Zimbabwe New TV Licenses: Profit, Media and Incrementalism.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) recently licensed six (6) new free to air national commercial television stations.  This is a first since our national independence in 1980 that this has been done at this magnitude and in this age of the internet.  It had previously been conservatively done in the mid-1990s with the brief outsourcing of a second channel from the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) to private players such as Joy TV and Munhumutapa Broadcasting Corporation .

The full scale licensing of private television stations for national broadcasting on their own designated frequencies is however as unprecedented as it has in some instances been viewed by key media stakeholders as controversial.  Not only based on real and perceived inconsistencies within the enabling Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) or its attendant licensing regulations which do not emphasize the necessity of diversity in private media ownership. Especially as it applies to cross/multi-media ownership frameworks where some newly licensed companies own media across the print, radio and television spectrum.  And examples of this type of media ownership are best exemplified by Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp multi-media empire.  Or even on social media with companies such as for example Facebook that already owns a number of popular content and information platforms.

It is almost like a throwback media licensing regime framework in Zimbabwe wherein the  major players in the print media as registered by the Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC) became the licensees of the of the commercial radio licenses.

What is however interesting to take note of, in the case Zimbabwe's new TV licenses, is that they are emblematic of at least two things.

Firstly, the licensing process itself has been couched in the official policy of the government on the ‘ease of doing business’.  While it may be considered a coincidence since the Information and Media Panel of Inquiry (IMPI)  report strongly recommended that government considers the ‘media as a business’, this suits the ‘media for profit’ trajectory of not only the current government but also media owners.  While the viability of the new TV broadcasters is yet to be seen, it is fairly apparent that the assumption is that they will compete on Zimbabwe’s relatively small media market primarily for eyeballs that rake in the money. (Please do not ask why Nigeria either always won the most on Big Brother Africa or why its still the only African country to run its own domestic version of the same).    Media diversity or a multiplicity of ethical journalistic content and diverse views is not high on the list of priorities. 

The second element is that of a relatively incremental approach taken by government and accepted by some media stakeholders to media reforms.  And largely based more on a quantitative approach than one that looks for the quality of free expression and media freedom as a democratic imperative in Zimbabwe.  This was the case with the quantitative expansion of national and local commercial radio stations.  It will be the case with the  new television stations though at greater expense to their owners. It however would no longer be easy to argue that Zimbabwe has a state  broadcasting monopoly. And the government would be in a position to counter such an argument with not only quantitative examples of what now obtains in the country but also citing media reform models of countries from the global north.    What then  becomes significant is that media stakeholders have to ‘deal the hand that they have been dealt’ by the state.  Not by way of imposition but also by way of not having been alwys clear about the parameters of reform that they required.  In this case of the new television stations, the medium becomes its own message and eventually Zimbabweans will get used to them.  Just like they did with the radio stations. 

Barring major policy changes on the part of government these newly licensed television stations are now part of our fixed long term media reality.  No matter any controversies raised about the licensing process. Colleagues in the content creation sectors of the arts will probably view them as an opportunity to breakaway from ZBC’s stringent and monopolistic contractual conditions.  Political parties may see some of them as new platforms to spread their messages to wider audiences beyond ZBC.  Journalists/media professionals will look at these developments as new employment opportunities for their profession (as they did with the radio stations).  While non- governmental organizations will seek to spread their public interest issues via these same said new platforms. Or sports associations leagues will relish income from selling TV rights. 

In this a hegemonic reality is then created in which these television stations become part of a ‘new normal’ in our broadcasting sector.  And for sure, even if one were to argue that these new TV stations cannot compete with social media, it is certain that they will also attempt to occupy the same spaces.  But with the unique advantage of being permitted by the state to broadcast as nationally as they can on designated easier for Zimbabweans to access frequencies. And on that one time status symbol called the television set. 

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

Zim’s November 2017: National Shock, Catharsis, Populism

 Conversations around the military takeover of the country in November 2017 now revolve around, at least according to a majority of pro-opposition opinion leaders, defining popular support for it as ‘a mistake’. 

