The ‘quiet’ transformation of Zimbabwean
Society.
The general discourse on the challenges that Zimbabwe has
faced in the last ten years has been given as that which has its root causes in
the political realm. In explanations as to why the country is where it is, and specifically in the aftermath of the advent of the global spread of liberal democratic values, academics and laypersons alike have referred to the root cause of
the general crisis in Zimbabwe as a ‘crisis of governance’. Such a description of the problems the country has faced has also been taken to mean that it is the manner in which Zimbabweans
are governed that has been the source of the current and even previous unpalatable state of affairs in the country.
This would be 'crisis of governance' causal effect has included identifying the ‘democratic
deficit’ of Zimbabwe's political system as the primary reason as to why we no
longer have either social welfare, decent levels of foreign direct investment or even why our own citizens
are leaving the country in droves at every turn and opportunity.
Because in any event, the same said ‘crisis of governance’ still obtains, it is however important to point out that the country has
however not stopped functioning in one way or the other. Whereas the late
Professor Masipula Sithole referred the manner in which Zimbabwe started
functioning after 1997 as an exercise in ‘normalizing the abnormal’, it remains true
that however one may view it, we still have a state that is undergoing seen and
unseen changes.
The ‘seen’ changes (or lack thereof) are those that relate to
what I have referred to earlier as being
determined by the cliche, ‘ a crisis of governance’ which is mainly defined by the lack of
a number of democratic mechanisms such as free and fair elections, separation
of powers, a democratic constitution amongst other matters that relate to
various indices on democracy.
The second and for the purposes of this article, more
important change to Zimbabwean society has however been the 'unseen change' which has tended
to evade or be evaded by political actors. This 'unseen' change is primarily experienced
by the majority poor or ‘underbelly’ of Zimbabwean society and can be described
as the comprising the ‘quiet change’ in the country. It is a change that has to
deal with the new, stark and harsh realities that the everyday citizen has to
face in Zimbabwe, no matter what the political leaders are saying at any given
point in time.
These realities are indicative of the transformation of the state
from being 'benign' to being completely negligent to the livelihoods of the
populace through inorganic planning and outsourcing of social welfare needs to
either international NGOs or corporate (read as South African and Chinese)
capital. The overall impact of such an approach by the state has led to
literally ‘revolutionary’ change in how Zimbabweans survive on a regular basis
as well as how this has negatively affected our social value systems.
More Zimbabweans are now of the firm understanding that even where they had confidence
in the state seeking to assist them out of poverty or humanitarian disasters, it
is an unrealistic collective expectation. This, not because of big ideological battles on
the role of the state but simply on the basis of the nonchalance of political
leaders when it comes to matters that have no bearing on political power as an
end in itself.
This has led to many
citizens pursuing 'survival' tactics in activities that relate but are not limited to the informal economy (cross-border linked trading), farming under the fast track land reform programme (even if their
political party of choice is against it), resorting to crime (including syndicates taking advantage of vulnerable
young women for commercial sex work) , finding solace in religion and
superstition or alternatively simply emigrating from the country and leaving
behind disjointed families and communities. Even where some citizens are employed formally, it is mainly to augment or finance the informal activities that are cited above.
In undertaking these activities the attendant socioeconomic culture is one that is resigned to the ‘each man for himself and God for us
all!’ mantra. This is tragically so even where there should be collective concern over services that are intended to technically ensure basic human equality for all such as health, education,
shelter and access to water.
As a matter of consequence,
the sad thing to note about the above cited realities is that they have
taken on a life of their own. That is to say, the negative state of affairs vis-a-vis the general lack of a social welfarist and responsible state has begun
producing an increasingly societally ‘acceptable’
knowledge and cultural system (increasingly via ICTs) of its own
for younger Zimbabweans who may no longer harbour idealistic notions of
democracy for a society that seems to have neglected them.
It therefore becomes this 'quiet change' that is most definitive of the future of Zimbabwe, after all the slogans have been shouted. It is a change that is easy to ignore given the Manichean character of Zimbabwe's politics but it is the reality that a greater majority of Zimbabweans have to face every day. Where political, civil and religious leaders do
not address the ‘abnormalised normal’ in Zimbabwe’s ‘underbelly’, we have a
real crisis on our hands. And it will not just be one of ‘governance’ but of a
complete collapse of the legitimacy of the Zimbabwean state.
