Mapping Opportunities for Civil Society in Zimbabwe

A Return to an Organic, Critical National Consciousness. 

A presentation to the SAVIO Institute’s Conference on ‘First Year of the Second Republic: Continuing with the old or breaking with the past?’

28 February 2019, Sango Conference Center, Harare, Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha (15 mins)*

Thank you very much for the introductory statements.  And to also thank the great minds I am sharing ‘s this particular platform and panel with at the SIVIO Institute’s conference on the ‘First Year of the Second Republic, Breaking with the Past or Continuing with the Old.’ 

In making my brief remarks on Zimbabwean civil society and its future it would be remiss for me not to mention the fact that there are currently a number of civil society leaders that are being charged by the state of allegedly attempting to subvert a constitutionally elected government.  This following the January 2019 demonstrations against fuel price increases that eventually and tragically turned violent.   While the blame games do the rounds largely for the consumption of a real and imagined international concern, we can only offer solidarity for cdes who are facing either criminal or political charges, whichever way you prefer to view the same.

 There is a lot of scholarly and activist work on what would constitute any reasonable definition of what civil society in Zimbabwe can be.  I will avoid making reference to it directly and only focus on it by inference.  Within out context, one of the seminal works on civil society was done by  Sachikonye  titled ‘Democracy, Civil Society and the State: Social Movements inSouthern Africa.’ 

It is from this book that I learnt about how to refer to civil society basically as non-state actors that actively sought to influence the policy decisions of the state.  As well as their history.

And historical considerations as to the significance of ‘civil society’ in Zimbabwe are important.  Non state actors have always been key players in Zimbabwe’s history.  At least its critical and counter hegemonic consciousness.  All of our liberation movements that have now become governing parties stemmed from non state actors.  Whether it would be the phenomenal nascent African working class unions of the late 1920s led by Clement Kadalie through to those led by Benjamin Burombo in the late 1940s onwards.  Or the then non state actors such as the City Youth League that eventually led to enough pressure for then nationalists to initial and eventual formal liberation movements that were to become ZAPU and ZANU.  This also includes the Christian missionary churches that benovelently educated future nationalists. 

And it never ended only with our pre-independence period. After 1980, civil society once again was at the forefront of introducing a new critical consciousness to a repressive state of affairs as it negatively affected a majority of our people.  The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) or labour, the students unions largely as led from the University of Zimbabwe Students Union and shortly thereafter by the Zimbabwe National Students Union were all to be at the forefront of a counter hegemonic project against the one party state as preferred, at that time, by the ruling Zanu Pf party.   In the 1990s you would find the emergence of highly organic and social movement oriented CSOs such as Zimrights and the Association of Womens Clubs as revived by, among others,  Amai Sekai Holland. 

In our pre and post independence timelines what obtains was an organic civil society through which we have a clear pattern of genesis of counterhegemonic national consciousness.  

It is therefore arguably correct that there is no direct challenge to political power in Zimbabwe that has not emerged, originally, organically from non state actors or what we now commonly refer to as civil society. This is most certainly true of the ruling Zanu PF and the largest opposition political party, the MDC Alliance. 

I have been slightly elaborate about this history of civil society in Zimbabwe because we cannot understand the future without a composite knowledge of the past. 

And in both historical threads, there’s one key element that always indubitably stood out.  And that’s the question of an ideologically conscious civil society.  Before independence the ideological base was almost always going to be nationalism both in its moderate and radical forms. 

Post-independence the mobilizing ideology was largely socialism in the early years which was to give way for social democracy on the part of counterhegemonic civil society. 

More recently we are now saddled with a civil society that functions as though it lives in a post ideological world yet the reality of the matter is that the dominant and demobilizing ideology is now neo-liberalism. 

So in mapping out the future of civil society in Zimbabwe it would be prudent to keep in mind our neo-liberal ideological context and its impact on non- state actors.

It essentially means contemporary civil society players are no longer as counter-hegemonic as in the past.  They may be oppositional to government policies or even be genuinely lobbying the state and knowing the limits of their power, but they may no longer be as organic as in the past.

