Zimbabwe’s Next Five Years: 2018-2023 (Realities and Lies)

By Takura Zhangazha*

Political perspectives in Zimbabwe, at least after the recent 2018 general election, have tended to have a sense of immediacy and urgency.  Spurred on by the fundamentally zero-sum power games that our national elections are or their highly polarized nature, we tend to not look beyond our noses as to what it all means.  And this in most cases makes our national political consciousness excitedly ephemeral/temporary or informed by a stubborn loyalty to political processes we, individually, initially encountered as outsiders or as direct immediate and past long term active participants.  

The only catch is that after the 'event' of the 2018 elections, the reality that ‘in the moment/event’ driven excitement about the former process was and is largely responsible for our current electoral and populist levels of national consciousness. 

Beyond just being populist our national consciousness is pre-occupied with the immediate.  Whether it be issues to do with the parallel market rates of the United States dollar (which we ironically want to claim as our own) or the pre-occupation with highly individualized (and loyalist) politics, we remain relatively short ‘termist’ in our understanding of the role of the state and its control( or lack thereof) of the national political economy. 

And this is understandable for two main reasons.  The first being that the 38 year (and counting) rule of the ruling Zanu Pf party has made many a Zimbabwean realise that the state is no longer intended to be people-centered or truly democratic.  Robert Mugabe’s hold on the state in particular and embrace of radical nationalism underpinned by an intention to (eventually) embrace free market economics shattered the pragmatism that would have made us keen on thinking and acting for national posterity or the collective good/public interest.  Instead, what obtains is a general perception that the state is at the mercy of whoever is in power.  And that occasionally we somehow get the chance to attempt to choose these powerful people every 5 years. 

The second reason why there are these limitations to what would be a democratic national consciousness is largely as a result of an increasing continental embrace of a culture of consumerism as motivated by a global embrace of free market/neo-liberal economics.  This however is not a problem peculiar to Zimbabwe.  It cuts across the Southern African region wherein a cross-border embrace of foreign/global capital (East or West) exists as a cornerstone of ‘economic development’. 

These reasons however do not preclude an attempt at seeking to map out the political and economic course that Zimbabwe is likely to take in the next five years.  I have used five years as a time-frame largely because already conversations in highly politically polarized Zimbabwe are beginning to pitch elections scheduled for 2023 as the next ‘big’ political event to capture national attention (as aided by a Diaspora that has its own preferences). 

The reality of the matter, which many will refuse to concede in our age of individualized and religion influenced political activism, is that a lot more than elections is going to occur between then and now.   And it is necessary to try and map what will likely occur in the next five years in order for us to begin to think of our country beyond our day to day experiences/hardships and highly personalized political loyalties. 

That is to seek to predict the overall and holistic path that Zimbabwe is likely to walk in the next five\ years.  And this is specific to the country’s political economy, its social development and its placement in international relations.  In a manner that is a bit more realistic than it would be depended on superstition and religiously motivated pre-suppositions. 

In the first instance, Zimbabwe’s national political economy is definitively set by the current ruling establishment to be one that is neo-liberal or strongly pro-free market economics.  For many a Zimbabwean this may make sense for now given how all the major political and economic players have been trying to court that elusive creature called Foreign Direct Investment (together with its attendant ‘hegemonic’ recognition). 

Hence the statements attributed to Mnangagwa and his officials while he has been visiting the United Nations headquarters and New York city announcing that Zimbabweans should brace for ‘austerity’, a phrase and course of action that is increasingly facing greater resistance from its very sources of theoretical origin. ( adevelopemtn we rarely see because of our acceptance of populism and non-critical embrace of ideas that come from capital as a panacea)

This policy intention essentially means Zimbabweans are going to witness a prioritisation of private capital’s interests in relation to the national economy.  But not just any small capital.  More probably mega capital that comes with stringent conditions on a high profit return of investment.  No matter whether the capital is from the east or the west.  That also means there shall be state disinvestment from public services and the elevation of the ‘free market’ as the solver of all economic problems.  

