Africa in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism and Neo-Imperialism

By Takura Zhangazha*

One of my first lectures in graduate school was on how ‘enlightenment era’ Europe imagined and mapped Africa.  And some of the first maps were silent about the interior save for pyramids to the north, elephants on coasts and an unknown ‘darkness’ in the centre.  All accompanied by myths of demons and subhuman creatures as dominating the same centre.  It was a rather awkward lecture on how expanding empires and then emerging mercantile capitalists viewed our continent at that time. The maps were to change with newer details being provided by explorers and missionaries.  A bit more detail about rivers, gorillas, giraffes, lions and the ‘natives’.  

In the contemporary I occasionally wince at what would be the historically familiar language of conquest when global superpowers (empires) talk about taking ‘man’ to Mars by 2023. But as far as we know there are no Martians yet.  If there are I would grimly try and tell them about what’s coming.

A friend also recently gave me a book as a gift. I could not put it down until I finished reading it in about two weeks.  The title of the book is ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.  The Fight for a Human Future at the Frontier of Power.’ In it, the author, Shoshana Zuboff, makes reference to a practice that was at the heart of colonial conquest called the ‘requirimiento’ or the Spanish Monarchial Edict of 1513.  It turns out that upon arriving in a foreign land, Spanish conquerors were required to read this edict to ‘natives’ informing them that they were now vassals of the king.  This is despite the fact that the natives neither understood the language in which the edict was read nor assumed that the visitors had intentions of vanquish. Zuboff calls it ‘conquest by declaration’. 

The colonial reference in the book is in order for us to have an easier understanding of the contemporary fact of ‘surveillance capitalism.  The latter being defined as ‘ a new economic order that claims human experience as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction and sales.’  Or ‘A rogue mutation of capitalism marked by concentrations of wealth, knowledge and power unprecedented in human history’.  All this being done via our increasingly ubiquitous use of the internet and mobile telephony. 

I mention this book because it defines an important epoch in the global political economy via the internet, its elite private company owners (Google, Facebook, Microsoft) who are not just providing services for global connectivity.  In particular its intention to enhance behavioral modification as well as to construct specific certainties to human behavior.  Or an acquisition of ‘total information’ for the purposes of surveillance capitalism which ‘replaces mystery with certainty’. 

Africa does not feature much in the book except where it refers to ‘surveillance as a service’ (SaaS) and how our online or mobile telephony behvaiour (texts, messages, contact lists) helped in making ‘unbanked’ people to qualify for loans.  It turns out most of us Africans have no problem with ‘sharing personal details for much needed (loan) funds’. 

I have quoted at length from the book I got as a gift from a friend because it is highly relevant to how we as Africans think and imagine of ourselves in an increasingly interconnected by the internet (and the behemoth companies that enable access),  global world. 

My primary fear as an African is whether or not our behavior is not being engineered, predicted with certainty in almost a similar fashion as the colonial old.  And I will give an example of whence my fear stems from.  Some five years ago, I attended a Global Cyber Security Conference in the Hague, Netherlands via a sponsored scholarship.  I chose to listen in on a session that included the then chief executive of Microsoft in Europe whose name I cannot recall (though he did mention that had also served in the first Obama administration.)

He had mentioned the Augustinian ‘city state’ with reference to the expansion of the internet in Africa and how his company does not quite view the continent by way of state borders but cities.  Of particular interest for companies such as Microsoft  were the markets of largely populated cities such as Lagos, Cairo, Algiers, Addis Ababa, Kinshasa, Nairobi and Johannesburg.  And how to find ways of introducing the ‘internet of things’ (IoT) to such cities. 

I asked a question during the plenary as to whether the intention for companies such as Microsoft was that ‘we all become the same?’  That is we all become city dwellers with similar behavior from Cape to Cairo.  The response I got was, as expected, diplomatic and evasive. 

With hindsight I now realise that that it is the probable intention of those that mine our personal data on the internet in order not only to know our private data enmasse but to also potentially modify our behavior (especially in the cities) with a increasing degree of predictability and certainty. 

