Mugabe’s Bitter Election Eve Presser: Spiting his Former Party and the Country

By Takura Zhangazha*

Former Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe decided to create what is referred to as a ‘cliffhanger’ moment’ for the elections that are due tomorrow.  He did so by holding a press conference on the eve of Zimbabwe’s 2018 ‘harmonised’ election.  In the press conference he held, he indicated that he was ousted against his will.  The former first lady, Grace Mugabe’s voice could be heard in the background asking him to sit up and confirming his pension amounts (US$467 000).  And that he resigned in the interests of the people of Zimbabwe.  He also said that we must return to ‘constitutionalism’ while making reference to the liberation struggle. 

He also made it clear that he is not going to vote for what he referred to as his ‘tormentors’, an evident reference to those that toppled him from power. His choice appears to be set on any of the other remaining twenty-two candidates.  While making reference to the Nelson Chamisa as being ‘on the rise’ and how he wishes him well if he wins. 

Mugabe is obviously a bitter man.  Bitter against his own former party and his long standing comrades in the liberation struggle who abandoned him.  And again emphasizing the liberation dictum that it should be politics directing the gun and not the reverse.  With the caveat of bluntly stating that the 'military intervention’ of November 2017 was a ‘thorough coup-de-tat’. 

He then asked whether tomorrows election is about bringing democracy or whether it is about the return of the same rule that the country had experienced since November 2017.  And added that he will congratulate whichever party wins the day and that Zimbabweans should accept the electoral verdict especially if voting day brings ‘good news’.  Together with Zimbabweans getting their freedom back.

All of the contents of his press conference were meant to be dramatic.  In fact they were meant to say vote for anyone else but his successor Emerson Mnangagwa.  Especially after he mentioned that he preferred Sydney Sekeramayi as his successor and was going to announce his own resignation at an extraordinary Zanu Pf Congress that had been slated for December 2017. 

There are many ways to views this extraordinary political development.  Obviously as orchestrated by Mugabe’s wife and henchmen Jonathan Moyo, Patrick Zhuwao and Saviour Kasukuwere it was intended to be some sort of ‘shock therapy’ politics.  Wherein the Zimbabwean populace would forget Mugabe’s undemocratic long rule of 37 years and swing the vote in favour or the opposition.  Almost any opposition so long they have their key political asset (Mugabe) to bargain with and regain a proximity to political power. 

Those that he would want to fight against (Mnangagwa and co), in power as they are, allowed the press conference because they know Mugabe is unpopular and a public appearance where he condemns their intervention (or his ouster)  will add to their political capital on election day. 

What is clearer is that Mugabe (and probably his wife) wanted to be a factor in the 2018 election.  By way of influencing the ordinary rural voter’s perception and the urban voter's ambivalence.  And also tacitly endorsing MDC Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa’s candidature (Mugabe is not voting for Mujuru or Khupe and definitely not Mnangagwa as he inferred in his presser).

They may have some impact but I think its too little too late on their part.  Even though their knowledge of how Zanu Pf works will work against Mnangagwa’s vote count.  And that remnants of their supporters will try and upset the ‘new dispensation’ apple cart. 

But it is apparent that Mugabe does not have the country at heart.  He is not only bitter but also suffering from political amnesia and trying to do a Pontius Pilate on the country. It has always been about him and him alone. And there's the rub.  His failure as a leader brought him to where he is.  That he has problems with his one time right hand man is none of our business. That he collapsed the economy, embraced neo-liberalism and led a government that has been accused of torturing and killing thousands of Zimbabweans for his own political survival is what we remember.  So on the basis of democratic value and principle, Mugabe’s opinion is exactly that. Just an opinion.  And whoever he publicly backs has the obligation to denounce him. Completely.

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

Class, Poverty and Perception in Zimbabwe 2018 Election

By Takura Zhangazha*

This is my last blog post prior to Zimbabwe’s 2018 ‘harmonised’ election.  Over the last at least three (3) months, I have tried to share what I perceive to be its popular meaning, structural import and where possible, its more hidden hegemonic impact.  As a wannabee ‘public intellectual’ I confess to feeling I have played my fairer part.  Not just by way of my weekly blogs but also by way of global public television interviews and suiting up for public meetings /workshops  (mainly in Harare) as and when asked to do so by progressive and democratic organisations. 

On occasion I have extended and shared my personal views via social media posts (Twitter and Facebook mainly) on the ambiguities of Zimbabwe’s 2018 elections after the ‘coup not a coup’ November 2017 ouster of Robert Mugabe. 