Suffice to say that even if Mnangagwa’s government gets the initial global capital goodwill he is looking for, it will only be short lived.  His government’s honeymoon will be temporary because the 'free market' tends to be apolitical.  At least by default.  Once it gets in head into the tent, it tends to want to occupy the rest of it.  And it takes no prisoners.  Austerity in our contemporary times tends to backfire spectacularly and with negative political consequences for those in power but more significantly for the majority poor. 

So in the next five years, the national political economy will be lulled into a temporary sense of ‘investor’ security. Only for the same to scamper at the slightest possibility and threat at a loss of intended profit. 

Secondly, with regards to the social set up of the country, it means there shall perpetually be a potential conflict over and about the threat of the withdrawal of much vaunted capital . 

The withdrawal of publicly funded social services in favour of private owned ones will lead to the entrenching of an already existent individual and materialist narcissism that will undermine the collective social fabric of Zimbabwean society.  That is, everyone is already seeking to ‘cover their backs’ economically at the whim of the ‘markets’ and therefore will have limited time for a progressive and democratic national consciousness.  And there will be no immediate sources for it. 

Young Zimbabweans will seek alternative sources of a national consciousness that will however remain largely embedded in Christian religiosity and with limited scope for objective thought and values. 

Unless checked by new social and ideological movements, Zimbabwean society will become more apolitical and embrace petty celebrity/cultist politics as the primary vehicles to give pretense at political change or activism.  And in most cases, innocently so.  As motivated by a globalized social media access and presence that creates Zimbabweans and Africans more and more in the image of the ‘other’.  By way of lifestyle and by way of expectations of what would be considered success (who is the next Bill Gates from Africa, anyone? )

In international relations, Zimbabwe’s placement will rely more on the endorsement of global superpowers than it will on its own contextual understanding of its placement in the world.  Largely because we are seeking what the ruling establishment refers to as ‘re-engagement’ and also making reference to the Commonwealth system in press interviews, our foreign policy is hinged on a desperate pursuit of a recognition we will never control.  

Constentations as to who has the ear of, for example,  the Americans or the Chinese will be the sum total of how we present ourselves to the World.  And in this, we will fit snugly into a long duree neo-liberal/free market narrative that suits the global powers that be.  Being ‘open for business’ will turn out to being ‘open for pillaging and abandonment’ unless there’s material and political profit to be made.  Our desperation, as led by the ruling establishment, means we are more susceptible to being partners in economic convenience than having all weather friends. 

The 'base and superstructure' approach used by Marxists (such as myself)  may help to explain our way out of the conundrum we are faced with over the next five years.  

A neo-liberal/free market (the base) economy is more likely to lead the country down the road of oligarchies and a withdrawal of socio-economic rights as guaranteed by the state.  The social (superstructure) lives of Zimbabweans will inevitably lead to a dissipating critical national consciousness aided and abetted by a rise in religiosity, superstition and a desperation for money. Crude as that may seem. 

But perhaps, just perhaps, the internal and externally lived contradictions of the neo-liberal route Mnangagwa’s government wants to take us to may lead to the emergence of a new national consciousness.  One motivated by an intrinsic and organic understanding of democratic political and economic values of equality for all. 

Those of us on the democratic and socialist left understand that possibility.  We will just have to work harder to achieve the requisite levels of national consciousness.  In the next five years. Plus.

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

Hiding Behind the Disaster Capitalist Veil: Corporates and Cholera Philanthropy

By Takura Zhangazha*

It was recently reported that Econet Zimbabwe founding chief executive officer and now majority shareholder, Strive Masiyiwa issued a social media statement that questioned the transparency of the use of at least US$10 million he/his company had donated toward alleviating the current cholera tragedy in Zimbabwe. 

