By Takura Zhangazha*
We have stopped talking about ‘class’ in Zimbabwe. Yet ironically our national and very real
political contestations have generally been motivated by the ‘politics of the
belly’ and/or the state of the
economy. Instead our conversations have revolved
around governance and patriotic history in their polar opposite dimensions.
The results of which have yielded not only an
inclusive government and an incremental constitution but also a very
neo-liberal (free market) economic framework.
The latter, never mind the ‘nationalism’ of the ruling establishment, remains
our default modus operandi. And its its results are self evident with the
primary one being the individualization of our society, the withdrawal of the
sate form looking after the basic needs of its people and a political economy
that coughs when global capital sneezes.
We also have pundits that with relative ease support this
framework, save for in the dimension of governance. Not least because discussing ‘class’
relations in Zimbabwe is frowned upon as trying to take the country back to
socialism (where it never was). In this, there is the envy of other countries economic liberalism than there is greater reflection on our own
economic (and political) contextual needs and aspirations. In short, we like
the bigger picture scenario more than we want to discuss the underbelly (warts
and all) of our national political economy.
We want the immediate and not the long term. So we hop from one immediate issue to the
next and leave behind us a trail of disempowered and disillusioned citizens who
wait for the next big hassle.
Where we decide to unpack our national underbelly we will
find that we should be talking about class, classes and their attendant consciousness. Within themselves and in their perception of
not only governance but national being. And contrary to general perceptions or
intentions to underplay their existence we do have classes in Zimbabwe.
The most dominant being the comprador bourgeoisie. These are
those that are closely linked to the state/ruling establishment and feed off it
for tenders, contracts and commercial favours. It is a largely corrupt and self
serving stratum that relies on the use of state sanctioned violence and
cosmetic/inorganic democratic processes to stay at the top. It neither produces
goods and services nor does it function in consideration of other classes save
for its own preservation. It espouses
nationalism in order to give itself a veneer of popular legitimacy while auctioning
off state assets to the highest bidder.
Immediately following this we have the comprador middle
class. It is comprised of those that work largely for
the ruling establishment and its offshoot companies or private businesses that
continually curry the state’s favour. It is also very atomized/individualistic
and keen on consumerism/materialism. It
is not a harbinger of new ideas and innovation because its reliance on the
patronage of the comprador bourgeoisie limits its capacity to think beyond its
belly. It plays the mediation role of demonstrating
to lower classes what their aspirations should be, so long they follow the
rules. In rare cases, where its interests
are threatened, it will team up with private businesses/ capital to demonstrate
its anger at the way the state is being run only to return to its seat once its
needs are met.
The third strata, in Zimbabwe’s case, is that of the urban
based working people. Here we cannot refer to a working class
because the outright Marxian term no longer applies. This class is comprised of civil servants (including
teachers), NGO workers, informal traders, the few but still formally employed
by private business and our tertiary
level students. It is the most active in
the economy, moving from one end to the other in order to make ends meet. It is also highly religious, not easily moved to outright political action
and is pliant in the face of state sanctioned violence. It has no singular characteristic and is
constantly in flux.
It can take up
political causes in so far as they further its livelihood objectives and do not
hurt what it generally perceives to be the primary unit of society i.e family. In this regard, it will unionise, form
associations and if need be utilize temporary
mass action to further its interests or to resist sudden changes to the
political and economic system.
Fourthly there is the perennially most important strata of Zimbabwean
society, namely the peasants or communal farmer. While worn down by age and
migration, this class for now remains the game changing one in our society. Largely by way of numbers but also in
relation to conservatism and susceptibility to violence (of any nature). It is
also the causus belli/ reason of many
causes be they nationalism, fast track land reform programmes or democratic change
(Mai Ezra from Dotito, anyone?) It is the harbinger of incremental change and
conservatism. It is malleable to what
the urban says, only if its preservation is guaranteed. It however is, in the age of state capitalism
(bio-agriculture, rapid urbanization, mining concessions) as led by the comprador bourgeoisie, a dying
class in Zimbabwe.
The final stratum which cannot be ignored by way of our own
contextual historical process, is the intelligentsia. These are the thought
leaders who represent various ideologies and purposefully act to make thei
ideas the most prominent. In our country’s
case, our intellectuals are sadly less ideological because they tend to behave
as though the proposition by American thinker, Francis Fukuyama is final. That is why they nonchalantly believe that we have reached the end of history in
relation to ideological contestation. And
accept neo-liberalism as the panacea to Zimbabwe’s ills.
There are a few (and getting fewer) that believe in being organic
intellectuals, not only in the Gramscian or Cabral sense, but also in relation
to our particular Zimbabwean context. If you ask me, thats where you will find me.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment