. And to rise above mimicry of
the same without material fear of the consequences.
Is there an alternative one might ask. As always there are many solutions to our inferiority
complexes. And they begin with our
capacity to understand our weaknesses.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com) (takurazhangazha.com)
Tuesday, 22 April 2025
Elections Matter: What Happens in Between them Matters More.
By Takura Zhangazha*
Zimbabwean politics is as fluid as it is historically conservative. That is it is not characterized by a specific
dynamism of new political ideas beyond its existential history and culture. Even with the advent of social media and its
attendant populism.
Our national political character and culture since
independence in 1980 which we recently commemorated in Gokwe, Midlands Province,
indicates the dominance of the history of our liberation struggle over our politics.
Moreso in a period in which war veterans of the same said
liberation struggle are fighting among themselves to wrestle national political
power from each other. This includes
but is not limited to the recent calls for stay-aways or demonstrations by their
now various factions. But also the
events that occurred in late 2017 with the ouster of Robert Mugabe.
It’s a reality that we have to face in the now. The narrative
of the liberation struggle is now evidently hegemonic and probably only
challengeable either from within the ruling Zanu Pf party itself (ditto Geza and his war veterans' faction). Or an organic counter revolutionary
non-violent movement because no one wants or has encouraged war in post Unity Accord Zimbabwe.
Any political ambiguity has emerged mainly from the ruling
Zanu Pf party itself amidst its own leaders either clamouring for seats at the power
and economic table based on ethnocentrism or previous roles in the liberation
struggle. And this is where the major
elitist power battles in the contemporary are.
They are not really about electoral politics. But more about maintaining hegemony via
electoral processes that in reality are not designed to change Zimbabwe’s
political power and economic dynamics since the year 2000. A year in which it countered a global neo-liberal
democracy narrative around elections as a panacea for national development by undertaking
what we now know as the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) in which it defied
both global neoliberal perceptions of the infallibility of private property rights
and also the incremental approach to resolving colonial injustices.
Zanu Pf then undertook at least two tasks by default in the aftermath of the FTLRP. And it did so by default, that is, it was not directly intentional. It retained a ‘democratic’ constitutional framework as to how the country should elect and have leaders. While secondly, creating an entirely different national political economy based on land as nationalized but behind the facade, increasingly privatized and politicized private capital. With multiple beneficiaries that would have to either remain loyal to the party or at least ensure its continued retention of power beyond globalized neo-liberal narratives. And stubbornly, forcefully so. As is now the case with title deeds for land acquired under the FTLRP and the compensation for former white commercial farmers.
This is where the important question of elections and
democracy emerges.
Indeed we have had political opposition to Zanu Pf since
national independence. Including former Rhodesian
prime minster Ian Smith who served in our post independence parliament under
what was called the Conservative Alliance of Zimbabwe (CAZ). Then followed by the maverick Edgar Tekere,
former Zanu Pf secretary general who led the Zimbabwe Unity Movement
(ZUM). And also our former chief Justice
Enock Dumbutshena who led what was then referred to as the Forum for Democracy
in Zimbabwe (FODEZI and the charismatic war veteran Margaret Dongo who inspired movement of independent candidates for parliament
in the mid and late 1990s.
All of these historical political opposition movements were to try their best at political power via electoral processes against Zanu PF.
They did not succeed but were part of a progressive
democratic national narrative of seeking democratic electoral processes as a means of political
change in Zimbabwe.
The major electoral political and progressive change process
emerged from the labour movement which was the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU). It formed what it referred to as a ‘working peoples party’, the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC).
This party went on to be the main challenger of Zanu Pf’s hegemonic control over Zimbabwe since national independence. Including for the first time historically taking away the ruling party’s majority in parliament in 2008 via elections.
A defeat for Zanu Pf that eventually led to not only, and its important to note, the violent July 2008 presidential run-off election (please don’t forget the role of war veterans in this) and the eventual SADC led mediation process that gave us the Agreement on an Inclusive Government (GNU). Including the revival of the post of the Prime Minister (Morgan Tsvangirai) in the executive from 2009 until 2013.
Zanu Pf however re-grouped.
It had a new political economy structured around the FTLRP, a divided
opposition and retained its parliamentary majority by the time we had elections
in 2013. Thus putting paid to the fact
of challenging its hegemony for the next five years. Especially via the electoral process.