And it’s fair enough.  Where colleagues and cdes were saying or acting in order to ensure all hands were on deck in order to at least prevent, as pragmatically possible, a further loss of lives, there are/were others that are now alleged sought to profiteer from the crisis.  These allegations included issues to do with the inflation of chemical ‘waterguard’ bottles as well as medical hand-gloves.

And indeed many a social media activist went apoplectic at the possibility of this happening in the midst of such an health epidemic.  Their motivations were probably genuine but had it not been for the fact of statements attributed to Masiyiwa over and about his ‘donation’, they would have probably kept quiet.  Or at least not been as apoplectic.

And sure enough, even the very rumour of the same got at least two (new) cabinet ministers concerned, at least on the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation  Television One (ZBC, TV1) stating that they were shocked at the allegations being leveled at officials in local authorities.   The City of Harare also weighed in, with one or two stories being put online about the temporary/potential suspension of some of its senior administrative staffers.

 

What may have missed all good intentions at resolving the tragic crisis of an epidemic  is the possibility that it all makes for good public relations and marketing.  Even in its worst humanitarian crisis moments.  Especially where it concerns allegations of misappropriation of goodwill from the private sector.

What it means is that we must immediately forego the mistakes of the private sector.  Or their previous intentions at profiting from public capital (land, water, health, education and attendant state infrastructure). 

I had to re-read global activist Naomi Klein’s amazing book, ‘ The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism’ in order to understand what is going on.  In Part 1 of the book, she quotes George Orwell’s novel, ‘Nineteen- Eighty Four’  wherein it states ‘we shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.’  Innocuous as the statement may seem, it essentially points to a new reality where we do not read between the lines. 

Even if it were some sort of conspiracy to undermine the Mnangagwa regime, that on its own would not be enough.  Private capital intends to make it clear that it can run things better. Especially in Zimbabwe’s national case, no matter the cost.  As far as it is concerned , it will eventually make the necessary profit.  As long as  necessary ‘curry' is favoured with those in political power.  

So bring out the water bowsers from Delta Corporation and the ‘waterguard’ chemicals from other well-wishers and we have a recipe for a corporate takeover of what should have remained public services.  That is the provision of affordable, safe and usable/drinkable water. Even if temporarily.

A point that for now, might not matter as much.  Again, its all hands on deck and we will or at least should ask questions after.  The probability of the latter happening however is relatively slim.  The intention is to reinvent our political and economic reality.  This being where we find solutions in the benevolence of those that already have money/capital  to what should be shared societal problems.  We choose to create heroes out of them in the process, while they make copious amounts of profit from  the same. 

What it means is that we have a potential reinvention of Zimbabwean society in the midst of an epidemic. 

And depending where you are ideologically seated, it may work for a while.  But the end effect is that it backfires.  And then we start to look for solutions in the same ideological neo-liberal framework.  That being, we should have done the same things better.  Hence it is behoove upon many an assumed  progressive to denounce any form of corruption against Masiyiwa’s  assumed US$10 million donation equivalent  in cash or kind without at once fairly questioning why and where such stupendous amounts of capital came from? 

Let alone hazarding that perilous guess as to why Ecocash/mobile money and internet or social media bundles rake in ((probably billions (especially in bond notes) a quarter)).  It is money that stems to the greater extent from the poor who seek more convenience than they do profit.  Or from those that would use the same on the parallel exchange rates, domestically. 

What we do know is that it appears to be open sesame for profiting out of a national disaster.  This entails putting profit on the highest possible tabernacle of either corporate social responsibility or the fact that a company or a few individuals ere able to shoulder a national burden when it ‘mattered the most’. 

For a country and government as desperate as our own., this is most likely.  A critical eye as to the motivation would be most unfortunate.  Almost as though we would have traded ourselves off.  Even if we do not know or understand it.

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

Life in a Time of Cholera in Zimbabwe, Again.

By Takura Zhangazha*

It is tragic that once again our country (Zimbabwe)  has to experience a Cholera epidemic in its capital, Harare.  Especially one that claims innocent lives.  And writing about it is never intended as a self righteous or attention seeking exercise.  Not for any political party or public health functionary. 