On social media some memes have gone relatively viral about how the 18 November 2017 march as enabled by the military and calling for Robert Mugabe’s ouster was “National Dzungu Day”. Translated into English this would be “National Confusion Day”.  All because of subsequent disappointment at the Emerson Mnangagwa successor regime. Mainly in relation to the fact that it won the subsequent 2018 elections in their occurrence as well as the fact that a constitutional court challenge of the results ruled in its favour. 

With hindsight, what was fairly evident is that November 2017 was rather dramatic for many Zimbabweans.  Almost like a soap opera and its typical character plots. That is, an ageing oligarch with a young(ish) ambitious wife and her hangers one and the austere, sly uncle biding his time to take over the family business. 

And very few people can claim to have seen this coming.  Not by a long shot.  

I remember that I was in Johannesburg the week of 14 November 2017 attending a Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum conference on, wait for it,  “Possible Scenarios as Zimbabwe Heads for the 2018 Elections”.  The night before my presentation, I met up with a friend based in the Diaspora to discuss issues back home. And he shared videos form his social media feed of soldiers driving into town and raised his own suspicions as to what was going on in Harare.  I refused to believe his immediate conspiracy that there was a coup de tat underway in Zimbabwe.  

It turned out the following morning that he was correct.  He shared the video of now Foreign Affairs Minister S B Moyo early morning statement announcing that then President Mugabe and his family were safe. Adding that the military had moved in to protect their commander in chief from ‘criminals’ surrounding him.

The conference I was attending changed tone and in a media report by South African newspaper the Sowetan, I highlighted the following, “The crisis around leadership and succession did not emerge in the villages‚ not in the townships. It comes from within the ZANU-PF politburo‚ the ZANU-PF central committee and in part in the first family and its involvement in ZANU-PF’s succession policies.” And I flew back that evening to a heavily guarded Robert Mugabe International Airport.

The subsequent events that followed such as the war veterans organized rally at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfields, the attempted march on state house, a visitation by a South African delegation to Mugabe and his infamous ‘Asante Sana’ statement were as eerie as they were unpredictable. By the time his resignation letter was read by the Speaker of Parliament to a joint sitting of both houses of the same, the process of national shock and fear had morphed into a national cathartic moment. 

Where we fast forward from 2017 to the contemporary, it is now apparent that with most moments of catharsis the aftermath sees an occupation with either regret at having been ‘overjoyed’ or high expectations of what that moment should have come to mean.

In this, and for emphasis, it worth recalling a couple of key issues about Zanu Pf’s leadership transition in November 2017. 

One of these being the fact that the ruling party and establishment (including the military and private capital) strategically decided to turn the general lack of popular support for Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace to its own populist advantage.  At great risk to the country’s political stability.  I am quite certain that they asked themselves the question who would not want to see the back of Mugabe?  And critically knew that the answer from a majority of SADC heads of states/government would be an affirmation of a desire to see the ‘old man’ retire.  Or that the mainstream opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai would accept Mugabe’s departure with relative enthusiasm at what he would have considered a new opportunity at the presidency.  And of course the broader ‘international community’ which viewed Mugabe as too much of a symbol of Pan African resistance to the intentions of globalization and global private capital. 

The populist elements of the events of November 2017 therefore eventually worked to confirm the lack of popularity of Mugabe across multiple societal and global interests.

What is however also interesting in the contemporary is our continued desire for some sort of catharsis.  Or our apparent search for a seismic event that would hopefully and once again, change everything.   That was the case with the 2018 harmonized elections which the ruling establishment decided to go ahead with.  And all events that have occurred in between then and now around SADC, African Union or United Nations summits. 

