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.

I have done this on social media and in one or two instances for mainstream media. 

This succession question in Zanu Pf  has caused a very public and social media motivated  factionalism within the ruling party's war veterans of the liberation struggle. 

But also at their elite leadership and likely their own presidium/presidential level. That is, at least allegedly power contestations between Mnangagwa and his first deputy president Retired General C. Chiwenga.

Especially after this week's Monday 31 March 2025 abortive protests against the current government. 

 Where in particular they have been playing various war veteran (Zanla/Zipra), ethnic, economic or other interests/factions against the other.   

 With the same said interests in also full or semi flight into various nodes of the patronage and potential wealth that the ruling party Zanu Pf's factionalism can offer them. Individually, ethnically and as a combination of both, factionally. 

This initially internal Zanu Pf factionalism has after Monday 31 March 2025 taken on a more populist angle. With at least the two major cities in Zimbabwe (Harare and Bulawayo) experiencing what eventually became a default stay away by their residents. 

Either in fear or again default support of one war veteran Blessed Geza who took to social media like a duck to water in order to spread his message of declaring that Mnangagwa and his government must go. 

While there were no major protests as envisaged, the country took both physical and social media notice. As though we were all in a movie theatre waiting for some main actors to pull a game changer. 

That did not happen. 

Not least because there is a recognition that whatever fights are happening in Zanu Pf elitist circles, they are not national in their strictest popular impression with the Zimbabwean people. 

With an underlying subtle but again popular assumption that when elephants fight it is the grass that suffers. As it did in the 2017 coup-not-a-coup that ushered in the current second republic government. 

For many Zimbabweans it is too early to leave the political movie theatre until all of this plays itself out. Almost like waiting to see if either James Bond or an assumed villain wins in the end. When we know at the back of our minds that this is almost safely scripted in Zanu Pf. And not in the country. 

Though even in Zanu Pf, there is a scramble to ensure that their chosen main actors emerge victorious. With or without the people of Zimbabwe. 

And here is the irony for Zanu Pf supporters and our national liberation war veterans. 

Their attempt to nationalise their internal, elitist and materialist political factionalism may have brief popular traction but it is nationally and politically unsustainable. 

Mainly because it lacks progressive ideological grounding and is highly personalised and highly cultist with the assistance of national, and again populist, religious leaders. And if they continue on this path, as the Shona adages "vacharumwa nechekuchera."

But this is were we are as a country. As you read this, pick any Zanu Pf afficionado, supporter or functionary and ask them what their internal fights are all about. They cannot give you a straight answer apart from mentioning the importance of either the incumbent Mnangagwa or his deputy Chiwenga. 

Similarly pick any die hard supporter of the somewhat mainstream opposition political party the CCC and ask them where they are placed in all of this. They will likely tell you about their 'floating' leadership waiting for God's call to return. Or give a constitutional argument about why they are against a 2030 term  extension. While not preparing not only for by-elections but forgetting that technically the next best chance for them to acquire power is in 2028. 

Where you add the dire state of our Zimbabwean national political economy to this you have a national consciousness conundrum. One in which as a citizen even if you pick a side it is not because you want to. But you have to. And in this you may always side on the material as opposed to the democratic value and principle side. An almost survival mode within the ambit of politics one can only observe, not influence. While waiting for the next social media post. 

I titled this particular blog, "Was it too Soon, Or Too Late? Zanu Pf, Geza and 31 March 2025" in remembrance of Samora Machel's question in an interview on why Mozambique decided to support Zimbabwe even after his own country had  become independent. With his key answer to the interviewer being No it was not too soon to help Zimbabwe to be free.'

And in a subsequent official state visit to independent Zimbabwe, he asked the then recent war veterans of our liberation struggle  such as cde Mujuru, Mnangagwa as to if the struggle was continuing, what was it against after independence? 