For the fact that I could do so, I thank colleagues in local pro-democracy Zimbabwean civil society and other continental bloggers networsk such as AfricaBlogging and international new thinking global forums like for example re:publica2018 (Germany). 

My gratitude also extends to local Zimbabwean newspapers that at the whim of someone or the other in their editorial teams would use my blogspot’s content as and when they felt they could.  No questions asked on my part (and I guess on many bloggers’ part).  Just the idea of your thoughts/writings appearing in any newspaper appears to be enough compensation.  With or without your permission vis-a-vis intellectual property rights as a public interest good.

But back to the elections for a national president, three (3) members of parliament and local government councilors. 

A number of things have happened right on the proverbial eve of them.  The ruling Zanu Pf party has hit a materialist campaign trail that has left in its wake shell-shocked citizens at to where it found all its campaign financing in  the relatively short period between the ‘coup not a coup’ events of November 2017. 

The opposition in turn, after supporting and legitimating the November 2017 removal of Mugabe events, has thrown down the gauntlet and claimed that the elections and election management process via the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) is tilted in favour of a ruling party victory. This, despite the self proclaimed greater popularity of the recently founded (and probably reinvented) MDC Alliance and its highly confident of electoral victory national leadership. 

In the hullabaloo of political campaign rallies and social media distributed images of the same to prove popularity and support, biased media coverage, borderline religious fervor on behalf of any presidential or other ‘harmonised’ candidate, there are other key issues to reflect on.

The first one being that this 2018 election has been about class.  Those in positions of relative privilege have come to determine the political agenda.  Either side of the political divide. And we need not to go into detail about how leaders of all the main political parties are also apart of what is referred to in Marxian terms as a comprador bourgeoisie.  They have gone a step further o demonstrate their class allegiances by way of proposing across the board,  neoliberal economic manifestos.  And making the priority target audience of their electoral campaigns, global capital and its attendant 'international community'.

This approach has meant that their on the ground election campaigns have run on high levels of populism and crass materialism.  And in most cases been structured around creating impressions/perceptions of progress than addressing real issues and in reality.  Hence the massive media campaigns of the ruling party and the religion nuanced one of the main opposition candidate.

In the process the election becomes about perception and how to manage it.  for both the observers and political party supporters, sympathisers.  In essence the election (in and of itself)  becomes no more than a legitimating event for those that are sympathetic and supported by global capital and its international political enablers. In other words, the economic agenda has already been set and its a question of who gets to run with it.

So the urban working class and rural peasantry are made to perceive of this as progress.  By way of materialism and managing perception.  As well as limiting the national consciousness by mixing up religion and political discourse.  And also by way of a long standing binary political contestation between what was the then Zanu Pf under Mugabe and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) under Tsvangirai.

And this works largely because of the endemic poverty that has been visited on a majority of urban working class people and rural peasants due to not only bad political governance but more importantly the embracing of neoliberalism by both Zanu PF and the MDC (when it was in the inclusive government and after).

This combination of class (dominance), poverty and perception has meant that the 2018 elections is less about the Zimbabwean people but the interests of the dominant political/economic elite and the capital that supports them.  It is not intended to be a revolutionary act (though such language will be regularly deployed to woo voters) It is in reality meant to be the legitimation and augmentation of the neo-liberal agenda. Whoever wins. For many a Zimbabwean this for now may not matter. Or they may not know.  But after the event, it not only shall matter but it shall be experienced.  And then perhaps the national consciousness will see beyond the ruse.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com) 

When Mnangagwa Met Zimbabweans Who are White: Race and Zimbabwe 2018 Elections

By Takura Zhangazha*

It began with Zimbabwe’s deputy President Chiwenga holding two surprising campaign meetings.  One with what was called the ‘Indian’ community.  Another with what was referred to as the ‘Coloured community’.  The current Zanu Pf leader and president of the country, Emerson Mnagangwa,  then also recently  held what was dubbed an ‘interface meeting’ with Zimbabweans who are white.   

All three meetings are historically unprecedented.  Not only for their campaign tone but also because historically the ruling Zanu Pf party is not publicly known to embrace ‘race’ as a positive aspect of its electoral campaigns.  In fact it has persistently sought to treat Zimbabwean minority races as either the enemy or as electorally unimportant.

More specifically it has treated white Zimbabweans as an historical enemy. This as informed not only by the liberation struggle but also assumptions of the latter’s role in the formation and funding of the mainstream (original) Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).  This accusation and perception was however not levelled at either the Indian or coloured communities.