In recalling the tumultuous events of November 2017 we would do well to remember that the ruling Zanu Pf put our country at great political risk with what it allowed to occur or refused to see coming.  That it eventually got away with it via reverse populism and an awkward shared desire by many to see the back of Mugabe is something we will have to live with.  And for historians to eventually give us multiple versions of the details that led to it.  What we should collectively agree on with hindsight and in the present is that if we improve our politics, this will never happen again. And should have never happened.

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

Under Currents of Mediated Celebrity Urban Culture in Zimbabwe

By Takura Zhangazha*

I am sure there are sociologists, social anthropologists, social psychologists and cultural studies experts that are examining emerging urban cultures in Zimbabwe in great detail.  I am only writing on it in relation to its immediate occurrence and mediation.

I am focusing mainly on the urban because it is historically the most rapid in shifting its character and popular appreciation. Mainly due to population density, easier communication and the general view that ‘urban life’ represents arrival at what would be considered ‘individual success’ by many Zimbabweans.  Including those based in the rural areas. 

But in the construction of this emerging popular urban culture there are what I consider ‘structured causes for it.  And these are four-fold.  Namely, historical materialism/consumption culture associated with (post) colonial cities such as for example Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, Mutare.  Secondly, the challenge of cultural mimicry of other global cities that are presented to us in the global south as the definition of ‘normality’.  Thirdly, the evident defeat of local/contextual cultures to fit into the narrative of urban life. Fourthly, the advent of the mediation of social media and its algorithmic fortification of specific cultural tendencies that suit the aforementioned three key points.

I will expand on each point below.

In the first instance there is need to understand that contemporary urban cities and their attendant cultures are as complex as they are historical.  The set up of what we in popular parlance refer to as the ‘ghetto’ and our claims to authenticity as to having come from it are effectively colonial carry overs.  And our evident desire to depart from it as exemplified in popular music that is now referred to as ‘dancehall’, ‘urban grooves’ or ‘hip hop’ points to narratives of a desire for arrival in its exact opposite, the colonial ‘leafy suburb’.  In this, we suffer the vicissitudes of a capitalist/neo-liberal political economy that informs the functioning of the city and its class based work culture.  From housing through to access to water, electricity, education, health services and transport, the city annotates that access is for those that have the individual wealth as opposed to those that live in it.  This also included nascent African businessmen who while genuinely improving the well-being of their immediate neighborhoods never hid their ambition to mimic white private wealth as represented and culturally practiced in the suburbs. And as soon as independence allowed it, they took to it like ducks to water.

The end effect becomes the age old Marxian one of base and superstructure in creating cultural habits that give character to the above cited consumerism in popular culture. Inclusive of the fact that historically products such as beautification soaps, lotions and clothes, in their differentiation intentions, were first promoted culturally (musicians, churches, drama) in order for them to capture African hearts and minds. I am quite certain a number of us would remember Shimmer Chinodya’s famous line of how some of these would produce ‘Fanta faces and Coca-Cola legs’. 

This materialist ring to our popular urban culture has not gone away.  Hence sometimes with our contemporary musicians, artists and their cultural products we sometimes are not sure if they are promoting certain products or are genuinely doing their art.  Or how cross over marketing of cultural content to promote commodities also comes in tandem with promoting materialist lifestyles. As of colonial old. And as promoted by mainstream print and electronic media.

In the second instance, our popular urban cultures have come to mimic those of bigger and more recognized ‘global’ cities.  All of them, whether you pick New York, London, Kingston, Paris or one-time apartheid Johannesburg have essentially similar histories and backgrounds.  Either on the basis of racial discrimination or even in the contemporary, the maintenance of that same history’s legacy ghettos.  And in all of these cities, popular cultural productions tend to emanate from the downtrodden but captured by private and elite interests to reinvent poverty as something that if one individually can sing, draw, sculpture, trade or beautify themselves out of, then they will be deemed individually successful. And this is something also affecting ‘local entrepreneurs who once successful transfer their wealth to the ‘leafy’ suburbs.  And also become feted representatives of the same said downtrodden in the hope that there is a wealth trickledown effect.  Ditto most successful artists, entrepreneurs  are wont to remind all and sundry that they are from a ‘ghetto’.  But the same said ‘ghetto’ never really changes despite their individual successes. Its just basic popular culture as captured and commodified by an elite.