Many of you reading this know what Machel said in rhetorical response. The struggle continued as he said  "against ignorance, superstion, exploitation,  misery, hunger, so that someday we will all be equal"

Monday 31 March 2025 failed to meet this basic ideological standard. No matter the attire that war veteran Geza wore or the reposte that came from clearly capitalist Zanu Pf spokesperson Mutsvangwa recently. 

I will conclude by stating that what happened on 31 March 2025 was indicative of a false national consciousness that did not understand via our war veterans that there was never too soon a moment as argued by Machel. And that they have arrived late to what should have been an historical national changing moment. Decades ago before they became direct players in Zanu Pf succession politics after the 2000 Fast Track Land Reform Programme and in 2017. 

They should have done what they are factionally trying to do now many years ago. 

If you ask them, now, what does the struggle continue against? Very few of them will tell you, as they once did, against hunger, poverty, miserior, superstition or political ignorance. When they should be telling us it continues for organic Zimbabwean democracy. 

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

In Brief: The Newer Conscious African

This is a rather controversial topic to discuss and analyze. 

 When global media magazines were quite fashionable in the late 1990s we used to have the likes of Time and NewsWeek magazines. They always gave us a comparatively expansive insight into what was going on in the global west. We also encountered the then famous Readers Digest magazine which we would crowd around to assume what love, relationships and work meant in order to be a modernised human being. Even in Africa. At some point the African Diaspora decided to also establish an equivalent magazine called 'The New African". 

This was within the ambit of not only Nkhrumaist/Nyerereist values but also the ideological argumentation of what Thabo Mbeki (South Africa) Abdoulaye Wade (Senegal) and Abdel Aziz Bouteflika (Algeria) considered as an 'African Renaissance'. 

And soon after the reformation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to become the African Union (AU) in mimicry of the European Union (EU) and its controversial imperialist historicity. But we can only recognise their efforts within the context of what obtained in the narrative of assumptions global human equality and universalism. 

Until we were reminded of the 'exceptionalism' of the global north. An 'exceptionalism' which still obtains today via wars and financialised capitalism as evidenced by our high dependency and border line worship of the intrinsic value of the US dollar. 

 Where we fast forward to the contemporary, without affinity to the formerly famous global magazines such as Time and Newsweek. Or the cable television networks such as CNN or BBC, for recognition as Africans we realise that the narrative was never designed to be un8versal. No matter how hard we (have) tried. We are still African. And unfortunately denigratively black as ascribed by conservative global media,. 

But that is not the major issue. We are in global period where we need to re-think what it means to be African. Whether we are brown or black. As Africans we have gone through various historical motions. Of either forced militarized inferiority via the slave trade, colonialism and counter resistance to it (both political and militarily) with lessons that inform our Pan Africanism as led by for example Cabral and Fanon. 

What we did not anticipate, even in our own now global Diaspora is the fact of hanging mediums of meaning beyond the glossy magazines such as Time or Newsweek that were and are still a part of a media hegemonic complex. 

We did not and probably still do not recognise the impact that social media and the Internet has had on what it means to be African. We still try to steal remnants of our own identities in-between. While knowing that we do not own social media let alone its newer version in the form of Artificial Intelligence (my phone and laptop is autocorrecting me as I type this blog). 

 There is however a grey area which old media, social media and the Internet cannot reach. That which remains your organic African being. A being that recognises the historicity of colonialism, technology (magetsi) and post/neo-coloniality and contemporary religion as foundations of a false new African and national consciousness. 

 As I argued initially, we probably need a 'newer African'. Or to be that more historically conscious African. As complex as this may read or sound. 

 This would mean, when you listen to for example Donald Trump, the president of the USA you as an African are not thinking of the 'Art of the Deal'. Or when you watch the current UK prime minister Keir Stemmer, you are not remembering the legacies of late British colonialism. 

 Or even when you see Francois Macron and you do not have empathy for the fact of colonial cultural assimilation. 

 Even if colleagues and cdes bring in the question of how China or Russia are influencing African consciousness. There can be no argument about that. It is up to you if you want to be a newer organic African. 

 More so for one who reads between internationalised racist lines and understands who the African you are and who you should be. With the key component being what has been referred to academically and culturally as your newer 'Africaninity'. 

