Re-thinking and
re-debating the Zimbabwean Diaspora.
By Takura Zhangazha.
There are many Zimbabweans that are
no longer resident in the country for many reasons. It is now generally agreed
that it was mainly the political and economic crisis of the late 1990s through
to present day that caused their phenomenal exodus into the Southern African
region, Europe, North America, the Australian subcontinent, North America and
the Middle East . The overall effect of this emigration in Zimbabwe has been
fundamentally the weakening of the state’s popular legitimacy via the process
of its own citizens seeking better lives in foreign countries, particularly
with regards to better employment opportunities, social service provision and the enjoyment of
human rights.
The effect of this emigration on
Zimbabwean domestic society, as documented by international non-governmental
organizations, the media and academics, has been equally phenomenal. And
because it has been almost fifteen years since the massive exodus of
Zimbabweans began, it is necessary for us to place into perspective what the
Diaspora means for those that constitute
it and to those that are still in Zimbabwe.
To begin with, the Diaspora is a
Zimbabwean political, social and
economic reality no matter how many
times the government seeks to deny it the right to vote, dual citizenship or easy access to passport renewals and
applications. Further still, it is an established fact that the Diaspora helped
the country through its worst post independence economic crises via remittances
to relatives and friends at home. Even
the government tried to take advantage of these remittances by setting up
schemes such as the now somewhat forgotten ‘Homelink’ and allowing a thriving parallel money market
in the mid 2000s and onwards.
In this regard, the Zimbabweans
citizens who were and have been in the Diaspora over the last fifteen or so
years were part of the solution to the country’s economic crisis of that time,
even though they may not view it that way. They were also new standard bearers
of societal ambition and living the potentially full or ‘good life’ as it were
due to the fact that it became a common Zimbabwean standard for its young and
middle aged citizens to aspire to leave their country of birth. This equivalent
of the ‘bright-lights’ syndrome affected all of us in the early 2000s and at
some point every young adult Zimbabwean considered the option of following
relatives in other parts of the world.
For others still, other peoples
countries proved too difficult to live
or find work in permanently but they retained opportunities such as cross
border trading and the buying and selling of manufactured products (clothes,
car parts, basic commodities) to the extent that they added a new dimension to
‘Diaspora’ that also now included it being considered a status of being
‘in-between’ countries.
But what primarily concerns this
article is the issue of the more or less ‘permanent’ Diaspora. I call it ‘permanent
‘because most of the colleagues and fellow citizens I have talked to have
stated that they have no particular intention to come back to Zimbabwe on a
permanent basis. They will occasionally come to visit, attend the odd wedding
or funeral, but after all is said and done, will never come back to call
Zimbabwe home in the manner they did before they left. This is because a number have since either acquired permanent
resident status or citizenship in their host countries or are too committed to
trying to get either to rule out the possibility of a permanent and voluntary
return to Zimbabwe.
Taking into account the above cited
issues, the citizens that are still resident in Zimbabwe together with the
government need to seriously begin to look at the bigger picture of how to
re-intergrate the Diaspora into our society.
This would entail understanding our fellow citizens that are resident in
other countries holistically and not just for their ability to be able to cast
a ‘vote’ in favour of one or the other political party. We must begin to
consider the necessity of starting a new ‘big debate’ on this very important
national matter if we are to retain some semblance of loyalty from those that
have left our borders permanently of the new generations of Zimbabweans that
have ties with us, even though they have been born or have grown up abroad.
A few pointers as to how this
debate can be begun is by zeroing in on the policies of our ministries of
Foreign affairs, Home Affairs, Finance and that of Labour and Social Welfare,
not only about dual citizenship, but
also about initiating a formal and broad consultative process about the
concerns of the Diaspora vis-à-vis their country of birth. This includes a
review of the economic investment mechanisms that the previous government had
put in place, the establishment of a retirement/pension plan for the Diaspora
as well as family intergration and responsibility social welfare unit to ensure
that families left behind are not exposed to the vagaries of poverty and
societal abuse. And these consultations must be underpinned by the truth that
Zimbabwe values all of its citizens wherever they are, and is actively seeking
to invite them back. Primarily because, it is indeed their country too.
A broad-based and long term diaspora engagement policy is needed. There's no need to reinvent the wheel as the experiences of older diasporas and their home countries can be looked at and borrowed from. In particular, the Indian, Afro-Caribbean and West African diasporas in the UK are cases in point. In West Africa, leading states such as Ghana and Nigeria have implemented various levels of diaspora engagement policies and have harnessed immense financial,cultural and human capital from their diasporas in return for such confidence building measures as dual citizenship. Liberia and Rwanda have followed suit as well, with major diaspora conferences held in foreign capitals and addressed by those countries' presidents. There's a recognition that spatial distribution of the national population in response to globalisation is inevitable, and as such the concept of nationhood had to move with this phenomenon and redefine itself to be adequate to the reality of modern times. From Europe, we have nations such as the Irish, whose diaspora is said to be much larger than the settled population at home but whose sense of nationhood has not only survived this global scattering but in fact thrived as a result of it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem as i see it in Zimbabwe is to do with the preponderance of a static if not aggressively retrospective nationalism within the dominant political party that defines the diaspora as an existential threat, a constituency to be treated with both condescension and caution. In the context of Zimbabwe's contested politics and national identity, it nigh impossible for there to emerge a new official thinking within the state about the diaspora unless there has been thoroughgoing reform within the old party, enough to make it comfortable with the reality of the nation's new, globally spatial character.
I agree and would hasten to add that I think there might also be need for reform in the 'mew party' as well becasue hey tend to over politicise the Diaspora
ReplyDeleteThanks Takura for your very enlightening article. I seek to expand on what you refer to as the permanent diaspora, as I have encountered many who have the same idea. People cannot help but feel disenfranchised and ostracized from their own society due to the fact that so much vitriol and scorn has been directed towards citizens who, as you rightly indicate, have played their part in propping the nation at such a time when it was in free-fall, all for nothing but political expediency. That certain parties cannot campaign in certain parts of the world is no fault of those who have settled in those places and as such cannot be used as reason to marginalise them. So much negative pronouncements have come out of the political establishment directed at the diaspora populace, one would think it is a criminal act to legally leave the country. This I feel has destroyed that sense of belonging in most of those out there and whilst they retain family connections in the country, they feel much more accepted wherever they are.
ReplyDelete