In the third instance, there is the worrying departure of local urban culture from local cultural origin contexts.  That is, a desire for recognition globally or beyond borders that limits the protection of the intellectual property of local cultural products.  So when an artists lauds his/her recognition in London as a major achievement, it points to the fact that local recognition is either individually despised or is of limited contribution to their individual success.  Whereas and on the contrary, if you try and use a song or content from an artist in the Global North, social media and other platforms will immediately call you out for plagiarism. 

Which brings me to my final point on the role that social media is playing in fortifying a new urban popular culture. All in relation to the above cited three major issues around the same. Namely, materialism/hedonism as informed by a neoliberal political economy framework, our cultural mimicry of others and in the third instance a loss of local content and context in a desire for global recognition. Social media, access to the internet and as still endorsed by mainstream media, has expanded these traits of our urban popular culture. 

Hence we sometimes cry more than the bereaved on behalf of celebrities that we only knew via social media and via a materialist urban political culture. And we claim them as our own while waiting for new social media stars to emerge and remind us that they left the ghetto. And tell us, in mediated algorithms that if we are like them, we may do so too. 

If we rethink the city, democratize it further and expand our own understanding of urban popular culture in order to give it greater value and meaning within our own contexts we probably would not be where we are at the moment.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Globally Entrenched Narratives In and About Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

I remember being interviewed by a journalist for a global media house some time ago during the November 2017 “coup-not- a coup” in Zimbabwe.  In the pre-recorded interview it appeared he preferred an editorial slant that would respond to the general popular view and ‘relief’ that the long duree president, Robert Mugabe had finally been removed from power.  And how of course as with news journalism the public mood as seen via army mediated demonstrations in the capital Harare should be reflected in analyzing events as they occurred.

Given the fact that he considered me an analyst, I went out of my way to break down what I considered the complexities of events.  These included my own perspective that the November events were primarily a direct result of the ruling Zanu PF’s party lack of an internally acceptable succession plan. As opposed to any popular uprising. And that where he considered the military factor as decisive he would probably need to view the latter within the context of divisions among war veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle and not in a typical ‘army simply takes over’ perspective.  Inclusive of the fact that SADC as the primary regional oversight body on Zimbabwe was likely to be a bit more nuanced in its approach to the events depending on how they panned out. 

My perspective on the matter did not make the final cut of the story that eventually appeared on the news channel.  I did not follow up with the journalist colleague as to why this was the case.  But I understood the probable reasons.  My views did not probably suit three criteria. Firstly, the editorial position of the global media house. And secondly the target audience (especially in the global north) of the story and their own pre-conceived understanding of the prism through which political events in Zimbabwe must be understood. That is, a basket case of a country. And the very real possibility that the journalist if he failed to file a story that suited the editorial slant of the media house, he was probably not going to get paid.

The same is possibly true for local state media controlled narratives. Though I must confess to not being interviewed by them in a long while on any major events in Zimbabwe.  But judging from their own content, again there is a predisposition toward pushing specific editorial lines that are sympathetic to the ruling establishment or alternatively seeking out audiences with empathy for the same. 

In the three years after November 2017 these narratives has again shifted due to a number of factors.  While the global media and its target audiences sought a Zimbabwean success story made in their own image, the leaders of what is now referred to as the second republic presumably failed to meet these standards. Especially after the 2018 general elections and every subsequent major international meeting where Zimbabwe came under some sort of global scrutiny.  The ruling establishment has however been trying its damned hardest to still fit into this entrenched narrative that it is still in the short term, least likely to win.  Not only via its embrace of global neoliberalism but also by way of insisting on ‘re-engaging’ those that would sooner see the back of it.