 One in which the realities or recognition of your own history and being better placed as a reality therefore of where you can talk back to the now not so subtle racism of the global north. 

 But let me return to my initial admiration of the glossy magazines such as Time or Newsweek. As an African, I used to admire the journalistic stories of those publications. As rare and expensive as they were. Now we have the Internet and social media. These not so new mediums will perpetually challenge our Africanness. They however cannot change it. 

 What is then required is a newer more conscious African. Beyond even what was then referred to as the journalistically and magazine motivated 'New African'. 

 Or the Eurocentric 'African Renaissance' that birthed the contemporary African Union.

 But because I know that on our African continent nothing is ever ahistorical. We need to be newer Africans that recognise not only history, our own historicity and the fact that we are still our own liberators . Ideologically and materially. One cannot function without the other. Or in abstract mimicry. 

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

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 

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) 

 

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)

 

 

  

 

 

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) 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Age, Conversation and Changing Consciousness in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

I have a couple of friends that like to remember what they refer to as the good old Zimbabwe days.

Be it when they were in primary or secondary school. Or undertaking one or the other state sponsored tertiary education.  They talk of getting milk at school, eating well, getting student payouts/loans and how everyone was generally happy in Zimbabwe.

They debate this broadly until you broach the subject of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) of the late 1980s.  While we were too young to understand this then new neoliberal policy thrust of the Zimbabwean government at the time, our contemporary conversations immediately depart from nostalgic reminiscence to anger at what then befell us by the time we arrived at adulthood.  

And this is largely toward the turn of the century when not only ESAP was in full flight but the ruling Zanu PF party was now trying to re-discover some sort of its revolutionary ethos via a now hurried Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) in the year 2000. 

While at the same time using state and no-state orchestrated violence on supporters of the newer opposition political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as then led by trade unionist Morgan Tsvangirai. 

Some of us still remember those terrible years and in particular the calamitous periods of cholera, hyper-inflation and poverty that were stark between 2005 through to 2010 when the then Global Political Agreement  and government of national unity as mediated by SADC had sort of got a foothold on our economic predicament. 

In this, a decent number of us who were political and civil society activists at the time assumed we were in some sort of progressive revolutionary struggle to challenge the ruling Zanu Pf party’s hegemony.  And a lot of suffered and are still suffering for this.   Be it here at home or in the global Zimbabwean Diaspora. 

What we may have missed however is the passage of time and the fact that there are others that while having been young in they year 2000, are now adults.  And they have a different experience of what they consider their priority realities and ambitions.  They are also referred to as ‘ama 2000’. 

These and other younger comrades have a different consciousness template from many that have nostalgia for a previous Zimbabwe prior to for example ESAP.  Theirs remains an immediacy of material consciousness.  Be they male or female. 

Based on not only the fact that they have greater access to multiple nodes of information and lifestyles but also because they experienced the worst of our longstanding economic challenges since the early 2000s. 

And their politics and political activism are also more immediate.  Based on both religious perception as well as celebrity dynamics as motivated by both mainstream and social media. 

They are definitely not going to read Marx, Cabral, Luxembourg, Nyerere, Nkrumah, Gramsci or de Beauvoir unless its for an academic examination.    

And this a reality that we now have to accept across class, geographical location and even claims at ethnicity.  

Age, conversations and consciousness have come full circle in Zimbabwe.  With the latter being the least relevant.  Mainly because consciousness in and of itself is not only less fashionable but it is challenged by the hegemonic and behavioural moderation media that we can no longer avoid consuming.  Be it via social media or streaming platforms that are carried over to the mainstream television and radio stations such as Tik-tok, Netflix, Youtube and Whatsapp (in no particular order). 