It is essentially about our own (African ) humanity and the sanctity of human life.  

And by so doing demonstrating a deep sorrow and empathy for those families and friends that have lost loved ones in the recent outbreak in a poor urban residential suburb of Glen View in Harare, Zimbabwe. 

The government of Zimbabwe, through the Minister of Health, Obadiah Moyo recently announced a state of disaster ( and its multiple implications) as a result of the outbreak.  That means the government is obliged at law to, among other things,  not only do all it can to prevent the spread of the preventable disease but also offer the maximum possible support to those afflicted or affected by it. 

The temptation for many is to politicise this tragic Cholera outbreak.  Especially in the aftermath of elections that were eventually recognized as legitimate (warts and all).  In this, the intention being to discredit one political party over the other as the root cause of the fact that, in the words of many a political activist, a ‘medieval disease’ can be found occurring in Zimbabwe’s  (and the Worlds) assumed ‘modern times’. 

In the midst of such an health crisis, what matters the most and urgently so is that all hands are on deck to prevent the further loss of lives.  So when the government announced that it is working with the country’s largest private beverage (and alcohol) suppliers, Delta Corporation  to provide clean water for those affected, one can only appreciate the corporate effort.  If only to save lives.

I personally wish I could leave this here by applauding all those that are seeking to resolve the crisis and those that will eventually offer comfort and direct support to the families of those directly affected by the outbreak. 

Not because of assumptions of individual self righteousness.  But more because there are many questions that should be asked of those in local and central government authority as to why Cholera outbreaks keep recurring in our cities.  The last major such outbreak was in 2008 in which at least 4000 Zimbabweans died. 

Many an academic of urban/local government will know that the main cause was the mismanagement of local authorities and central government interference in the same.  Ideologues , historians and anthropologists who would be more specific  will recall the colonial legacies of preferential urban planning that prioritised what we now refer to as the ‘western’ suburbs (quite literally) over the (black) ghettos. They would  more significantly understand these designs and why more poor people die of this treatable affliction.

What is however more worrying is the fact of  the lack of an urgent structural analysis of the same in order to circumvent the political, social and economic  effects of such preventable diseases.  Either by the relevant authorities (local and national) but also and most significantly the lack of a collective Zimbabwean national outcry at the cutting short of human lives beyond partisan political lines. And where in the final analysis, it is all about our collective right access to clean and safe water. As guaranteed by the state.

In having a conversation with a fellow Harare resident it struck me that he talked about the option of ensuring that the pre-paid water meter was a solution to such an unpalatable crisis. (No mention of cost and affordability) 

His point was fair enough until that point when I asked him where he lived in Harare.  And how he intended to solve his water and potential Cholera  problem.   It turns out he lives in the newer 'western' suburbs and purchases water regularly from a private supplier.  And he has a deep borehole. But he is still worried about the Cholera outbreak in so far as it does not cross the unwritten 'South of"  Samora Machel Avenue 'border' in Harare.

For him, though by default, Cholera should be a disease of the poor.  As opposed to being one about access to a basic human right,  i.e water.  (If you want that right to water, accept pre-paid water meters as far as he is concerned). 

I personally disagree with such an approach because it exacerbates societal inequality to what we should all have access to.  But then again, who will listen?  Money does not construct progressive social (socialist) democratic consciousness.  Nor should it be allowed to.  We need to solve Harare (and other cities) access to clean and safe, drinkable water challenges through a people centered approach that does not prioritise profit over access.  Even at local government level and with an intention to change the central government’s approach to the national state of affairs vis-a-vis access to water.