On the other hand, the mainstream opposition has sought to also harness the same said global narratives because these are backed by powerful countries in the global west.  While also claiming greater proximity to the leaders of these same said global powerhouses and the singular ability to ‘unlock’ immeasurable wealth.

In either of the aforementioned cases, what becomes clear is that the entrenched narratives about what Zimbabwe is or can be are not necessarily about the people of Zimbabwe.  By default they will reflect sentiments that are to be found on the ground in relation to popular or populist opinion but in the final analysis, it would appear that the approval of them will be found elsewhere.

This is an existential dilemma for Zimbabwe. There can be more serious conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan or an escalation of Covid 19 cases in western Europe but Zimbabwe will always hog a news headline or two.  This does not just stem from journalism but more significantly from entrenched narratives.  Even when the neo-liberal IMF projects economic growth in our country, this is less significant and not in merit of follow up stories and analysis in the immediate. 

We are a country that is assumed to basically always be on the brink of catastrophe. Globally.  And in some cases internally as a result of the former.  Unless there is a globally anticipated and accepted narrative of change as viewed and accepted by others. 

In all of this, we lose track of values, principles and in some cases, facts about our own country. Instead we seek more what we want to hear and from whom we want to hear it than what we should pragmatically know and come to understand. 

What should occur is that we own our own Zimbabwean narratives more. And that we come to understand issues, events in the fullness of our own national contexts and our general placement in global politics. Were we do not own our narratives others will gladly step in and casually decide, in ephemeral moments, what suits their own interests.

I will end on an ambiguous anecdotal note. In an interview with a journalist the late Tanzanian leader and Pan-African luminary Julius Nyerere was asked about the African proverb  ‘When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers” He laughed and said that he had once used that same proverb with the late Singaporean founding leader Lee Kuan Yew who retorted, “ When elephants make love, the grass also suffers, no?”. Nyerere also laughed at the counter narrative.  But the African proverb has never changed.

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

Re-Inventing Zimbabwe Public Libraries for a Post Covid-19 Conscious Future.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

A struggle cde recently reminded me, via social media, of the importance of libraries. He had tagged me in his own reflections on the importance of Walter Rodney’s epic book “ How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.”  And I remembered how I first encountered the same said book via initially the Waterfalls and eventually the Dzivaresekwa District Council library as an emerging teenager straight out of boarding  high school.  With a specific curiosity that queried why anyone would write a book with that title when a decent number of my relatives and friends were lauding the same said ‘Europe’ as the promised land.

More so in the context of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and the partial re-opening of education classes for primary and secondary school examination classes in Zimbabwe.  Or even higher up in the education food chain, the partial re-opening of universities and technical colleges. 

In this reminder one gets slightly overwhelmed with a little bit of nostalgia.  This would be mainly as a result of the fact that in growing up in urban Zimbabwe, the library, was a place of knowledge acquisition and socializing during school holidays.  It quite ably, at that time, competed with the television or radio station because it was a permanent fixture and not reliant on electricity or your parents' black and white  occasionally functional television set. Or in contemporary times, your Wi-Fi internet receptor.  Or if the radio, as hogged by elder relatives, had enough battery power or was broadcasting educational content (also referred to as edutainment) gave you time to learn about the world around you.

So the library was a physically safe educational and social space.  You could quite literally go and grind out your Ordinary Level Mathematics there. (I know a number of cdes that eventually came to hate the library because of failing their exams after spending months if not years there.)

Or read some non-syllabus literature while keeping a lookout or writing a letter for a teenage love interest from high school. 

In the process and incidentally you would wander past bookshelves of various literatures and other subject matters that would draw your attention in many different ways. 

Because education in Zimbabwe has been/was always portrayed as sacrosanct and the only way out of black poverty, we tended to take it all very seriously.  Except that the library would always offer a couple of aberrations to the official education ‘pass or lose’ syllabus.  It was a place and space for discovering and learning new things by way of reading that which you were not taught at formal school or at church Sunday school.