So when I am in some sort of debate (online or offline) with people younger than me I am aware that if I overdo any sort of intellectualism I will be met with an equally resistant counter-intellectualism that focuses on everyday realities as opposed to any sort of idealism. Or one that emphasizes one celebrity over another or one faith in challenge to others. And a derisive turn of phrase about age and no knowing whats really going on in the world

This is something I first experienced in a radio interview in 2010. I had prepared well for it, crosschecked my facts, re-read on the relevant ideological contexts of how to challenge neo-liberalism  for a progressive new social contract. Lo and behold the interviewer, young as she was didn’t care about that.  She just wanted to know about the significance of the celebrity like infighting in the then inclusive Zimbabwe government and its constitutional reform process.

I then realized that perhaps because of age, experience and also being more ideologically oriented, I was beginning to miss new realities about how young Zimbabweans are beginning to think about their country and their lives.

As a final example, I once interacted with a young artists group who vociferously laid claim to being a network of progressive young minds seeking out new ways of expressing their challenges in the public interest.  This was assumedly in relation to unemployment, poverty and ambitions to go to the Diaspora. 

It turned out that most of them found their best spaces in quoting the bible and relying heavily on the Christian Gospel for their own consciousness. 

It struck me that we (my nostalgic comrades and I) had been brought up on Ngugi, Marechera, Mungoshi, Vera, Soyinka and many others but these ones I was interacting with at that time, mainly had the Bible and very business focused motivational writers and speakers from the global north. 

This is still something I still cannot shrug off.  And I am not sure who’s fault it is. But it is a fault.  WE need to talk consciousness age.  More-so where we have imperial presidents like Donald Trump talking about racist ‘Golden Ages’ for their own countries and controlling social and mainstream media narratives. 

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

A Not So New Meaning to Being White and (South) African in Africa and the World.

By Takura Zhangazha*

USA president Donald Trump recently issued an executive order about South African domestic politics.  In it he was basically protecting white South Africans and in particular those of Afrikaner (Dutch) origin. This was after one of his infamous and closest political advisors, Elon Musk had warned via his social media platform X, that there would be consequences for South Africa’s new Land Expropriation Act.

It would appear that this executive order suspending USA aid to South Africa by Trump is the immediate consequence. And one which has had ripple effects within South Africa’s white community.  To the extent that they held a weekend press conference to explain their reactions to this mainly via the again infamous AfriForum group that is assumed to represent a lot of Afrikaner or Boer individual and collective economic and social interests.

In this they stated, via their website,

“The civil rights organisation AfriForum is going to write an official letter to the United States government and request that the punitive measures that President Donald Trump wants to introduce against South Africa should rather target senior ANC leaders directly and not South Africa’s residents. AfriForum’s request follows in response to an entry that Trump made on his social media last night, around 18:00 Eastern Standard Time (EST) in America.

AfriForum is also going to make an urgent request to the South African government to, in an attempt to avert this crisis, table an amendment to the Expropriation Act that will ensure the protection of property rights in South Africa.”

I have quoted this at length in order to demonstrate what can be viewed as not only a sense of gratitude for Trump’s executive order (EO) but also a strange sense of entitlement to still be able to live in a land that their new benefactor, the USA government, perceives to be a threat to their Afrikaner (also read as white) livelihoods.

I refer to this entitlement in a particular historic respect that the AfriForum is likely to be quite clear that based on Trump’s EO, they are now quite literally untouchable in the short and probable long (4 year term of his presidential tenure).  Or as long as Musk is still his right hand man.  Not only in South Africa but also other parts of Africa such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) where they have major economic, mining and attendant military interests.

While I am not South African by birth my Pan Africanism cannot let this matter simply be drowned away in abstract notions of what current and former settler states and their outpost communities deem to be preferable.  

Especially with either the threat of implementing economic sanctions and in some cases (as in the previous Trump administration) that of military intervention on the basis of a false pretext of neo-colonial liberalized property rights to land and minerals.

More-so because I am also a Zimbabwean and we have a direct experience and long standing history  of what former colonial and neo-colonial global superpowers can and will do to stop attempts to redress colonial injustices of land dispossession.

This despite the efforts we had made since the expiry of what was then our Lancaster House Constitution through to many other conferences and bilateral agreements we entered into with our former colonial power, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).  And now politically and technically under the aegis of USA and EU sanctions for what was then our Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).