This is however not just Africa’s problem.  It’s an emerging reality in the global north especially after the scandal revealed by whistleblower Chris Wylie on Cambridge Analytica’s role with the United Kingdom’s referendum on the Europeans Union amongst other emerging examples. 

The only difference is that Africa is unchartered and unmonitored territory in relation to privacy and behavioural modification.  Indeed, there were reports of again Cambridge Analytica trying to influence Kenyan, Nigerian and Tunisian elections but continentally we are not sure where we are placed in this now global surveillance capitalism.  What we do know is that social media is an increasingly integral part of how we, particularly young and urban Africans, think, feel and act about our quite literal existential circumstances.   Sometimes genuinely but more often based on the 'emotional contagion' effect anticipated by those that create and control algorithms at Facebook, Apple and Google. 

We will be told of the ‘inevitabilism’ of the internet and its appendant social media applications and how we must embrace the global north’s pre-determined future as Africans.  We don’t control the internet nor its surveillance capitalists.  While our governments occasionally shut it down in times of political trouble, they too are forever beholden to its capitalist intentions. 

Because again and again we , as in the colonial past, are required to listen to the ‘requirimiento’. Without understanding the language let alone the intentions of those that would conquer us.  Happy Africa Day cdes!
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

Zupco Jokes, Economic Class and Hedonistic Individualism in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

They can be a bit of a laugh, if you are on social media, the political-economic goings on in Zimbabwe.  They should not (strictly speaking) be.  But on social media they are and humour/satire is definitely a good thing.  Even if just for personal or collective catharsis.    Especially if it’s all about events that occur in the immediate. Or those that are ephemeral in their recurrence.   The recent fuel price increase (in local RTGS currency) and the announced expansion of the Zimbabwe United Passenger Company (Zupco) bus services for urban rural public transport.    

It was an announcement that sent Zimbabwean social media into apoplectic frenzy. Even the infamous choice of words by vice president Chiwenga at the recent Zimbabwe International Trade Fair  (ZITF) in a speech where he is reported to have said, and I am paraphrasing here, ‘it will work, it will not work’ in one sentence has been invoked to the greater extent be derisive of the announcement.  

And its all fair game.  Laughter, satire and angst are necessary elements for free expression and its cornerstone role in creating a culture of democracy in society.

The same elements also serve as indicators of what could be symptoms of what is ailing a society.   In our case and in light of the liberalization of fuel prices and expansion of ZUPCO services, the actual ailment is the political economy, class and hedonistic individualism in the country.

I will start with the political economy that Mnangagwa’s government is trying to construct.  While there may be varying labels given to it, it is clearly a pro-business, pro-(global) free market ideological framework of political economy.  Hence the clear prioritization of ‘organised’ private capital.  I mention ‘organised capital ’ largely because that is what this government is hoping it will satisfy with its latest monetary policy maneuvers. And true to form, in the media reports that have followed the changes to the fuel interbank exchange rate, private and relatively big/organized capital is not complaining. 

Nor are bus owners that are contributing to the Zupco fleet.  I am not sure about the owners of the smaller and less organized private kombis but it would be safe to surmise that they are probably not happy.  But government is not too concerned about the latter because they are not quite ‘organised capital’ .  In fact they are viewed with political suspicion as to their motives during industrial actions such as stay-aways and demonstrations. 

In turning to issue of class and class consciousness (if any), the evident increase in the use of the cheaper Zupco buses by the public is evidence of a pressing social and economic need.  That is affordable public transport by the urban formal and informal worker.  Never mind the discomfort or the inability of Zupco to meet the overwhelming public demand, the response is reflective of that least talked about component of our society, economic class differentiation and expectation. For the poorer working class high density suburb residents it is a question of dealing with what is affordable at a given moment.  They may not be a in a position to question the sustainability of the Zupco project but will most certainly put two and two together to realise its utilitarian value. For now.  Never mind the opinion of those that have cars or can afford other modes of urban transportation.

Speaking of private cars as current modes of urban transportation also helps us to arrive at the third aspect of our societal ailment which is what Zizek refers to as ‘hedonistic individualism’.  Or to put it more plainly, a narcissistic form of individualism that does not take into account any forms of a public interest collective.  