So where the Leninist question of ‘what is to be done?’ is asked, I would suggest at least four perspectives to take us forward.

The first being that civil society in Zimbabwe needs to return to a strategic re-positioning that is ideologically democratically socialist, conscious and organically people centered in its work.  I would even go further to prescribe that in its ideological consciousness civil society be clearly counter hegemonic to global neo-liberalism which is in retreat in the global north (its place of origin) yet ironically being expanded in the global south.  I suggest this largely because of the fact that our contextual national political-economic crisis will not find solutions in neoliberalism. 

Secondly in mapping out a new path for civil society, we must be aware of the fact of generational praxis.  Civil society organisations have changed significantly in form as well as in how they impact our national citizenry.  Younger Zimbabweans faced with the ravages of a repressive but weak state have taken to new forms of activism that attempts at being counter hegemonic.  Some of this activism has found new forms of expression not just in reality but also on social media.  Even though at times the activism is ephemeral it has however pointed us to a new approach that differs from what we would consider as traditional civil society. 

The key element of this generational praxis is how we must, to learn from Amilcar Cabral, understand the ‘weapon of theory’ and understanding the 'struggles against our own weaknesses'.  And our ideological and intellectual outlook must be passed on from one generation of activists to the next. And in this, to also be cognizant of the fact that it is always organically necessary to allow others to lead. 

In the third instance we need to come to terms with the expansion of new mediums of consciousness.  And by mediums here I refer to mobile telephony and the internet in its holistic form(s).  Social media and its attendant mediums are new arenas of not only activism but also purveying ideas, consciousness and even counter-hegemony.  Civil society in both its traditional and more contemporary form need to occupy these new spaces of disseminating progressive and counter hegemonic ideas against neoliberalism.  But also mindful of the theoretical assumption that the medium is also the message or to put it in simpler terms, the individualism that these new mediums such as the mobile phone brings, can serve more neoliberal hegemony than countering it.

Fourthly, in its interactions with the global north, civil society must always be fundamentally aware of its operational contexts and also seek out progressive relationships than benevolent or patronizing ones.  This includes steering clear as far as is pragmatically possible from mimicry.

  More importantly and this is very important, Zimbabwean civil society need to learn to strategically talk back to the global north on the basis of progressive principles and values.  And also not to merely follow the money but pursue an organic Pan Africanism and its global attendant solidarity from progressive civil society organisations in the global north. 

In conclusion, cde chairperson, I will not summarise all of the issues I have raised so far.  Instead I wish to set out a revolutionary task for Zimbabwean civil society for the year 2019. Because our politics has been a high stakes winner takes all game.  With tragic and unnecessary loss of lives or limb.  And keeping in mind a quote from Nyerere, 'the mechanisms of democracy are not always the meaning of democracy,' Zimbabwean civil society needs to re-examine/review our constitutional framework and begin the process of actively seeking the introduction of a complete (100%) proportional representation in our political system.  

In Parliament, which in turn will elect the President as an electoral college. And the same for local government.  I am aware that this is not as simple as it appears.  And that our largest political parties may quickly dismiss this opposition on the assumptions that it weakens their patronage systems.  My personal view is that it will make our society less politically polarized and our electoral politics to be less personalized.  It is a revolutionary task that requires an organic civil society that is not only people centered but also ideologically counter hegemonic.

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

SADC and the EU’s Positions on Zimbabwe: Attempting an End of History

In the last week there were two very important statements issued on our country Zimbabwe by two very important inter-state political bodies.  The first of these statements,and closer to home was issued by the Southern African Development Community(SADC) current chairperson, Hage Geinjob who is also the current president of Namibia.