One which regrettably has now shifted into more of state capitalism than equitable distribution of our natural resources.

But back to the matter of the South African white community and its newfound, by default racial/ racist relationship with the new American administration.  Beyond being Afrikaner, English, Scottish, Australian or French in origin or ancestry.

It is either you value the country of your birth, with all its baggage of having fought a liberation struggle to emancipate a majority based on the principles of democracy racial and economic equity or you decide to purposefully undermine them.  

Directly as Afriforum is doing. 

Or even in liberal white complicit silence (Biko anyone?)  Or you stand up to what was the then rainbow nation that we all applauded Nelson Mandela and his struggle stalwarts for undertaking. 

What Trump has done however is not a social media fad. Or an opportunity for South Africans, particularly a white minority to prove a false consciousness on still Chinese owned Tik-tok.  

Instead it is a racist maneuver aimed at proving that it is not only global but in particular ‘white capital’ that can control the economy of South Africa.  And by default Southern Africa. 

Well we, as Africans, do not have nuclear weapons or any other military capacity to stand up to the USA, the UK or even the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).  But we have progressive and revolutionary anti-colonial history on our side. 

Where we assumed a global progressive humanity via the United Nations, we were mistaken.  Especially because of the globalized wars that we are seeing or experiencing directly. 

The Trump executive orders we are witnessing in various forms mean that we may have to revert to remembering what Africa is and who we are as Africans.  We reject racism, global inequality and we believe in a shared progressive future for all of humanity. And that at some point despite as Cabral said, “the struggles against our own weaknesses” we will have to defend this vision of a progressive humanity for all as Africans.  Beyond who owns X or what an exeuctive order from the USA can mean. 

And that there is no such thing as a return to an ahistorical former or current colonial center of power to prove a false importance of whiteness in Africa or elsewhere in the Global South.  

Finally there is a book published in 2007 by Gerald Le-Ange titled the ‘White Africans. From Colonisation to Liberation’.   It would help if cdes re-read it to understand that we too, as black Africans can talk back about belonging in a globally progressive and inclusive historical way.  Because we know what was done to us historically by colonialism and its offshoots of neo and post colinialism.  We will never forget. And we will resist.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Changing Character of Pan Africanism (Fighting Among Ourselves)

 By Takura Zhangazha*

 As an African you will regularly reflect on your being, your othered ‘blackness’ and also your material standing in a now highly globalized perception of what can be the ‘good life’.  And in all of its mimicry of the colonial legacy of global north societies.  Or if we were to be a little bit more academic, in the ambit of what the Ugandan professor Mahmoud Mamdani referred to as the “legacy of late colonialism’. 

A colonial legacy that we are living today in multiple facets of our everyday existence.  From our politics, our religious and cultural norms and how they inform the futures of subsequent young Africans going forward.

And it is something that we cannot historically wish away.  We were once colonized as Africans.  A decent number of us fought liberation struggles or negotiated political settlements to become independent.  We also, via the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU) now the African Union (AU) accepted the historical reality of the Berlin Conference borders as drawn by the then European colonial powers.  

Borders which were largely defined by either rivers, mountains and also last minute negotiations for territory because of assumptions of minerals or colonially strategic positioning of their military outposts. With one such example being the Caprivi Strip (named after a German general at the turn of the 19^th century).

The catch however is that we have a composite history of struggling against colonialism, winning these struggles but at the same time, in the contemporary, sort of seeking by default to repeat the same said history. 

And this is a complicated argument to make.  Particularly if we consider the current Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda 2025 conflict as recognized by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC). 

On social media there have been historical references as to why this conflict persists.  From issues to do with the recognized Rwandan genocide through to the role that SADC played in the toppling of Mobutu Seseseko Wazo Wabanga from power in the DRC. And the retention of Laurent Desire Kabila as president of the same country in the years that followed.  An issue that is not historically explained and understood by many Zimbabweans or Congolese to this day.