Or as some synonyms to hedonism help make it more clearer, ‘self-gratification; lack of self restraint, immoderation, overindulgence, overconsumption, excess, extravagance.’ 

In this individual anger which has a collective dimension to it only by way of quantitative measurement makes us long for lifestyles that do not reflect our economic and political realities.  Both individually and collectively.  What then becomes an issue is how to avoid having to be the one that gets on a Zupco or a kombi in the first place.  Because that would be a sure sign of ‘poverty’ in the eyes of many.  And not just material poverty but lifestyle poverty which in turn leads to assumptions of being individually unsuccessful in life. 

The irony of it all  is that the Mnangagwa government is not too much concerned with the public service role of the expanded Zupco bus services or talking the bad effects of its neoliberal economic policy framework.  Instead they anticipate resistance in one form or the other and all their actions are mitigatory measures intended to serve organized capital while keeping the masses at bay.  And even more striking is their very class oriented approach to the political economy by tacitly seeking to bring ‘order’ by reinstating social class to goods and services.  For example the rise in fuel costs means that depending on your income you will eventually opt for public transport- a development that a good number of young urban Zimbabweans may find to be a sign of individual failure. 

We can still laugh our tear ducts dry about Zupco and compare a bus ride to the price of an egg.  It is indeed very funny.  But it is in the final analysis an indicator of the fact that we are fast losing out on the value of the public in public services.  Not that the government intends to restore public services as a public good in the best public interest. Far from it. The intention is to reduce the influence of private urban transport's influence on demonstrations or stay aways.    But that we cannot bring ourselves to value public goods and services that are for the many and not the few is our primary public challenge. 

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

ED’s New Establishment Project: An Attempt at Elitist Permanence.

By Takura Zhangazha*

When President Mnangagwa made overtures for ‘national dialogue’ to his political rivals in the 2018 harmonized elections, it was understandably viewed as some sort of political grandstanding.  Not least because the mainstream MDC-Alliance opposition, has not participated in the same while holding out for its own terms to be accepted. Even though of late it has been making overtures of reconsidering its overall position as reported in the mainstream media.  

   

The opposition political leaders that have been part of the national dialogue have now agreed, in tandem with Mnangagwa, that their outfit is to be called the Political Actors Dialogue (POLAD) whose programmatic intentions are to be publicly launched on 17 May 2019, according to media reports. 

Mnangagwa however has not stopped there.  He has also decided to get some special advisors through what he has called a Presidential Advisory Council  (PAC).  This is comprised of what have been referred to as prominent and successful Zimbabweans largely drawn from the private sector to advise and assist the president ‘in formulating key economic policies and strategies that advance Vision 2030.’  The latter being one that sees Zimbabwe being a ‘middle income’ country/economy by the same year. 

Beyond PAC and POLAD, Mnangagwa has also engaged big players in private capital (not just its associations) on not just price increases but also by actively encouraging and promoting private-public partnerships in line with his neo-liberal economic policy dubbed ‘ease of doing business’.

While the media has remained slightly elusive, government has also sought to engage it from a business interest angle to ensure that while a few editors and journalists of mainstream media platforms may not support him, the media owners are in step with the intentions of government.  Not only by way of a broad pro-business economic policy but also the caveat of opportunities for media ownership expansion into either radio, television, digital and print media subsidiaries. 

I have cited these four distinct categories of political parties (POLAD), PAC, private capital and the media because Mnangagwa’s engagement of all of them points to one hidden but probably anticipated creation of what can be called an ‘establishment’ (and not a new dispensation).  That is, a set of permanent political actors that will symbiotically work together to maintain their preferred status quo that benefits them mutually.

I also first learnt of this term from the excellent book by British journalist and activist, Owen Jones, titled, ‘The Establishment and How They Get Away with It’.  For Jones the establishment is comprised of powerful groups that need to protect their position and manage democracy to ensure it does not threaten their interests.  In doing this they are guided largely by the ideological precepts of neoliberal capitalism. 