All except for the fact that its own internal divisions and
the splitting of the opposition led to the ouster of Robert Mugabe in 2017. It however did not cancel scheduled elections
in 2018. Highly contested as they were,
it still won a parliamentary majority and the presidency against populist
expectations.
It was to controversially do the same in 2023 under
Mnangagwa’s incumbency minus constitutional court challenges.
So elections feature strongly in Zanu Pf’s and Zimbabwe’s political lexicon. They are not only constitutional but also have created a new pattern of public anticipation of the transfer of power. But they have not done so since 2000. Almost like a false consciousness that occurs regularly every five or so years.
Not because of their results. But because of how they have become the epitome of periodical five year ‘performance, populist politics. With religion and in particular Jesus or God included. Together with factionalism on both sides of the political isle.
The cyclical nature of our electoral politics have rendered
them organically meaningless. Not only
because in between them (including by-elections), we as Zimbabweans are always waiting
for the next cycle. Which is a good
thing. Excpet for the fact that we
rarely ask what is happening in the time-spans in between them.
We pick political sides , remain partisan and never see the
bigger picture. Be it in Zanu PF with
its multiple factions. Or in the
mainstream opposition and its continued abstract metamorphosis.
To conclude, there is a sense that elections, as universally
accepted as they are as best democratic practice in Zimbabwe and globally are
not reflecting the meaning of what should be democracy for all of us.
This is a controversial point to make but it is also a
global question about their progressiveness. Including in the assumed bastions
of democracy that are the USA or Western Europe.
What we may need to think more deeply about is how we build
progressive movements in-between elections, fortify democratic culture in
society from local to central government level and create a broader organic
culture of people centered counter democratic narratives.
So true, elections matter.
What happens in between them matters more.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com) (takurazhangazha.com)
Monday, 14 April 2025
We are not Numbers. We are African and We Will Talk Back as Zimbabweans.
By Takura Zhangazha*
There is an ease with which we as Zimbabweans refuse to discuss international/foreign aid to our national existential circumstances. And here I am not yet talking about the Private Voluntary Organisations Act (PVOA) signed into law last Friday.
Together with self censorship about what the recent closure of the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) via the current American President Trump’s executive order directive contextually means.
Or rather shockingly, the European
Union (EU) ambassador to Zimbabwe’s Jobst Van Kirchman recent weekend statement about
cancelling aid to ‘governance programmes’ and what it may mean for our local civil
society organisations. Particularly those
that have been assiduously working on human rights and democracy issues with EU
support.
It is a self censorship that is cautious not to upset the solidarity apple cart. Mainly because a lot of comrades and colleagues who have been genuine progressive democracy activists are saddled with solidarity support intentions to improve the lived reality of many Zimbabweans. Even after our national independence.
And this has been the case from Zimbabwe's liberation struggle
where we interacted with many global/international partners who were in
solidarity with us and our progressive causes.
To put it simply, we have as Zimbabweans always been recipients
of donor aid for many reasons. We received it for the purposes of supporting
the liberation struggle. We have received
it in times of famine and we have received it in order to help countries like
Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa arrive at sustainable peace.
The only time we averred from this relationship with
international aid was when we were involved in the war in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (then Zaire) in the late 1990s.
So Zimbabwe has always had a relationship with international
aid. Particularly left leaning
progressive dimensions of it. By the time
we had the Economic Structural adjustment Programs (ESAP) which were African
continent wide, we lost our bearings in relation to international relations and
negotiating our place in them.
But we all know that the global poltical economy context has
changed. There is no longer a direct
ESAP. There is now neoliberalism writ large. Which we never thought would affect us in the
distant global south. Until USAID
funding was cut to what we as Africans and Zimbabweans always assumed was humanitarian
solidarity. Or when even the EU also has decided to reduce bilateral funding to
good governance and democracy programmes as of old.
What complicates this matter is the fact of an assumption by
international partners including the USA government and other global north
governments that we as Africans, while having worked with them, and grateful
for their multi-faceted solidarities, that we cannot talk or argue back against
what it turns out were non-contextual development ideas.