The key issue however is the fact that the DRC is not a simple country.  It is etched in the historical cauldrons of the full meaning of what colonialism was in Africa.  Particularly where we consider South of the Sahara Africa and the role of King Leopold the second of Belgium and what his government did to us. 

Further, beyond arguments about borders and their coloniality, the DRC is representative of what colonial capitalism and extraction is and can be.  Including the fact that capitalism comes with war against people who do not even understand what they are fighting against or for what cause they should be fighting for we now have a global reconfiguration of the meaning of Africa.  One which is pointing to a repetitive historical narrative of ‘extract and control’.  On either side of the West or East global divide. 

This is a development that begs the question of what is Pan Africanism in the contemporary? Who imagines or re-imagines it?

If you are African you have to remember Kwame Nkrumah’s eternal slogan of how “Africa Must Unite!” And Julius Nyerere’s pivotal role in making African political unity a reality with the OAU and its liberation committee.

But now we are at a crossroads. Albeit an easily populist one after the emergent changes in the United States of America (USA) foreign policy about its interactions with our continent. From the closures of the USA Agency for International Development Aid (USAID) through to its own foreign diplomatic missions and how we react to the same. More so beyond social media and mainstream media posts about what all of this means.   

We are in desperate need of a new Pan Africanism.  One that contends with new global political economy realities of China versus the USA but also recognizes the history of colonialism and post-neocolonialism. 

This is a difficult ask because as post liberation Africans we are sort of embedded in false realities that we are never able to handle. Not only for our internal but external conflicts without being ‘hand-held’ by either side of the global political divide.

So what does a new Pan Africanism look like? It is one that understands the historical reality of the fact that as black people from the African continent we know our past. And we also know our present.  And we can envision our future.  Never mind the slave trade, colonialism, or neo-colonialism, we simply remember our realities in the present. 

So major traditional donor agencies can and will close from the global north due to an increasing racist political culture but we have been there before.  We know who we are and who we can be.  `

For all the wars that are happening globally and affecting Africa in variegated ways, as Africans, we will need to learn that we are between a rock and a hard place.  But we have options.  One of them being a proper, “Return to the Source” as argued by Aime Cesaire. 

Almost like a return to the river.  Except for the fact that the river was always as Ngugi wrote in his novella and explained it metaphorically, a river that was always going to be put it ‘In between”.

The form and character of our new Pan Africanism can only be historically grounded without the abstract populism of 'velvet' or 'carpet' revolutions'.  

It has to be about what we can believe in as liberatory beyond the global preferable moment.  Even in abstract mimicry we also need to put Africa First. And make it Great Again. 

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

takurazhangazha.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zimbabwe Churches and the Dangers of Political Overreach

By Takura Zhangazha*

The Zimbabwe Heads of Christian Denominations (ZHOCD) recently issued a statement on an issue which essentially waded into a Zanu Pf debate around extending the current president E.D Mnangagwa’s term of office from 2028-2030. 

I deliberately mention Zanu Pf here because this issue of 2030 is essentially a ruling party one.  It obviously has national connotations but it remains the prerogative of the ruling party. With or without some sort of resistance to its intentions by existent opposition political parties and broader civil society (churches included).    

This blog however is not an analysis  about  Zanu Pf’s newfound political controversy around seeking an extended term for its president and by dint of the same its two-thirds majority in Parliament. 

It is about the role of religion (or if you want, the church) in Zimbabwean society and how that assumed role must be observed with caution on political matters that essentially should be beyond its purview or mandate. 

To begin with, religion is essentially functional to Zimbabwean (or any other society).  Be it African tradition, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judaism or in any other format.

It helps stabilize and give some form of morality as to how we interact as human beings on a day to day basis.  Based on one’s own preferred history but also with the comfort of knowing that belief systems essentially help prevent us from being perpetually at war with one another.

Even though ironically it has also historically been the major cause of many regional and world wars.