Nostalgia aside, key questions that are now emerging around the role of libraries in our education system are multi-fold.  The first and most urgent one being that well, there are not really that many books that are still available to libraries in the contemporary.  This is as a direct result of the closure of publishing houses and the end effect of us having less diversity in published written/printed knowledge. 

And I could list the publishing houses/companies  that have either shut down or have taken on a strict profit motivated ‘educational syllabus’ approach to their print bottom lines.  The Zimbabwe Publishing House (ZPH) is barely functional. College Press and Longman are now focused largely on syllabus publishing. While Weaver Press still holds a candle for creative writing and publishing, it is without a doubt struggling. 

Add to this the proliferation of the ephemerality of knowledge acquisition via the internet/ social media, the 'book' is slowly being phased out of our education system and historical social anthropology in Zimbabwe.  That is to say, the book, as an emblem of knowledge acquisition and enlightenment is now being replaced by the mobile phone, laptop or depending on your class, the shared desktop computer. 

What emerges as a result of this is regrettably a probable false-materialist consciousness among young Zimbabweans.  We move from one thing to the next as it emerges via #hashtags or temporary and highly sexualized Instagram/WhatsApp/Facebook photos of our black bodies. As accepted and allowed via specifically controlled algorithms by the owners of these latter platforms.

But it is not a train smash if it can be balanced somehow in the era of Covid 19. 

The library in both urban and rural settings is key to online and offline knowledge acquisition for young Zimbabweans in the contemporary despite Covid19.  Policy makers at both national and local government level have an obligation to review the nature of the library infrastructure that already exists and how to enhance it to contribute to socially distanced learning and knowledge acquisition in these Covid19 pandemic times.

Not only in the short term but more importantly for the long term.  While schools have places they call libraries on their premises, we know that the long term library is to be found in the lived urban and rural communities where every child has access to knowledge that depending on the class character of their school they would not have been able to acquire. Especially in-between school holidays or Covid-19 motivated breaks or disruptions to education calendars.  

So the public library remains not only important but fundamental to the progressive future of our Zimbabwean society as a safe, conscious and physical space for young Zimbabweans. 

To conclude, I am personally aware that the fact or even specter of death via pandemics in the contemporary always looms large in the minds of young Zimbabweans. 

The experience of the passing of my father in 1991 made the library a sanctuary of new possibilities and new ideas. Albeit in a different time context.  And I learnt to understand the fortitude of my mother via reading and understanding lived African post-colonial experiences about materially recognized success and failure of an adult single/widowed mother.

What I do know and came to realise, while playing basketball for the Dzvivareskwa Raiders is that even though books and libraries do not come to fully define us. They help us to understand ourselves better. Even at young ages.  That would be why, the library in Zimbabwe needs to be reinvented as relevant and important to our national consciousness. For posterity and not just our own nostalgia. Let the young cdes read at will. For free.

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

 

Populist Contradictions in Zimbabwe’s Political Opposition.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s mainstream political opposition in its current divided formations, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance or MDC-Tsvangirai is evidently in crisis.  The MDC-Alliance which brought other opposition parties, including its own splinter groups, together for the 2018 general/harmonized elections has found itself in a split that has sought to distinguish the original MDC-Tsvangirai from the then electoral alliance. 

Based on a Supreme Court judgment that gave the then first vice president, Thokozani Khupe of the MDC- Tsvangirai (before the Alliance was formed) control of the party, there have now been recalls of opposition members of Parliament and also elected local government councilors.  It has not ended there.  There have also been battles for the control of the headquarters of the opposition in Harare. A development that means either this will not end well or will not end soon. 

It is an interesting if not tragic conundrum.  One which has had the characteristics of not only being personal but also populist. 

The personal has been mainly found in the leaders of these opposition factions taking potshots at each other’s integrity or intentions.  As well as their partisan supporters taking to social media and occasionally to their Harvest House headquarters to claim some sort of ownership of being the ‘authentic’ opposition leadership. Or argue on behalf of those that they deem best placed to lead a now very disunited opposition. 