So to see Mnangagwa  openly addressing a campaign ‘rally’ with a majority of white attendees was surprising.  And I am certain for many a Zanu Pf supporter, shocking to say the least.  The latter are probably used to slogans that denigrate and threaten violence against white Zimbabweans.  And also a violence that was meted out against white commercial farmers during Zanu Pf’s Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP). 

The intended effect of such race themed campaign meetings, at least according to ruling party functionaries, is to demonstrate the genuine intentions of the ‘new dispensation’ as led by Mnangagwa.  Also to be seen as a his own version of Mugabe’s ‘reconciliation’ speech during the national independence ceremony in 1980.  But its all fair enough, if the racial communities choose to attend such meetings and if Zanu Pf in its electoral campaign mode courts them in such ways.  There should be no quarrels with that. 

What is important is to analyse these developments in furtherance of democratic values as opposed to electoral opportunism. 

To begin with, race is always going to be a factor in Zimbabwean politics.  Largely as a result of the legacy of settler colonialism and the liberation struggle.  A legacy which is not just about the colour of one’s skin but also the post independence political economy apparatus that continued to sustain such legacies.  From rural and urban plans through to privilege and inherited wealth that continued to leave nasty aftertastes of racialized and politicized privilege in post independent Zimbabwe. 

This meant that whenever it could (and still can), the ruling Zanu Pf party would still play the race card to mobilise national sentiment and in a greater number of cases justify acts of exclusion and politically motivated violence against opposition MDC supporters.  A virulent narrative and strategy that has been with us since at least 2000 after the first constitutional referendum that the ruling party lost before launching its FTLRP.

The gesture by Mnangagwa and his party should therefore be viewed with a necessary historically informed cynicism.  Even if it appears to be a good electoral gesture of moving the country forward to some sort of better racial tolerance and recognition. 

What it does do, in political reality, is it gives Mnangagwa an aura of inclusivity that his predecessor Mugabe probably never had. It also however places him in a fix with regard to his own political party’s internal political culture of racial exclusion and racialized expectations of what would be ‘revolutionary leadership’.  That is to say, racial inclusion and Zanu Pf radical nationalism have never been comfortable bedfellows.  

Furthermore, the aura (both perceived and real) of white privilege remains eched in the psyche of many a Zimbabwean.  Hence even the term ‘murungu wangu’ (my white person)  attributed to a black person of privilege or a boss. Or the (black) admiration and pursuit  of living ‘white’ lifestyles in what are described as urban  ‘leafy suburbs’ or expansive farms in rural Zimbabwe.

Where electoral candidates such as Mnangagwa seek to court white, Indian or ‘mixed race’ communities for political support, it is both political and historical in its import.  And it is always reflected upon politically by those that perceive themselves to be the majority. Especially  by way of race and struggle.  What is required is a better template that speaks beyond elections to build a much more democratic culture of tolerance, recognition and organic acceptance of equality.   Beyond race, ethnocentrism and gender.

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

Individualism, Relapse and the Zimbabwe 2018 Elections.

By Takura Zhangazha*

I am aware that I have used an awkward word (relapse) for this particular blog.  But there were three significant events that brought a deeper reflection to the scheduled 30 July 2018 general/harmonised election to necessary thought.  But before I delve into those, it would be helpful to explain what relapse means.  It essentially means going back to repeating the same mistake over and over again. Or a return to a previous status of ailment. Even if by way of tradition or inability to resolve a problem.

But back to the three key events that we must take note of in at least the last three weeks and as they relate to elections in Zimbabwe this month. 

The first being the published summary of pre-election survey results of the Mass Public Opinion  Institute working in tandem with Afrobarometer.  The results of which are probably still slightly indicative of a ruling Zanu Pf victory while at the same time offering hope of the opposite being true in the event of a close call first round result call between the opposition and the ruling establishment.

But those details are interpretive and best left to those that own the survey to best explain them when they decide to do so.  Or are asked to do so in the last days before the election. 

Sifting through some of the initial data provided by MPOI and Afrobarometer, there is a depressing assessment of how Zimbabweans perceive of their political roles as citizens.  This being that a majority do not participate in ‘civic’ activities apart from the hope that their vote will count for something.  Very few of the respondents in the survey professed any need to regularly attend collective meetings to deal with an issue that affects everyone (eg. water, electricity and other basic amenities).  This is despite an electorally (every five or three years) regular expectation of a chance to change the leadership f the country. 