The ‘functionality’ of religion is also based on the fact that it is, in a stable and somewhat democratic country, not expected to over reach the parameters of its political influence.  It may have done so in the past but in the contemporary and also secular societies, religion is generally expected to ‘give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar’.  As once stated by Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament bible. 

In Zimbabwe while we have the right to freedom of worship, there is still a general assumption that religion and its religious leaders also understand the basic need not to ‘over reach’ from the spiritual to the political.  Especially because we are a majority Christian country with a highly African traditional background. With the latter having been key to how we waged our liberation struggles against colonialism.  A reality that is evidenced by the fact of our Mbuya Nehanda statue in the heart of Harare’s central business district. 

As it is however our dominant Christian faith leaders have found it easier to wade into our national politics.  Something which is debatable given the economic hardships that many Zimbabweans are facing. Even as they pray.  (No I will  not mention Marx’s dictum about religion being an opium of the masses)

Be that as it may, a little bit or immediate history of electoral politics and the church may be necessary. 

In 2019, ZHOCD  issued a statement calling for the postponement of the then anticipated 2023 elections.

It stated through its spokesperson Reverend Kenneth Mutata, that given the history of  disputed elections,

“We are calling the nation to Sabbath to all political contestations for a period of seven years for rebuilding of trust and confidence, reset our politics, and chart a shared way forward towards a comprehensive economic recovery path in an non-competitive political environment.”

It was a good thing that the statement was largely ignored by the state as it was patently undemocratic in meaning and intent.  And that we still went on to have the general election in 2023, disputed as it was after the event as is the norm in many African countries now.

Where we fast forward to 2025, ZHOCD appears to want elections as prescribed by the constitution. In a statement issued last week Christian leaders said,

“The call to extend the presidential term limits and postpone the 2028 elections is an invitation for the president to be a co-conspirator in overthrowing the constitution of the country which the president is elected to uphold, respect and defend.” 

This is an important volte farce/turn-around from the ZHOCD.  They appear to have come full circle to understanding the significance of constitutional democracy and its principles surrounding the necessity of holding regular, free and fair elections. 

The reasons for this change in their attitude are not clearly outlined but within the current context of the Zanu PF debates, at least the Christian church leaders are now more democratically grounded than in 2019. 

And this is where my more controversial point comes in. Any attempts to exert the influence of religion over the state or politics is never revolutionary in the progressive sense of the term.  Churches, mosques, synagogues,  ‘krawas’ , ‘gungano’, amphitheaters and ‘crossovers’ are places of worship not politics.

In the same vein, pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, svikiro were not sent to save the country but to save souls.     

Indeed any religion can get you electoral votes.  But it is not the core or Zimbabwean political activity.  If there is a promised land as outlined in the bible or elsewhere it remains elsewhere. 

Here we have with the reality of political economy and the class and cultural divisions that are increasingly evident in our society.  And in order to do this diligently religion must not over reach its influence.  Not only because it is functional and by default part of the establishment that protects it. But mainly because Zimbabwe is a secular state. Warts and all.  And long may it remain so.

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

(takurazhangazha.com)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Online Free Expression as Cold War: Tik-Tok, USA, China and the Rest of Us.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The United States of America (USA) Supreme Court on Friday 17 January 2025 unanimously upheld a decision by both the executive government and congress to indefinitely ban the hugely popular social media platform Tik-Tok.  

The main reason for this was/is the security threat the social media application would cause the USA from China.   With the key element to this being that Tik-Tok is partly owned (at least 20%) by entities affiliated to the government of China. 

The key condition to a reversal being cited as that the current owners of the platform remove the part Chinese ownership and give control of it to American companies or investors.  

Also add to this the assumption that the new owners will get the Tik-Tok algorithm that makes it so popular and different to other social media platforms. 

The application has a reported 170 million users in the USA.  And as expected these users have sort of gone up in social media arms against the move.  Citing reasons such as how the platform allowed them greater access to new information that they would not have gotten via the usual ones that are owned by American companies or individuals.