And this is not a complicated argument to make. What has happened with the real changes to
aid and progressive solidarity support from the Global North to the Global
South is tragic. Or when vice verasa we in the Global South support causes that
relate to tackling global ‘techno feudalism” only to be shocked by the fact
that electoral results indicate how racist Global North societies are.
What needs to now happen is that Africa needs to re-lecture itself.
Historically and in the contemporary.
Whereas we used to rely on the progressive wisdom of for
example the United Nations (UN) we now have to revert to a new Pan
Africanism. One that is beyond the false
hope that had been previously offered by Thabo Mbeki (South Africa), Tony Blair(
United Kingdom), Abdel Aziz Bouteflika (Algeria), Bill Clinton(USA) and Abdoulaye
Wade (Senegal). And what they then referred to via much pomp and fanfare as the
‘third way’.
In our naivety as Africans we thought we were global
equals.
It turns out that the reality of the matter, as Africans and
Zimbabweans, with Donald Trump as the USA president we are not.
Despite our ‘third way’ assumptions of an ‘African Renaissance’
as initially argued by Mbeki. We have now been shown the reality of what is
global and international relations. And
our over-reliance on assuming their stability and continuity as Africans.
With a list that is awkward in an emerging multi-polar world
for Africa. Be it on the Chinese and Russian
side or in our Zimbabwean government case where we seem to be leaning to the Americans. At least business wise.
What is imperative about Zimbabwe’s intelligentsia, in finance,
political, health, gender, agricultural youth and entrepreneurship programmes
that were funded by international donors is the key element of understanding
emergent global funding realities. And realizing that we are on our own. Inclusive
of changing our lifestyles to be more realistic. Even if we get donor support. And remembering to value progressive democratic
causes over material wealth.
We do know that after Trump the world and assumptions of solidarity
will never be the same. Neither in the
short or long term. What is beginning to
rule the roost are the politics of money and power. But as Africans, we have the revolutionary
option of rethinking our Pan Africanism beyond the trade tariffs (they were
never ours anyway). And rethinking what
China means to us in the global economy that is where we are in the global
south.
What we cannot be anymore is to be slaves to a global
political economy that views us as a market.
We are not numbers. We are people.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takurazhangazha.com : takura-zhangazha.blogsptot.com)
Tuesday, 8 April 2025
Conversing with Zimbabwe's Rural Life: Bikita and Being
By Takura Zhangazha *
I am from Bikita, Masvingo province in Zimbabwe. I was born there. But I grew up in Harare with the regular school holiday visit during public holidays. As instructed and directed by my mother and father.
I went to the Nyika growth point
satellite office for the Bikita Rural District Council and got the necessary
information for my short term study.
We then inevitably grew up knowing that Bikita is home. Even as we grew up in Harare. And went to Mission schools that both our parents in their devout Catholicism valued greatly.
Even if colonially designed. And
countered by our national liberation struggle. And then reinforced by post
colonial education and administrative systems that oddly we are still using to
this day.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his own personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com takurazhangazha.com
Takura Zhangazha
Email: kuurayiwa@gmail.com
Skype: kuurayiwa1
Blog: takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com
Twitter: @TakuraZhangazha
|
ReplyForward Add reaction |
Tuesday, 1 April 2025
Was it Too Soon or Too Late? ZanuPf, Geza and Monday 31 March 2025.
By Takura Zhangazha *
I have recently made very general comments about Zanu Pf succession politics as they are occurring in 2025. And their newfound contestations about current president ED Mnangagwa's term extension beyond 2028.
Tuesday, 25 March 2025
In Brief: The Newer Conscious African
Tuesday, 18 March 2025
Zimbabwe's War Veterans and Revolutionary Stasis
By Takura Zhangazha*
In the tragic crossfire that was Zimbabwes liberation struggle, I have only known at a personal level eleven (11) liberation war veterans.
I can only name five (5) who are regrettably late but who also actively always encouraged me to tell stories of their own versions and roles, as they wrote or spoke of it, in Zimbabwe's liberation struggle for national independence.
The first three are/were cde Dzinashe Machingura (aka Cde Dzino) and cde Freedom Nyamubaya (cde MaFree), cde Dumiso Dabengwa (The Black Russian) as we referred to them at the now defunct Ambassador Hotel Press Club (The Quill) in Harare.