While Mnangagwa’s intentions at establishment are not so nuanced, it is apparent that it would be one that is founded on the key ideological common ground of neoliberalism, i.e the ease of doing business while assuaging international expectations at the observation of human rights. 

The general unsaid objective is to give each of these players a place at the table of the state.  Not just in way of electorally determined government, but more how to be recognised as having a right to be seated at the table.  The point is however not to upset the apple cart.  Or quite literally overturn or smash the dinner plates through an understanding of a shared neoliberal functional framework and specific rules thereto under the aegis of the ‘ease of doing business’. 

Some might argue that I am seeing conspiracy theories here.  The truth of the matter is that this is a basic reading between the lines of political events as they unfold.  And yes, there is a new emerging political/economic establishment in Zimbabwe.  It has Mnangagwa’s ruling Zanu Pf (and the security services) as the power broker, opposition political party leaders as appeasable ceremonial players, private capital/business owners as beneficiaries of a ‘market motivated’ political benevolence and the media as purveyors of the establishment’s interests to the public. 

The intention is to create not just a new hegemony (dominant political, economic and cultural system) but also an ideologically permanent one.  That is, they intend to create a political system in which all other options are off the table except for neoliberalism, an ideological system that requires elite cohesion (inclusive of opposition political parties, all of which, you guessed right, are neoliberal, even if they don’t know it). 

The key question that should be answered is, ‘Will it work?’  It probably will not and by default. But what is certain is that Mnangagwa is definitively going to go all out and try through using largely the carrot and occasionally the stick method. That is why even more than ever, there is an urgent need for an alternative ideological trajectory in Zimbabwe.  For now that alternative  is non-dogmatic,  contextual democratic socialism.

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

Zim Workers Day 2019: Re-Linking the Idea of State with Working People

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s biggest labour federation the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) has given the theme for  the 2019  Workers Day commemorations as ‘We are at a Crossroads! Unite, Fight  Neo-liberalism and Austerity.’

This is a radical theme to say the least.  It is also directly ideological in that it immediately challenges the free market economic reform policy trajectory of Mnangagwa’s government.  Even if by assertion of intent. 

While we wait to hear in their May Day and after addresses what the leaders of ZCTU will outline as an alternative, it is however an important departure point.

Not that there has been no previous outline of alternatives from labour or human rights civil society.  There are a couple that come to mind.  These are for example the 1999 resolutions of the  ‘National Working People’s Convention’ which apart from tasking ZCTU to form a working peoples party, also outlined social democratic values as the panacea to resolving the country’s economic challenges.  There is also the Zimbabwe People’s Charter which distinctly sought to give a holistic and ideological outline of how the country should be governed on the basis of democratic more leftist ideological values.

These are but a few examples and there are others, though these may have been less political-economic in outlook.  Or would have confirmed neo-liberalism and austerity in the same way as is being pursued by the current government.  Or with a specific focus on seeking a change of personalities/implementers of the same free market ideological template in order to suit the interests of global financialised capital.  Or follow post-cold war assumptions of an ‘end of history’ and falsely believe that capitalism as being beyond defeat by the working class and poor.

But this is not to say that capitalism as represented in the contemporary by globalized neoliberalism is down on its knees in anticipation of annihilation.   On the contrary, it is sometimes when it appears at its weakest that it turns around and reinvents itself. The global financial crises of 2008 being a case in point.  Either with false populism or with the direct use of force (in a majority of cases- ditto the re-emergence of political roles for the military via coups-no-coups).  Even if theoretically we would still be wont to argue in Marxian terms that it remains confronted by its own contradictions. 

So when the ZCTU boldly asks the people of Zimbabwe to unite against austerity, it is not a simple matter.  It is a serious indictment on the broad economic policies being undertaken by the government. 

As however is often the riposte from our social and mainstream media commentariat, there will be and already are derisive comments about how Zimbabwe no longer has a ’working class’ let alone the industry to sustain it.  These would be fair comments only if we did not know the ideological context from which they were coming from.  Those that would argue as such are in most cases active sympathizers of free market economic policies and would prefer in most cases a return to the past of either a minority run economy  or the disastrous years of economic structural adjustment (ESAP). The latter in our contemporary case being what we can now safely refer to as 'ESAP 2.0' thanks to government's commitment to austerity.