I am however more interested in the populist dimensions of the state of the opposition and the attendant contradictions thereto.  I also use the term populist because to all intents and purposes that is the current approach of the  leadership of the opposition to what it considers its democratic change mandate.  It is a populism that has at least three main elements. 

The first being that it is Manichean.  It really does not matter who you are as long as you are against the ruling Zanu Pf party.  That is the tie that sort of binds.  Hence the formation of the MDC-Alliance while strategic forgot that the members of the same were only bound together by the same said Manichean view of Zimbabwean politics.   Attention to ideological detail was not high on the list of priorities as it was assumed that was already taken care of by supportive domestic or international ‘think-tanks’ in one form or the other. 

The second being that in either case of the MDC-Alliance or the MDC-T, there is the leveraging of the charisma of the founding leader, Morgan Tsvangirai. From arguments about his chosen successors through to quite literally claiming him for legitimacy (even though a majority of the current leaders were at loggerheads with him.) But even if they were to push it to its populist ends, it eventually wears off.  These leaders will need to stand on their own, even if they claim to be standing on Tsvangirai’s shoulders.

The third is that it’s a populism that seeks recognition from the global west.  A development that is understandable given the general Zimbabwean mindset of admiration of everything that occurs in the global north.  Opposition and also ruling Zanu Pf party leaders appear to need to be popularly recognized by Zimbabweans as being close to leaders of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or the European Union. As opposed to taking more time to understand the Southern African Development Community (SADC) or the African Union’s (AU) historical and liberation struggle based international relations dynamics.  In their regional, continental and global elements.  This may be understandable given the legacies of colonialism as well as our overt admiration of those global north societies and neoliberal consumerism, but it unfortunately is not enough to cross Rubicons.

A frequent question however, and I am sure it will be asked in social media threads to this blog, is “What would you do better?” And it is an easy one to answer if I was an opposition political party leader.  In at least four parts.

With number one being that I would be ideologically clear.  No ambiguities.  To the extent of for example, not lauding current American President Trump’s xenophobic nationalism and neoliberalism.  Or Chinese President Xi Jinping’s version of state capitalism.  And always remembering Amilcar Cabral’s words at the first Tri-Continental continent in Havana, Cuba in 1966 where he advised delegates of the ‘the struggle against our own weaknesses.’

And also, “that however great the similarity between our various cases and however identical our enemies, national liberation and social revolution are not exportable commodities; they are, and increasingly so every day, the outcome of local and national elaboration, more or less influenced by external factors (be they favorable or unfavorable) but essentially determined and formed by the historical reality of each people, and carried to success by the overcoming or correct solution of the internal contradictions between the various categories characterising this reality.”

Secondly, it would be important to understand that it is internal political processes that give meaning to external ones.  No matter how unpopular or against the trends they may be.  Intra-party democracy matters as much as national democratic practice.  Even in the most populist of moments.

Thirdly, it remains important that we lead for posterity. Not just ourselves and our moment in the sun.  We must always lead for the future. While the past and present remain important, they are more relevant to an envisioned future if leadership is designed to perpetuate long-duree equality in our society.

Finally, in all of the aforementioned three points, it is important to have ‘praxis’.  To combine both ideological theory and practice. That is to create progressive counter-hegemonic frameworks that last beyond the moment.  All with an understanding of other existent hegemonies and how best to try and navigate a path toward the peoples’ progress going forward.

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

Zimbabwe at the United Nations General Assembly @75: Doing a Houdini on Permanent Interests.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The United Nations 75^th General Assembly (UNGA75) has come to an end.  Held in what is an historical first virtual/online setup, it didn’t have the glamour, glitz or chutzpah of old. As a direct result of the Covid 19 global pandemic.

 No heads of delegations could walk out on each other speeches, though the discomfort of the Chinese ambassador to the UN when the USA president, Donald Trump, spoke was apparent for all to virtually see.  