With the fourth one being my own blood brother Hamufari Zhangazha (cde Tito) who is now laid to rest at the Harare Provincial heroes acre.
And the fifth being Cde Sigauke (Chihwa) who was very active in seeking reparations for cdes from the state for their role in the liberation struggle. He too is interred at the Harare provincial heroes acre.
The other six (6) I cannot mention by name.
Not only because they are still alive but also because they have never given me permission to make them publicly known by their names and that I agreed to respect their roles in Zimbabwes liberation struggle.
All that they requested is that we understand not only their role, warts and all, with a clear appreciation of the passage of time, history and their important placement in bringing about a democratic Zimbabwe.
Including an equitable recognition of this beyond medals and public holidays like Heroes and Defence Forces Day. (But also to make sure we appreciate the national recognition and go kumusha kwakarwiwa hondo yacho!)
As stated above I only personally know at least eleven (11) war veterans. Even though I have encountered many in various spheres of my minimal and non-struggle related existence.
Except where and when one considers the fact of my small counterhegemonic role in the labour movement in Zimbabwe that almost took power from the ruling Zanu Pf in 2000, 2002, 2008, 2013, 2017 (coup-no-coup) and 2018. The electoral year 2023 is an whole other matter for another article.
Where we fast forward to 2025 and what war veterans, generically, appear to be saying, is that they are no longer interested in being led by the current Zanu Pf president Emmerson Mnangagwa. Even though they argued, back then that he owes his ascendancy to them. Something he has personally acknowledged.
This from their variegated factions such as the Zimbabwe National African National Liberation Army (ZANLA), Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) and the Zimbabwe Peoples Army (ZIPA).
This is now evidenced by one war veteran cde Blessed Geza who this week dramatically came out of hiding to declare that there shall be some sort of process to oust the sitting president of Zimbabwe and his government. Even though he (Geza) has been expelled from the ruling Zanu Pf party and is officially wanted by the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP).
In his online video statement from wherever he is hiding from, he is encouraging Zimbabweans to 'rise up' against the current post -Mugabe ruling Zanu Pf government. One which he helped put in place as a long standing central committee member.
I hold no brief for his comments but here is the rub or problem with Zimbabwe's liberation war veterans.
And it comes quite respectfully (you can be arrested these days) in four parts.
The first being that cdes who fought in the liberation struggle and are alive, may initially need to disabuse themselves of a sense of entitlement to the country and compensation for the sacrifices they made for Zimbabwe to be free.
And where we as a peoples have sought politically and economically to appreciate the cdes of the liberation struggle we remember instances of where we materially recognised their sacrifices.
From not only the demobilisation funds of 1980, through to recruitment in the national defence forces and also the 1998 gratuities and the then immediate follow up controversial War Victims Compensation Fund.
Before we add in the Fast Track Land Reform Programme of 2000 to present day, monthly pensions, education benefits for their offspring and the more recent/current allegedly unpopular borehole and bicycle distribution programmes led by the newly established War Veterans League and a special presidential advisor.
In the second instance, its given that our war veterans are trying to establish their revolution in historically staggered succession paths. And they know this.
The unwritten rule was/is that in a free Zimbabwe the power succession theory was that there would be allowance for the original nationalists to lead the newly independent country. Based on the following original nationalists and in no particualr order of importance: Chitepo,Nkomo, Mugabe, Tekere, Silundika, Nyagumbo, Chikerema, and others
In the second instance and in their argumentation phase of national leadership succession they would let those that combined nationalism and guerilla training to lead: your Tongogara, Mnangagwa, Mujuru, Ziyaphapa.
And then the third phase by default would be the direct combatants who were also part of the Mgagao crew (Dzino, Masuku, Gava, Chiwenga, Mutinhiri, Sibanda et al and some names I will deliberately leave out)
With a nascent or even current generational phase of cdes who were in refugee camps, keeps and then those who were war collaborators- detainees and their children from the povo/people/masses.
Historically it did not turn out this way. The nationalists stuck around for longer than expected via Mugabe. And as unptredicatably as it turned out the dual nationalists and guerillas decided to take over in 2017.
In terms of this succession politics in ZanuPf it would be now an expected turn of those who were full guerillas to take over the country after the dual nationalists and guerillas.