Its almost self contradictory until one reads between the lines of the MPOI survey.  A lot of Zimbabweans do not want to discuss political and civic issues beyond the confines of an electoral choice. And only for every five years.

A greater majority do not know of seek to know who their public representative in the national executive, the legislature or local government is unless they have to. Probably out of what Masipula Sithole referred to as the margin of terror, or put more simply, the margin of fear. 

The second significant occurrence was when former President of the United State of America, Barack Obama gave the Nelson Mandela lecture in Johannesburg, South Africa.  In his lecture, Obama asked a question as to Mandela’s popularity and if anyone could have defeated the latter. And why Mandela never chose to rule by executive fiat despite his tremendous undefeatable popularity (at that time). 

In Zimbabwe’s scheduled election there is no Mandela. As is the case in most African elections.  To paraphrase him, no candidate that exudes ‘ a singular moment, an epiphany’ to greater things to come.   But according to Obama, the soon to be first president of a democratic South Africa chose, eventually, to relinquish that soaring popularity for a democratic order.  One that despite its flaws, constitutes a democratic and free South African today.   The key point having been that democracy does not exist because of elections. On the contrary democracy precedes and defines electoral processes.

The third perspective that I wish to highlight is the probable reality that Zimbabwean society is now highly individualised.  Not because we actively sought to arrive here.  But more because we have lost our ‘thinking caps’. At least a majority of us. Never mind our at least continental reputation as the most educated Africans South of the Sahara.

This culture of individualism emerged as a combination of a harsh economic environment, a withdrawing state as led by a neo-liberal and repressive government with the expansion of materially motivated religious movements (big and small). This has also meant our ambitions have also become exceedingly self centered and less about a collective or common good for society. So we frown on things that everyone should safely have such as public transport, health and education.  And we strive for those things that are essentially individual, consumerist and perishable. 

But back again to my use of the word relapse.  The amount of anger a lot of young and old Zimbabweans feel about the state of affairs in the country is palpable. In this perceptions are fairly binary and can be highly emotional.  And they do not favour any assumptions of a lack of rationality.  And in the process we may find ourselves repeating the same mistakes again and again. These being forgetting values and principles that would make this country better. For everyone and not those that would want to lead us.

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

ZBC's Problem is Editorial not Advertorial

By Takura Zhangazha*

The Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) recently issued a statement on its coverage of political parties during the current campaign period of Zimbabwe’s 2018 harmonised election.  This was after opposition political parties decried the high costs that the state broadcaster is charging for campaign adverts on its single television station and multiple radio stations. 

As is its norm, ZBC went on the defensive and claimed that it had complied with the electoral laws and Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s (ZEC) media regulations.  It also added that it had offered political parties advertising airtime which if they do not take up, that is pay for, will be forfeited. With the added odd statement of how the same airtime ‘cannot be banked’. This is probably to mean that if any of the opposition parties manage to get the money to flight adverts they cannot get the allotted airtime in retrospect. 

The Ministry of Media, Information and Broadcasting Services (MIBS) permanent secretary and presidential spokespersons George Charamba weighed in to support the ZBC.  He was reported as derisively saying that the ruling Zanu PF party was paying for its own adverts while the opposition was failing to put up posters.

And it would appear that should be end of the argument.  In reality it should be the beginning of it.  This is because the problems at ZBC and this election’s coverage are editorial as opposed to ‘advertorial’. 

While as it claims, ZBC can have one or two prime time talk shows about meeting specific candidates or increased portions of electoral coverage on its 8pm main news bulletin, its coverage of the election in and of itself has been woefully inadequate.  Both for its singular television station and for all of its radio stations. 

From an editorial perspective and point of view, the state broadcaster is still evidently biased in favour of the ruling Zanu PF party.  While it may deny this, the proof remains in the pudding.  News content and the live broadcasts of rallies/ meetings are heavily in favour of the ruling party.  While ZBC may claim that the opposition parties do not give them schedules of meetings, this is not a valid enough reasons for its reporters and editorial team to find these rallies in order to allow the public to know what the opposition is up to.  Or at least saying. 

Nor is there rolling news coverage of the electoral campaigns either on TV or radio.  That is to say, news coverage that seeks to regularly and in real time update Zimbabweans on what candidates, parties are up to.  Not as pre-recorded programmes, but live ones.  From any corner of the country and with any potential candidate.  Instead, in most cases, one has to wait for one main news bulletin at 8 to watch what is heavily summarised versions of events that should pass as ‘news’.