This is probably what they would rather prefer instead of learning from the past and re-imagining working peoples centered national political economy.

And for the purposes of clarity, it is important for us to understand what it means to be a worker in Zimbabwe, the socio-economic (hegemonic) challenges that workers are faced with, and how to strive continuously to overcome these same said obstacles.

To begin with the first, being a worker in Zimbabwe is to be part of what ZCTU has already described as the ‘working peoples of Zimbabwe'. And this relates largely to class- namely a working class that now includes not just the formally employed and unionized worker, civil servants’ associations/unions, but also the peasant farmer, the farm worker and those that are regarded to be in informal trade as ‘vendors’.  

But in defining workers as broadly as outlined above, it is also significant to understand that at each turn the free market and its advocates in the form of state actors and private capital have also been working hard to weaken the ability of working people to organize themselves either in the form of strong unions and associations.  Or at least for working people to be able to believe in the importance and utility of collective action and above all collective solidarity. 

This is where the second point in relation to the socio-economic challenges faced by the working people of Zimbabwe is significant.  In this, increasingly high levels of individualism and a diminishing understanding of the common public good beyond one’s own pocket has meant acts and understanding of solidarity have not only become infrequent but are also expected only to be undertaken by private capital. And only in the most extreme of cases such as natural or man-made disasters.

This is also despite what should be the political-economic reality that it is the primary responsibility of the state to look after its citizens.  

And this immediately points to another socio-economic challenge faced by workers. That of being essentially left on their own.  Where the state is supposed to be the guarantor and provider of social services, again, it has outsourced this to the private sector and shows no sign of changing tact. This is at the heart of neoliberalism and austerity. An intention to almost do away with the state save for in pretense at regular elections/ democracy and retaining control of state violence/force (security services).  All the while leaving workers salaries to be determined by the ‘market’ together with prices of other basic commodities that are essential but unaffordable to workers’ livelihoods. 

The final consideration is how to ensure that this new call to challenge austerity and neoliberalism by ZCTU is not lost to populism.  An immediate strategy would be for the working people of Zimbabwe to define the alternative as clearly and in as apeople centered a way as possible.  Not in a dogmatic way where we insist in an ideologically puritanist framework but a contextual one that takes into account historical workers struggle events , documents/declarations but also steers clear of the abstract rationalizing of poverty that comes with neoliberalism.  

And these new frameworks as informed by history and the present, need to reach out to young workers and Zimbabweans to understand the democratic value of having a people-centered state that gives everyone a fair, equitable chance and start in life. Despite their parents or other forms of inherited wealth. All with a firm understanding that in the final analysis we are all equal in the state and before the state. A state that should be founded as it was at national independence on social democracy at minimal ideological correctness and at best organic democratic-socialist national consciousness. All of which were betrayed by a revolution that, as Andre Astrow wrote, lost its way. 

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

Zimbabwe @39: A Return to the Source and a Liberatory State.

By Takura Zhangazha*

The number of years since our national independence may increase but its historic meaning is never lost.  And that is as it should be.  No matter one’s political or religious views, our national independence, coming as it did after years of revolutionary struggle is definitive, liberatory and organic to our national consciousness. 

That the person who became the first Prime Minister of the republic, Robert Mugabe,  was violently ousted by the still ruling Zanu Pf party does not make independence any less significant.  It never belonged to him nor to his party.  Independence will always belong to the people of Zimbabwe in their diversity and in their progressive political consciousness. 

And the people have been through a lot.  From Gukurahundi, through to Economic Structural Adjustment (ESAP), repression of opposition politics, a populist fast track land reform programme (FTLRP)  and a sanitized military coup, Zimbabweans remain exemplary on the African continent.  Specifically in relation to their ability to still try and etch out an organic path to economic and political freedom.  All the while retaining a peculiar consciousness of history and our generic struggles against repression.  From the periods of colonialism, through to the attempts at a one party state and further attempts at suppressing a workers movement led opposition. 