Hence cde Geza and his 'It's our turn to eat', argumentation. Whoever he is allegedly fronting for within Zanu Pf.
The national question and issue however is that of the revolutionary passage of time.
Or even it's revolutionary stasis (stagnation). Moreso for our own war veterans.
And where and why Zimbabwe's liberation war veterans place themselves perpetually at the centre of state/government change and never revolutionary change in Zimbabwe. As though they have no children who are now adults who cannot ask them as many questions.
Furthermore, this is a development which begs a more general question,
'In the aftermath of the Second Chimurenga, are our war veterans populist and opportunistic? Or they mean what they say in an organic form?"
Or why would they not understand that younger Zimbabweans while appreciating their historical role may quite literally differ with how they seek to see the country go forward?
And why would they seek the support of the same young Zimbabwean population demographic while attacking it for being unpatriotic? All in an effort to deal with their internally unresolved question of power succession in their own "united" ruling ZanuPf party?
But, and I am being frank here, our war veteran cdes cannot assume that 45 years after our national independence the country still thinks the same, feels the same and can only again be liberated, if need be, by them. Again. Given all that has historically happened this would be the height of revolutionary dishonesty on their part as founding fathers.
Something that we can only then call "revolutionary stasis" or to be stuck in their own historical and grudge based past.
Or to simplify it further, an inability to understand the historical fact of the necessity of revolutionary posterity. That is an inability to pass on a revolutionary candlelight beyond personal experiences and what Geza has referred to as bu##s##t.
As argued earlier I am a friend of war veterans of Zimbabwes liberation struggle. And I will always be. Despite what happened in the years 2002-2010. Or even earlier with Gukurahundi in the early to late 1980s though I was too young to know apart from Zapu cdes jumping over fences and being hidden in our houses in Zengeza1 Chitungwiza.
The struggle was the struggle. As painful as it was.
We however cannot for the fifth time be arguing about who the revolution must reward by way of political power or proximity to state wealth. Again. And I know war veteran cdes who will understand this argument. With or without going to school but on the basis of having been on the frontline.
For young Zimbabweans I am sure our war veteran cdes mean well. But their historical consciousness while appreciated is no longer enough. They need to rise above their painful past, understand the present and enunciate a new Zimbabwean future. When asked. And for posterity.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com) (takurazhangazha.com
Monday, 17 March 2025
In Defence of Africa’s Relationship with USAID: Countering False Claims of Radical Pan Africanism
By Takura Zhangazha*
We may have a new form of what I will refer to as a fake Pan
Africanism in our African immediate consciousness.
One that has recently found voice following the dramatic and
tragic cutting of foreign aid assistance by the new United States government led
by Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Accompanied by the quite literal shutting down
of its largest state enabled donor, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID).
While I am not up to date on the impact of these cuts on global
USAID programmes, I am more familiar with their impact on aid to countries in
the global south. With a specific
interest on what all of this has meant for Africa and its continental political
economy.
A negative impact that has been reported extensively in
mainstream and social media platforms.
With varied reactions from African governments, businesses, opposition
political parties and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s).
Most African government officials have as expected diplomatically expressed regret at the withdrawal of in particular support from USAID for a myriad of health, education and other developmental capacity building programmes. Some have gone further by accusing USAID of interfering in their domestic politics while ironically being recipients of many forms of much needed aid.
While the more opportunistic business circles have, despite
being directly affected in relation to cancelled tenders have taken on an
acerbic and profit eying pan Africanist tone.
One which argues that African governments should look within, shun
corruption and engage their private capital services to fill in the evident gap left by USAID. (Even though we know the money will not be competitively enough for them)
NGO’s have had a different narrative due to the fact that in
most cases they are part of what globally is known as the non-profit industrial
complex (NPIC). Even if by default. One in which the established system of global
philanthropy by either global north governments and wealthy individuals sought
to give a human face to global challenges. All within the context of
international relations determined by the then Cold War between the USA and the
then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), now Russia. And also one which is very much a part of
global corporate culture based on stock-exchanges/markets, investments and
claims at ‘trickle-down’ neoliberal economics.
So thee is no doubt that foreign aid came with conditionalities
determined by global international relations.