They may argue that they do not have the funding or capacity to do so but that again would to be a tad dishonest.  They should have been ready to do so. That’s largely because their role is to serve the public interest.  And using public funding (licence fees and government subsidies).  And this public interest means enabling the greatest possible access to information and free expression by all Zimbabweans on the electoral process/cycle, candidates and events. 

What however is obtaining, and conveniently excused by way of ‘payment for adverts’, is a carefully choreographed positioning of the state broadcaster in favour of the ruling party and its leaders.  This is not helped by the inadequacies of the ZEC media liaison committee which appears to believe its role is merely to monitor media coverage as opposed to enabling a free and fair media environment that accentuates free expression and access to information. Nor has it ever sought to bring the media to democratic account for any specific transgressions (real or imagined).   This is despite an assumption that this same committee takes over a majority of the functions of constitutional Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC). 

In essence whatever excuses ZBC is giving either against political parties or in favour of advertisements, it is not playing tis true public service broadcasting role.  Nor does it appear to intend to do so in the short and long term. But even if what appears to be its preferred political party winning the 2018 election, its role will once again regrettably be to act more to undermine free expression and access to information. And not just for elections.

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

United in Ambition, No High Stakes: Zimbabwe's Election Candidates

 By Takura Zhangazha*

I have a number of friends and acquaintances that are running for political office in Zimbabwe’s scheduled harmonised election.  The greater majority of them intend to be local government councillors, others still want to be members of parliament and one or two intend to be the president of the country.

Some are brazen while others are a little bit more circumspect about their ambitions.  A few are doing it for fun. And a fewer more are doing it on behalf of their political party. One or two still believe they were chosen or sent by God to seek political office and as a result thereof strongly believe that they are guaranteed victory. Oddly there are some that are claiming to be testing the waters for the 2023 elections by running in 2018 where ironically they do not expect to win. 

None of them appear enamoured to any specific ideological perspectives.  If they are they go with what’s trending and don’t ask too many questions.  Be it of their respective party manifestos or some ‘free market’ persuasions they encountered at a learning institution or workshop.

The reasons for this are varied.  But most significantly is that if they are in the opposition they probably feel that they have been in the trenches for long enough to be nonchalant about ideas.  Or that their personal political experiences (torture, arbitrary arrest and detention)  at the hands of the long ruling Zanu Pf party are enough reason to deserve political office.  A point that is somewhat understandable.

Regrettably a number of these colleagues are also in it for the benefits that come with political office.  The prospect of allowances, perks, salaries and determination of tenders appears to be very motivational.  In fact some of them deliberately chose to run for local government because of this as opposed to a specific desire to be closer to the people. 

A number of the candidates I also know are also doing it because they are young.  No more no less.  They are strongly persuaded that it’s now their turn to lead because they are youthful and therefore much more able bodied to be in leadership.  Given the population demographics, being young, on its own helps score political points or even electoral victories.  Regrettably for them, it is still not enough to guarantee electoral success.  Let alone to give one political gravity. But it most certainly helps. And there is always the rider that even if you are a young candidate that loses this time around, you can always try again next time.  Health and life permitting.

What is however more important is that all of these colleagues, are playing an important part in enabling the democratic right of all Zimbabweans to choose leaders of their choice democratically.  And in a democracy there is no such thing as ‘too many candidates’.  Especially in an electoral period.  People should be spoilt for democratic choice. Even if 23 presidential candidates make the ballot paper longer.

The only critical aspect to all of these candidates is that they must commit to the enhancing of a democratic culture not only for elections but in all aspects of Zimbabwean lives and the state itself.  To participate in the 2018 election as a candidate essentially points to some sort of commitment to the democratic process. While at the same time accepting the possibility of defeat. 

Because based on the party manifestos, candidate promises, there are no big ideas that are being pushed for.  Most candidates for every contestable position are not saying much that is different.  The proposed economic policies of all the major parties are neo-liberal.  A majority of individual candidates share a messianic streak supported by religious dogma. And the rest of the field is largely opportunistic.    So the truth of the matter is that there are no high stakes in this election. At least not on substantive matters.  It all appears to be a matter of preference.  And that’s a good thing (at least for a functional democracy).

The only challenge is that the more our politics is imbued with materialism, celebrity style campaigns and non-contextual neo-liberal marketing pitches as ideas, then it is bound to lose its organic feel with the people.  But then again, we deal the hand that we are dealt.

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