* Takura Zhangazha writes in his personal capacity. takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com.
Well written, just coming from the gulf complex at Market square to buy a wiztech decoder and indeed people are simply taking care of themselves, and a new economy, a city underground, as Tracy Chapman calls it, has arisen and simply moving on its own. As a christian i however object to the "solace in religion' statement, though not denying that many others might be in that bracket. We have taken a conscious and deliberate decision to believe in God. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on where the buck stops in the national scenario you present. Are our leaders to blame, or have we as a people become complacent and disinterested in matters that concern our lives and if so why". I doubt the 20 years or something youngman from whom i bought the wiztech cares a hoot about governance but simply counting the days profit either go ku club or kwaMakandiwa. I shudder to accept this, but Zimbabwe looks very much like any other African state, and maybe we are talking to of An African problem here, or better still an African destiny. Can we expect anything better, where will a new vision come from, by whom, how? I just wonder, really wonder everyday!
ReplyDeleteIn other words is there something fundamentally flawed with Africa's decolonisation revolutionary project, are we still trapped somewhere and simply failing to grow, as the Economist would put stereotypicall, are we a stunted child, needing help always.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments Rashi. Apologies on the reference to religions belief. It is no way meant to demean any religion or religious belief. I agree that the problems you outline are not perculiar to Zimbabwe but to Africa in general. The issue however is that we should 'see them coming' even though they are at a sadly more advanced stage elsewhere in the region and on the continent. What our leaders (in government, business or civil society) have lacked and continue to lack is to undestand the holistic character that should attend to any public interest leadership. Piecemeal and half baked approaches tend to create the sort of indiviudal that you have mentioned as a trader in downtown Harare. For him the state, politics are either an opportunity to merely profit or else he will find money elsewhere, so long he is able to wake up in the morning and cater for his basic as well as somewhat extra needs (ku club). The problem with the decolonisation project is that we misunderstood its historicity, its departure point importance. We sought more to mimick than to understand the motivations of our oppressor and in the process we failed to realise that we were on the precipice of what should have been a people centered making of history given the painful and organic nature of our struggles for independence. We coninute to suffer from the same problem in our policy approaches in running our societies. This is why the Economist measures us against the 'progress' of its hegemonic origin
ReplyDeleteVery well articulated article and a very healthy discussion.
ReplyDeleteMy view is slightly nuanced.
Understandably universal suffrage was seen as the panacea to colonialism. So we aggressively went after "One Man, One Vote". Understandably but in retrospect it was incomplete as a strategy. From Nkrumah's attempts to build Ghana's own power plants to Lumumba's assassination to Kenyatta's woes in trying to build an economy to Nyerere's woes in trying to breathe life into Ujamaa to the terms as set out in the Lancaster House Agreement the constant is ALWAYS that CAPITAL gets its way.
Capital drove the colonial conquest. Capital controlled the colonial governors and Capital controls the 'post-colonial'/'independent' state. Capital controls the judiciary. Capital controls the political process. Capital controls aid and NGOs. Capital controls the economy and whether or not a country can sell bonds to raise money for investment purposes.
The quiet transformation is a very astute observation and very well articulated. It is control of capital that will arrest it and see to a country moving in the direction we would like it to.
One only needs to look at Iceland who said NO to big capital and Greece still caught in the grip of big capital to see what options need considering.
True that Shingi, Capital is indeed ubiquitous. I also agree with your take on the 'one man one vote' in relation to its incompleteness as a strategy. In fact it reminds me of the Nyerere statement in his foreword to a book by Museveni, wherein he states (if I recall correctly), 'the mechanisms of democracy are not the meaning of democracy'. That statement continues to puzzle me to this day (and I read it when I was an undergrad!)In another speech in Canada he also says the following, "Yet leadership today is very much about water, food, jobs, shelter, education,
ReplyDeleteand community. It is about organising our communities, and rallying the peopleto the kinds of action which will increase the supply of these goods and services
to the people - all of the people. The people are not fools. When the rains fail, or El Nino causes the floods, they do not blame their government. What they do demand is that their government brings emergency food supplies, or helps themto rebuild a bridge, or do other things by which they can overcome the disaster.But they will not accept an excuse for inaction by the leaders on the plea that theIMF wants their Government to give first priority to the servicing of theircountry's Foreign Debt."http://www.acu.ac.uk/conferences/Nyerere%20speech
Classic Kambarege!