But even this fact did not and does not take away what was and still is a
global need to identify and work to resolve humanitarian problems. Be they in a bilateral sense or under the
supervision of the United Nations as the neutral arbiter of humanity’s challenges.
With this background of the matter, it is imperative that we
look at Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s move to shutdown USAID from a more African reality
based perspective.
Its given immediate impact on the African continent are the loss of access to humanitarian aid for health, education, refugees, gender equality, civil society, media and others for ordinary Africans that relied on this aid.
A reliance that for many reasons included war, legacies of colonialism and contemporary neoliberalism that has
left many African governments and peoples quite literally hapless when it comes to
priorities for their own citizens.
I use the turn of phrase ‘hapless’ because most of our African post/neo-colonial states were at the mercy of an historical global Cold War and tended to be pitted one against the other in relation to material and financial support in times of economic, natural disaster national crisis. Whether they looked to the global west or global east.
In the wake of these recent events we have a new false and
ahistorical narrative about for example why should African states rely on USAID
to run their health, education or even governance structures.
Africa’s role in the world has historically relied on international partnerships with established global superpowers and economies. That the USA was one of the then strongest in the last half century does not preclude the fact that we also interacted with others for either direct aid, military support during our liberation struggles or even ideological frameworks to develop.
The imperative was how we negotiated these relationships
and these desires for aid or economic development. And also how we have negotiated our own minerals,
agricultural and human resources within the contemporary neoliberal global
political economy.
So it is relatively naïve to assume that the ending of USAID funding in Africa as of old is a reflection of any fundamental weaknesses of the African state. Or to assume it as a new cause for some revamped but ephemeral Pan Africanism that occurs over things we do not control. Clearly we don’t control American, European, Russian or Chinese foreign policy priorities.
We only interact with them within a highly unfair
and already poisoned global political economy laced with the legacies of colonialism,
neo-colonialism and an ahistorical admiration of the global north.
Indeed African states and governments need to be more
self-reliant and choose their global economic or other partnerships more careful
and organically to the needs of the people of our continent. But that has not been a possibility in recent
history. We have to contend with the
Americans, the Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians and also attempt at our own
non-alignment in international interests that we eventually do not control.
Even as we acknowledge how big USAID on the continent and
its impact on livelihoods was, we cannot assume an own victim mentality when we
know Africa’s placement in the global political economy. Wherein in most cases, we deal the hand with
are dealt with globally.
We however need to interrogate this particular placement in
its holistic nature beyond waiting for changes of government in the global
north. Or having secret and populist admirations for
the celebrity politics of Donald Trump and his techno-acolytes.
As Africans we know that 'democracy or development is not like Coca Cola' as once intoned by Nyerere. It has to be organic and with multiple solidarity partnerships that come with their own warts and all.
But
we can always and should negotiate a better placement of Africa in the world based on principles
and not false-found, ahistorical and ephemeral populist Pan Africanisms. With or without
USAID.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com) (takurazhangazha.com)
Monday, 10 March 2025
Makandiwa’s “Main Actoring”: Religion as a Societal Ruse in Zimbabwe
By Takura Zhangazha*
You could almost laugh about it. Thousands of adult Zimbabweans flocking to a
Sunday service to ‘see’ the power of ‘prophecy’. Over and about a US$ 1 million pledge on, you
guessed it, the ability to prophesy what was in a religious leader’s
pocket. These thousands of Zimbabweans
were not only in the auditorium. They
were also online and watching live. It
was as dramatic as it was without depth.
And even if you didn’t attend the service physically or
watch it live online, you could not escape it in general conversation or on
social media.
With the narrative being given as that of a self anointed prophet
Emmanuel Makandiwa had decided to challenge all other purported religious (Christian
and traditional) leaders to identify what he would have in his trouser pocket
this previous Sunday.
Being the Catholic agnostic that I am, I laughed about this
when I encountered the story from journalist friends and other colleagues.
What I did not realize was the fact that there are thousands
of Zimbabweans that took this quite seriously.
Or even if they did not, they were willing enablers of the expansion of
its narrative. Be they musicians, celebrities
or just general believers in religion and its import on the lived physical or spiritual
afterlife.