In the 39 years we have been somewhat free of settler colonialism we have almost seen it all.  Our national responses to the calamities that have befallen us could have led to worse situations but they did not.  We did not go to war.  We did not ask for liberal intervention from a benevolent but rapaciously predatory West.  Indeed we lost lives needlessly under Zanu Pf’s rule and watch for political reasons.  We also lost livelihoods at the behest of the neoliberal direction of the same ruling Zanu Pf party.

In some instances we have been referred to as ‘resilient’ for expedient, comparative and convenient journalistic purposes.   What is more reflective of our reality is that we suffer but we continue.  Not necessarily on a revolutionary path but taking all lessons learnt to heart.  By default we are no longer as organically political but we seek new ways to better our existence.  Most times with great impatience and less with an understanding of posterity as a political function and value.  And regrettably sometimes we seek more political saviours than we seek pragmatism in dealing with our contemporary  challenges.

What is probably required is the Cabralist concept of a ‘return to thesource’ of national consciousness in relation to our independence.  Not in a dogmatic manner but more to understand what those that came before us, those that waged liberation struggles in one form or the other intended for our country to become.  And how to link the same with contemporary developments not only in Southern Africa but also the African continent and eventually the world.

This essentially entails that we reflect more ideologically on our current national state of affairs outside of the populist personality hue that was bequeathed us by Robert Mugabe and his ruling party.

So, for example, we should query the role of the state in relation to its ability and capacity to deliver social welfare of its citizens regardless of class, race or ethnicity.   This entails a review of how the state engages global (colonial) capital in order to better the lives of the people.  The current template being used by the Zanu Pf government is a negation of the anticipated liberatory role of the state mainly because it seeks to make the state subservient to global (colonial) capital and the global (colonial) free market. 

Moreover we should work toward a state that guarantees equality not just on the basis of civil rights, but economic ones.  And these economic rights are not just the rights to jobs and a narcissist individual culture of consumption.  Instead these should be economic rights to access health, water, transport, education and general social welfare support. 

Even more importantly is the perpetual question of ‘generational praxis.’ It is one that cannot be solved via ‘schools of ideology’ or religious political proclamations.  We need to ensure that we pass on the knowledge of struggle to younger generations not as dictat but as an organic understanding of our history.  In this, we need to understand that dogma no longer works.  Young Zimbabweans want solutions that they not only understand but consider directly relevant to their personal and collective experiences.  So passing on struggle knowledge is not a lesson in history, it is a lesson in the past, present and future. A lesson that ensures that despite the conformity that is sought by social media, we do not lose ourselves in a global community that largely still ‘others’ Africans.

Indeed it has been 39 years of national independence. The passage of time and occurrence of negative events does not however take away from the significance of national liberation.  Warts and all.  Again, we suffer, but we continue. Consciously.

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

Zimbabwe’s Version of Disaster Capitalism, Couched as Resilience

By Takura Zhangazha

A local Zimbabwean artist, Dereck Mpofu, recently released a song called ‘Mweya wechiZimba’.  Even though the title of the song may suggest it to be religious, it is upon listening to it, far from being so. 

Instead it is a satirical song that applauds with humour how Zimbabweans are now almost able to survive any calamity that befalls them.  Or where you hear of someone who, for example, has ‘farmed in the desert’ he/she is likely to be Zimbabwean, jokingly sings Mpofu.

Apart from laughing with sad trepidation at the lyrics (and also appreciating the instrumentation), the song also made me think a little bit on how sometimes we occasionally refer to ourselves (Zimbabweans) as resilient.  Or again as referred to by Mpofu, ‘survivors’. 

And this, with the hindsight of how those still around to tell any tale, may be somewhat true.  Only in an allegorical/ symbolic sort of way.  Because it is only those that actually survive an ongoing economic catastrophe, a cholera outbreak, a natural disaster such as a cyclone that live to tell tales of survival. 

Of late the term 'resilience' has started popping up in government or non-state actors public statements.  This is especially with regards the national political economy.  The official government economic policy of ‘austerity’, which is actually neo-liberalism, has been accompanied by propagandist statements such as 'no pain no gain'.  And a call for Zimbabweans to suffer a little bit more in order to get to a neo-liberal and elitist 'promised land.' 