They also cite the fact that Tik-tok was key in either promoting their small businesses or influencer incomes to the extent that they not only managed to pay off debts but also earn decent regular income from it or its promotional reach.  And this is just within the USA before we look at the application’s role in free expression in the rest of the world, including its other version for domestic use in China. 

The outgoing Biden administration has said it will not make any decisions about the implementation of this ban.  The incoming president Donald Trump has hinted at the fact that he will think about the possibility of also not implementing the ban or alternatively issuing an executive order to keep it going in the USA for a specified period of time. 

Tik-tok itself, (at least its American and Singaporean ownership side of things) has been busy lobbying to get this ban removed.  Its executive officials have made representations to the US Senate while also promoting free expression and the American constitution’s First Amendment (the almost absolute right to free expression in the USA) as a key issue around this matter.

Well it turns out that for now and the short term future, national security concerns override freedom of expression.  More-so when the threats are coming from the USA’s newest hegemonic threat in the form of China and its technological advancements.

Or how China, in the words of members of the USA Senate, Congress and Biden’s outgoing administration, is trying to change the cultural lifestyles of Americans. And therefore influence how their politics, economics or even military technologies may be understood, spied upon or deployed.

The only catch however is that there are also other social media platforms that shape, spy on and influence human behavior that are already present in America and globally.  These are the well-known Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp), X (Twitter) and Youtube to cite just a few.  With all of the latter’s owners having a vested profit interest in ensuring that Tik-tok does not expand its market influence in the USA as well as globally. 

So essentially it is a head on collision of what Greek activist Yanis Varoufakis has referred to as ‘techno-feudalists’.  These being those that monopolise emerging technologies and social media companies in the name of capitalism and with the aid of the dynamics of emergent global cold wars between the USA, China and partly Russia. 

You may ask, “But where is the rest of the world in this?”  The quick answer is that this would appear to be a dispute between the USA and a part Chinese owned social media platform.  

The more organic understanding of this is however about the fact that there is now a renewed global battle to control ‘hearts and minds’ via social media and faster or more efficient algorithms.  Such as the one that Tik-tok represents. 

And this is somewhat symbolized by how even the Americans themselves are attacking their own government about the ban and its impact on their economic livelihoods or mental well being.  Or how they have been shifting to other even more Chinese owned platforms such as RedNote. 

Where we consider the rest of us in this dispute, there is the global north and the global south.

In the global north, it is almost a given that Europe, though not affected by this ban, will not necessarily challenge it.  Even if it could. The European Union, NATO and other related organisations tend to fall in line with America’s position on China.  More-so when it comes to issues around technology and allegations of military and civilian espionage. 

For the global south and specifically in our African context, this issue is probably perceived as a small matter that is geographically far away from us. But the usage of Tik-tok is expanding on the continent.  It may not have as many of the profits for small businesses or influencers as it does in the USA but for sure, Tik-tok is not going away from Africa anytime soon.  It has however not raised any geopolitical or Cold War queries as it has done in the global north.

We would however do well to take note of at least two issues.

The first being that the format of understanding what online free expression should democratically mean is changing. 

For us in Zimbabwe, we are very familiar with the whole idea of ‘national security’ trumping’ freedom of expression’. 

And when the same dictum is used in the USA we also know it can also be used here at home and across our highly opportunistically repressive governments across the continent. More-so because the judgment of the USA Supreme Court will now forever be a point of global legal reference for this sort of censorship and protectionism.

Secondly, as Africans, we need to know that now we may be played one against the other in this new global cyber cold war between the USA and China. Even if it all just appears to be about social media.  It is now also about the right to privacy versus the right to free expression versus a state’s national security interests.  It is almost an ideological question around what comes first and following whose model?   

In this we need to balance the same three issues, free expression, national security and privacy in a much more democratic manner.  Even if we do not control the algorithms and probably never will. 

While this new global cold war over social media platforms is something we can only watch from a distance, it should not change our commitment to specific contextual democratic values that ignore the profit motivation of the techno-feudalists and their governments’ interests. 

We just need to know that in this instance of the American Tik-tok saga, emperors tend to have no clothes. 

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