As a writer/blogger, there are some topics you are generally
warned to steer clear of. And one of
these is religion. Mainly because it is
not only a sensitive matter but also because it may have safety and security
concerns for your personal well-being. Not only because of religious fanaticism
but also the reality of the fact that many Zimbabweans are embedded in one faith
or the other. Both by way of their right to religious freedom but also
upbringing or personal experiences.
So I will tread somewhat carefully. But also honestly.
The self-styled Prophet Makandiwa who challenged others of
his ilk and kind to identify items on his pockets is phenomenally influencial
in Zimbabwean society. A thing that he
know and utilizes to maximum public evangelical effect.
His popularity is not beyond question as evidenced by not
only the massive attendance at his weekly sermons(American style). I am not
sure what capacity his auditorium has but I would hazard to argue it can equate
to a weekly seating capacity of 15-20 thousand. More like the Harare City
Sports Centre. And that’s a lot of
people for cyclical weekly religious sermons from a singular individual.
But it is our now lived reality that he commands these
thousands of Zimbabweans almost at his religious beck and call.
So I did a little ask around. Why would men and women of
various professional qualifications or attributes believe that this is as religious
as it can get? For themselves or their families?
And the key question here is ‘why?’ in a Zimbabwean
sense.
As much as we claim to be highly educated or at least to
have one of African’s highest literacy rates, we couldn’t have a decent number
of us flock to cross-checking/prophesying what is in another man’s pocket.
If religion was not a serious functional and social stabilization
business/sector in Zimbabwe, this would be completely laughable. Bordering on crosschecking how we relate to
magic and illusion as shown on television or a community road-show.
But we have to deal the hand we are dealt with. Religion is
intrinsic to Zimbabwean culture. Both in
its traditional and colonial, post-neo-colonial dimensions. And in the contemporary it is more of the Christian
version of the same that influences how we relate to each other and also come
to sort of understand and deal with our national political economy.
This latest popular and popularized incident of ‘prophesying’
or guessing ‘things’ in another man’s pocket for 1 million United States
dollars is a key low for Zimbabwe. Not
only for its government, religious leaders but also for us as a people.
It may be entertaining on social media but it is ridiculous
as a national debate issue.
What it brings into vogue is the fact that we are an over-religious
country that is functioning on high levels of superstition and materialist religiosity
(Protestant ethic, anyone?)
Let me explain this a little further. Where you have comrades believing that one
can become rich based merely on their faith and by themselves, you have a country
that has no future in the context of elite privatization of the state’s
resources. It is like functioning on a
wing and a prayer but with some religious element to spur you on.
Be it in relation to your job or lack of it, school fees or
the life you envy after watching a television programme or a western movie that
depicts life in the way you prefer or aspire to live it.
Without any iota of sensitivity to the historically given
fact that our Zimbabwean society should function on the basis of enabling human
equitability for all. No matter your religious
or economic background.
What is evident is that religion is like our national
politics, a little bit of entertainment and individual populist, cultist
recognition.
What Makandiwa did most likely gained him more followers
(and likes). What those that sought to challenge his ‘prophetic matters’ also
helped them get newer recognition.
It however has not and will not change the country for the
better.
So comrades should go ahead and find their Jesus, Allah,
Buddha or Musikavanhu to help them deal with what are their own real challenges
in their existence.
The imperative however is to understand that religion,
though being some sort of business, cannot fundamentally define the Zimbabwean
state. Even if for entertainment and an
assumed sense of belonging. Nor can the Zimbabwean
state be found in anyone’s religious pockets.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity. (takurazhangazha.com)
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
Monday, 3 March 2025
Undemocratic, Ahistorical Harare City Modernisation, Contradictions and Colonial Legacy.
By Takura Zhangazha*
Zimbabwe’s urban landscape is changing form quite rapidly. Particularly where one considers new modern
urban developments such as shopping malls away from city centres or new residential
housing in the form of either ‘flats’ or ‘cluster’ residential compounds and new
low-income suburbs.
This is also in tandem with the expansion of privatized social
service buildings or amenities such as private clinics, schools, fast food
outlets and fuel service stations.
One colleague who had not travelled as much around for example
the city of Harare’s high density areas was astounded by these new
developments.
So would anyone who has not been around the capital city for
a while since the Covid 19 pandemic or if one is not keen on seeing the new
real estate regime in its geographical physicality.