The state and private capital have joined hands in a way that has created a dominant political and economic elite who intend on determining public perception as to what can be deemed progress.  Hence at every turn, government has courted the private sector to assist it with the fundamentals of dealing with either natural (cyclone Idai) or man-made (cholera outbreaks) disasters.  

And given the urgency of these disaster situations, we may generally overlook the significance of this strengthening relationship between those who have political power and those who have money/private capital. 

There has already been a consortium of private companies (including, you guessed it, Econet Zimbabwe) that are leading a reconstruction programme for Chimanimani and Chipinge as announced via full colour double page adverts in the local print media. 

On the face of it, the intention may be noble but it would be very correct for us to analyse the structure and impact of such private sector led investments at such a large scale.

All with the immediate permission of the state/government.

And to do so we must always undertake a comparative analysis of other disasters as they have occurred in different countries.  Where books on the same are available we must read and again learn to comprehend what exactly to make of an amorous relationship between the state and private capital.

For this, I turn to Naomi Klein’s seminal work on the Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.  In this book Klein gives numerous examples of the devious hand of private capital in collusion with neo-liberal states/ governments to profit from natural or man made disasters.  From Haiti, New Orleans, through to Iraq, Klein outlines the exchanges of tenders, money and the immediate forcible removals of peoples from disaster areas to make way for new forms of enforced gentrification and privatization of state capital. 

To quote her at relative length from an article that appeared in the Guardian UK newspaper in mid 2017, titled ‘ How Power Profits from Disaster’ she writes, ‘After a crisis, private contractors move in and suck up funding for work done badly, if at all. Then those billions get cut from government budgets.  Like Grenfell Tower, Hurricane Katrina reveled a disdain for the poor.’

This is potentially what appears to be emerging in the aftermath of the devastating after effects of Cyclone Idai.  The corporate scramble for recognition for having donated goods and services to the disaster areas does not occur out of intuitive charity as it did with individual Zimbabweans.  Corporates always have vested interests.  And this is what we should query.

Our queries must however be established on our preferred form of direct and accountable assistance to the victims of a national disaster.  With three clear principles.  Firstly that the state must take an independent and people centered lead in providing post disaster reconstruction and assistance.  This, in order to ward of direct profit motives by private corporations that may seek to win state supply and procurement tenders or alternatively gentrify/privatize Chimanimani and other directly affected areas. 

Secondly, corporations and their aid must be subject to independent and direct scrutiny with key accountability and transparency measures put in place to track not only the donations but also the potential for crony aid in return for state favors.

Thirdly and finally, we must come to terms with the reality that neo-liberal approaches to addressing disaster situations may give the impression of solving the immediate problems but may in the final analysis, cause the further disempowerment of ordinary people in favour of corporate/private capital.  While we may be caught up in the tragic and emotional conundrum of the natural disaster that has been Cyclone Idai, and even as we applaud immediate interventions of various stakeholders, we must keep an eye open for our own newer version of what quite literally would be individuals/corporates/state seeking to profit from a natural disaster. Or as Klein calls it, ‘Disaster Capitalism’.

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

Robert Mugabe’s True Legacy: A Nasty, Materialist and Populist Individualism.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There have been a number of books written on Robert Mugabe in his many leadership roles.  As a leader of a guerrilla movement/army, as a prime minister, as a president and even from a western perspective as a complicated/sophisticated dapper dictator.  And make no mistake, many more will be written about him.  As an ousted or disgraced long ruling repressive leader and also as a belatedly glorified Pan Africanist. 

And it is the assumptions of future published perspectives on Mugabe’s long rule that are of interest. What I am however concerned with is the lived realities of Mugabe’s legacy.  And by legacy here I am not inferring something to be celebrated but more something to be understood.

In the aftermath of the coup that toppled him, Mugabe has largely been holed up in his Borrowdale mansion and giving the impression of a bitter self-righteousness.  He emerged publicly at least twice.  The first time to endorse the mainstream opposition presidential candidate in a long drawn statement and questions and answer session with the press. The second time to vote for the latter in Highfields, Harare. 