But despite that slight drama, it was clear that a majority of the members of the UNGA75 support a multilateral approach to resolving global problems going forward. Inclusive of ensuring that whatever vaccines and new approaches are found for dealing with the Covid 19 pandemic should be within the reach of all human beings and not just those that are developed countries or the very real 1%.

From a Zimbabwean perspective there was a key political moment in our current placement in the world. This despite the fact that despite a previous accusation by a US government National Security Advisor that our country was part of a group of “foreign adversaries” over and about the Black Lives Matter protests that escalated in June 2020, our country was not mentioned in Trump's UNGA75 address.  This meant that in this particular instance we were not viewed in the same interventionist manner as Venezuela or Bolivia.  Or alternatively, we would at least at the presidential level escape any direct or immediate wrath of American foreign policy aggression. 

Of course this does not mean that we are in any way better off than the two aforementioned South American countries.  Instead, and this is a key point, we sort of temporarily escaped, being designated further pariah status. For now.

So the happiest minister in Zimbabwe’s cabinet is obviously Sibusiso Moyo our current minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I have deliberately mentioned the full ministerial title due to the fact that Mnangagwa’s government is a neoliberal one that panders to the dictates of global private capital in it's foreign relations. 

And it’s all a little bit contradictory.  While the Trump government is calling us out on human rights violations, it is simultaneously and as reported in the mainstream media asking our national army to help with stabilizing Cabo Delgado in Mozambique.  Even though SADC appears to be fully appraised of the matter given the recent resolutions of the SADC summit held virtually via Mozambique in August 2020. Or while the Chinese are involved in massive infrastructural developments (coal mining, the airport and the national Parliament building.) Or the Russians investing in an already unprecedented singular  investment in platinum mining.

What all of this potentially indicates is a Machiavellian understanding of international relations by Mnangagwa’s team.  Almost akin to the adage given to international relations studies students about how there are ‘no permanent friends but just permanent interests.’

Understanding the evident hostilities of the American government to the current one in Zimbabwe with the latter government touting a neoliberal and even populist Pan Africanism is not an easy task.  All this while Mnangagwa is at the same time managing what are evidently frosty relations with economic regional hegemon South Africa, via its ruling African National Congress (ANC) party is as academically interesting as it would be curious.

This also means that if one were to crosscheck with any counter-hegemonic intentions on Zimbabwe, there would be a key question as to the meaning and import of the recent UNGA75 meeting. What we know for a fact is that at least four presidents called for the lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe.  Including the current chairperson of the African Union, Ramaphosa of  South Africa. And the president of another regional hegemon,Kenyatta of Kenya. I may have missed it but Cuba, Venezueala, China and Russia did not mention us. An important point that points back to 'permanent interests'. 

But all of this with a common denominator being the fact that Zimbabwe needs to return to the global neoliberal economic mode which had been disrupted by former president, Robert Mugabe.

While Mnangagwa’s official speech to the UNGA75 was in no way motivational about any new world order, it was designed to show some sort of ‘strongman’ leadership in that neoliberal ideological direction. On behalf of global private capital and in his preferred words/ways, the 'ease of doing business.'

This also means, if we read between the lines, that there is an emerging pro-global capital consensus on Zimbabwe.  Which is that if it ticks a number of boxes, despite a vociferous mainstream but     splintered political opposition, it can be tolerated in the global political-economy scheme of things.  Or as far as the country’s ruling establishment is concerned, it can be directly assisted. Ditto John Deere tractors being presented as part of a newer agricultural revolution despite United States economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.

So for Zimbabwe and those with an interest in it, there is no rule of thumb ‘carrot or stick’ method to what happens next in terms of our international relations. And this is regrettably true for assumptions of how the international community will react to issues of human rights abuses in the contemporary.   And our ruling establishment knows this.  They are probably trading off permanent interests and not looking for permanent friendships.  Even if it potentially means creating new private capital oligarchies.  So long they have the approval of those powers that have the same said permanent interests in the country.

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