Finally,  may the souls of all those who lost their lives in past and recent Harare as well as other cities' much publicised 'Cholera outbreaks' rest in peace.  We will never forget.  Inclusive of the fact that we still seek retrospective justice.
*The title of this blog is taken from Gabriel Garcia Marquez' epic novel (Love in the Time of Cholera' 

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

Zimbabwe: Anticipating a Corporatist Cabinet, Running a Country Like a Private Business.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Following the swearing in of members of Zimbabwe’s Parliament  ( House of Assembly and the Senate)President Emerson Mnangagwa is legally obliged to appoint what is commonly referred to as a cabinet. This is in terms of Section 104 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.  This provision also gives the president as outlined in Section 104 (3) the latitude to appoint ministers or their deputies from an extra five (5) members of Parliament that he appoints for their ‘professional skills and competence’. 

The debate around who Mnangagwa eventually appoints to cabinet has been ‘corporatist’ and ‘ageist’.  The former largely because there are assumptions that the size of cabinet/government really matters.  In the lingo of those that would claim to be more entrepreneurial than others, it must be a ‘lean’ cabinet poised to replicate the power structures of multi-national corporations. 

That is to say  there is a deserving executive (president) head honcho who appoints a team of special experts to push the profits of his entity up and above the rest of the crowd.  A crowd which to his eventual regret will be competing with that of a majority of Southern African Development Cooperation (SADC) countries and beyond. This argumentation assumes that for an African country to be successful, it must follow the neo-liberal (economic) free market trajectory of the west and the East.  Or to put it a little more simply, it must be run like a private corporation and for the maximum possible (private) profit. 

A decent number of middle and upper class Zimbabweans appreciate this ‘business like’ approach.  Except that it is not as political let alone as people centered as assumed.  For example Mnangagwa told delegates at a launch of a Chinese security company's products that he would like to ‘create billionaires’ in Zimbabwe.  At least by the year 2030.  And that in itself is improbable if taken literally.  Its all about business and capital with a somewhat hare-brained assumption that private capital will indeed create enough  ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ despite its  intention at maximum profit at minimum cost.

For the opposition MDC Alliance, being a minority in Parliament and least likely to be included in cabinet,  this is an issue of the proverbial ‘grapes are sour’.  Had it been them in ‘corporate cabinet power’ their strategies would have been the same.  With a  bit more of hindsight political blame games about how the country and the economy got to where it is.   

But a few pointers to the ruling establishment as well as the Zimbabwean public.  The first being that government cabinets are not mandated to function like boards of private corporations.  They are essentially executive political arms of the state.  And their primary mandate is to serve the people politically before they experiment with corporatist approaches to administration.  So even if we call for the cabinet to be ‘lean’ or full of ‘technocrats’ that does not change their political mandate.  What is more important, politically, is their programme of action at improving the livelihoods of the people they govern.  Not their ‘palatable’ appearance.  Questions that must be asked of them is what do they intend to do, not who is doing it. The latter question was answered by the election.

Secondly, a structured understanding of the ideological motivations of government/ cabinet really matter.  In the case of Mnangagwa’s government it is crystal clear that they have a neo-liberal, free market approach to how they intend to govern.  Their mantra of Zimbabwe being ‘open for business’ betrays their elitist/corporatist persuasions.  It is a huge gamble on their part as they have decided to embark on Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) 2.0.   An experiment that backfired spectacularly in the late 1990's. 

Thirdly and finally, we must always ask ourselves how we got here.  That is to say, how we came to be at a point where assumptions of ‘entrepreneurship’ and mimicry of capitalist/neo-liberal economic models are the panacea to our contextual economic challenges.  It would appear that the primary cause of our arrival here is a ruling establishment as led by Robert Mugabe (now succeeded by Mnangagwa) that worked ominously to dissipate a critical national consciousness.  First of all by acting to repress not only alternative political leaders but more importantly alternative critical ideas and perspectives  as to how the country should be run. Add to this an opposition that initially began as one of left leaning idological persuasion and allowed itself to be hijacked by the right (local and global) and you have a disastrous recipe for politics as entertainment or borderline cultist movements/organisations.

The remedy would be to seek to return to critical contextual ideas and actions.  Even at a time when it appears to be futile.

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