I am sure he has had other interviews and publicized conversations with visiting leaders from African countries.  Or his wife as his spokesperson has occasionally put out the same.  Together with his still many apologists and runners either in remnants of the G40 faction he spawned or on social media and in the mainstream opposition. 

Beyond the immediacy of his ouster from power, we are however reeling from the effects of his leadership of the state.  And there is little that is positive that can be objectively discerned from it or assumed to be as a result of his own individual leadership effort.

Having ridden on the noble but painful cause and struggle that was the liberation struggle, Mugabe managed in his at least 37 years in power, to undermine the values and principles that the liberation struggle was motivated by.  

While conveniently embracing socialism as his then ruling party’s ideological foundation, he was to actively undermine it in practice.  Foregoing the democratic values of socialism, he went on to attempt a violent clampdown on his then main opposition rivals in the form of Joshua Nkomo’s Pf Zapu under the pretext of preventing a civil war in the southern parts of the country.  An attempt that has come to be infamously called ‘Gukurahundi’. 

After co-opting the same opposition, Mugabe was to try to establish a ‘one party state’ which was eventually rejected via the activism of his former colleagues in the struggle but also due to the fact that it was no longer popular in Southern Africa after Nyerere had abandoned the same in Tanzania. 

What was to prove colossal in his intentions at retaining power with global western power endorsement, was his economic about turn to embrace neoliberalism/ capitalism as advised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.   

Where he had previously had some sort of obligation to collective and people centered economics he abandoned this to begin his worship at the altar of free market economics.  Contrary to the values of the liberation struggle.  And this was the beginning of the unraveling of our national consciousness as had been established by the liberation struggle.  It quite literally became about Mugabe and his hold on power while serving the interests of global capital. 

It was labour that was to try and rein in Mugabe’s neoliberalism by first of all recalling the values of the liberation struggle and using the same to challenge an elitist political economy.   The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) and its allies in the students and womens' movements as well as human rights focused civil society organisations went on to establish what was then referred to as a working people’s party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). 

Mugabe in populist turn decided to by embark on what we officially know to be the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP. All in a vainglorious and individualist attempt at retaining the loyalty of war veterans and the peasantry.  While at the same time echoing long abandoned principles and values that had motivated the liberation struggle. 

It worked, albeit briefly.  Mugabe’s neoliberal economy could not sustain the FTLRP and it expectedly reeled under not only sanctions but also the fact that its populism was never going to make it revolutionary. 

That it happened and has been said by Mnangagwa’s government to be irreversible does not make it any less violent or populist in serving Mugabe’s intention at retaining power.

Even by the time he was forced by SADC to form an inclusive government with the opposition, Mugabe’s particular version of individualism in politics would not allow him to even consider his own succession.  In his own party nor for posterity. 

And where we fast forward to his ouster from power, his particular streak of individual political stubbornness eventually led him to be hoist by his own petard. He quite literally fell on his own sword. Even if he didn’t see it coming.

It is a combination of Mugabe’s inability to see into the future or beyond himself and his deliberate abandonment of liberation struggle socialist democratic values as accompanied by neoliberal/free market economics that led Zimbabwe to its current parlous state. 

The end effect of this on our own society has been catastrophic.  Not only just in relation to our one time critical national consciousness as informed by the liberation struggle but also to our own individual perceptions of what should be a progressive society.

Mugabe’s long rule has the unenviable legacy of having created a highly individualized, materialistic and populist society.  One that perceives progress by the day and rarely considers collective posterity.  And with a default admiration of neoliberalism and ideological austerity.  Mugabe, via his ruling party Zanu Pf have taken us into the trap of ‘millennial capitalism’ where a combination of free market economics, superstition (religion), gambling and individualism have stymied the collective national consciousness.

There are many ways to regain a critical collective national consciousness.  The first step to doing so is to identify what caused its demise.  Historically and in the contemporary, that begins at identifying Mugabe’s real legacy and role in getting us to where we are as a country. Where we are saddled with a nasty/violent, materialist and populist individualism.

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