For many who have studied urban development academically or
otherwise, this is an age of the rapid expansion of at least Harare. And a modernist
and somewhat ‘post-colonial’ one for that matter.
I use the term post-colonial here because to call it
neo-colonial would be slightly off the mark based on either the passage of time.
Or the fact that the Harare city urban masterplan is still officially the one
adopted by the colonial Salisbury city council.
The key point however is that Harare is not physically the
same anymore.
If one was in the Diaspora for at least three years and came
back to the capital, landscapes one would remember have structurally changed. Not only from the road that comes from the Robert
Mugabe International Airport but also from the southern approach of the
Harare-Masvingo-Beitbridge highway. Or in any other direction from Harare’s dysfunctional
Central Post Office.
In any one direction, we will witness multiple housing
developments, expanded road networks, service stations and awkwardly placed
fast food outlets.
In fact it could be classified as witnessing a mimicry of
assumed urban modernization of countries’ in which one is domiciled in the Diaspora. Or if you are coming from a long-duree stay
in the rural areas.
So it is now relatively easy to get awestruck by the
changing Harare infrastructure. Until
you veer off a main road and into the internals of high density, middle or low
density older suburbs only to see the dilapidation of still existent council buildings,
roads, two-roomed housing and tower-lights.
In such instances you get the sense of the new infrastructural
developments being somewhat of a veneer of progress amidst a continual rubble
of administrative decay.
Or to make matters slightly more depressing, a re-ordering
of a former minority white capital into being a black elite capital based on
either individual wealth or proximity to financialised or fast tracked land (reform)
capital in the city or its immediate outskirts.
And this is where the contradictions begin and continually
show themselves.
With the first key point being that new privatised infrastructure
does not mean a new city. It means one
that papers over the colonial legacy poverty cracks that are evident if you move
from the shopping mall to the middle of a high density area.
Or even a middle or
low density one where the more prevalent narratives of residents therein are unfortunately
usually about how Salisbury or Smith was better! One which tends to be followed up by the
undemocratic assertion that our local government councilors are not educated
enough to run a city even with full-time city council professional employees.
The second key contradiction is that of lifestyle
aspirations of Zimbabweans. I have
written on this before but for this analysis I will limit it to the fact of the
following outline.
A majority of us were either born in a rural area or have strong
migratory links to the same. The city or
any urban area, colonially induced, was always viewed as where the ‘good life’
could eventually be lived. Fair enough for
an historical point and reality.
Upon arrival in the city (mainly by African males) to either
search for work or be forced into work, the aspiration was some sort of urban
housing in the designated African quarter or suburb.
Upon attaining national independence the general aspiration was
to leave the previous African quarters/residential area to either the former ‘coloured’
or ‘white’ residential areas. All as
emblems of individual success derived from a limited understanding of the colonial
legacy and structure that is currently the city of Harare.
Or where we cannot follow this trajectory, we will re-create
it in areas where residentialised poverty and wealth can co-exist side by side
(pick any high density area of your choice for examples- I just know that some
cdes are building double-storey houses where others still live in two rooms
with outside toilets).
The third contradiction is that of what I consider to be ‘ vulture
urban capitalism’. Given the colonial
legacy city that is Harare and the above outline of how I think we have
responded to it as residents this is probably the most crippling in how we
envision a new Harare.
As argued prior, privatized infrastructure development does
not change the culture of a city. It generally
reinforces a repressive one as of colonial old.
Making the differences between the rich and the poor more glaring. With the again added contradiction of the
poor wanting to mimic the rich. Except that the corporates (aka the rich) also
now know they made a mistake in assuming shopping mall and fast food outlets
were about niche markets and not about numbers markets.
So Harare is in an historical existential crisis as a city
(as I am sure so are other cities across the country). One in which there is elitist and
privatisation of various infrastructural facilities such as main roads,
expansion of private schools and private clinics. All against the backdrop of a colonially
designed planning system that never envisioned generic equality of access to
water/sanitation, health, transport, education and ease of urban living for the
majority of its residents.
As for the vulture corporates circling around Harare’s
poorer neighbourhoods, they are lucky, who doesn’t want the convenience of a
two piecer and chips over running water and fixed inner roads in their residential
area?
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takurazhangazha.com) takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)