In the statement Geinjob condemned recent political violence in Zimbabwe without putting the blame on government or the opposition.  But more significantly, he called for the removal of sanctions on Zimbabwe wherein he said (to quote him at length), ‘The SADC Heads and State and Government further noted that the governments efforts to transform the economy and bring about prosperity to the people of Zimbabwe are negatively affected by the illegal sanctions that were imposed on the country since early 2000.  SADC expresses its solidarity with the Government and people of the Republic of Zimbabwe, and calls upon the international community to unconditionally lift all sanctions imposed on the country.’   

It was a statement that got an angry reaction from Zimbabwe’s opposition and some civil society organisations and activists.   With some unfortunately referring to the SADC acronym as standing for a ‘Southern African Dictators Club’. 

Not more than a week later the European Parliament(EP) made public its resolutions and recommendations to its executive arm, the European Commission (EC)  on Zimbabwe.  In it the EP condemned political violence, the internet shutdown  and to quote it at length, ‘Reminds the Government of Zimbabwe that the support of the European Union and its member states in the context of the Cotonou Agreement, and for trade, development and economic assistance, is conditional on its respecting the rule of law and the international convention and treaties to which it is party: Recalls that long term support hinges on comprehensive reforms rather than mere promises; calls for European engagement with Zimbabwe to be value driven and firm in its positioning towards the Zimbabwean authorities’. 

As indicated in the firm language used in the resolutions, the Zimbabweans government’s attempts at re-engagement for reprieve with the EU has suffered a severe setback.  And the reaction from pro-ruling party activists has been to quite literally blame the opposition for this firm stance by the EUP.

Both the state-controlled  and private mainstream media in what is now their expected partisan political output also reflected the views of their editorial and political preferences.

But as always critical context matters.  That the positions of SADC and the EP differ is very clear.  The motives for the same are however not so apparent.

SADC’s position appears to be predicated on a Pan Africanism that is wary of interference in the domestic affairs of a member state.  Not only by itself but also more significantly by international organisations that it has historically been suspicious of their intentions.  I mention history here because SADC is not just a latter day ‘treaty organization’.  It is a relatively historically organic one.   Largely etched from the anti-colonial and liberation struggle focused Frontline States (initially comprised of Zambia, Tanzania and Botswana. Mozambique, Angola joined the group upon their attainment of independence to be followed by Zimbabwe in 1980). The FLS were to then establish the Southern African Development Coordinating Conference (SADCC) which also then spawned the now existent SADC.  

In light of this, whichever way one looks at it, the contemporary SADC and a majority of its member states are strongly informed by an anti-imperialist/colonialism ethos. A lot of us may consider the latter to be outdated and an excuse for protecting ‘dictators’, but regardless it remains an historical reality that cannot be wished away.  It is a reality that makes SADC one of the strongest regional political blocks in the world.  Minus the firepower of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). 

The EU’s position is however predicated on an understanding of global universalism.  As well as the strength of its placement in global politics and the attendant economics/neoliberalism. And the historicity of it is again largely based on the fact that it is a union comprised of former colonial hegemons in Africa with vested interests beyond the political. It is an historical fact that we cannot run away from even if we wanted to. 

Where we juxtapose these two positions from the EU and SADC, we would do well to keep in mind how the two bodies potentially view each other.  Not that there is antipathy toward the global interaction and agreements on universal human values but more because of the specificities of regional histories and contexts.  Particularly in the case of Southern Africa. 

It is therefore imperative that lobby and advocacy activities on Zimbabwe always keeps this in mind.  As it did for example in 2007 when SADC intervened directly in Zimbabwe under the chairpersonship of Jakaya Kikwete (Tanzania) who then appointed Thabo Mbeki as the mediator on the Zimbabwean question(s). The inclusive government that stemmed therefrom should have moved the country forward but it didn’t.  Not least because of continued disputations over the land question that it failed to resolve. And that the current Zimbabwean government considers to be final.   

What then becomes interesting is the possibility that there is an evident desire on the part of SADC and the EU to move away from the past.  In respect of the former, it is to take Zimbabwe to a post Mugabe era while not negating or directly appearing to be compromising on issues to do with sovereignty and of course, land.  The latter however may have queries with the current government as to its failure to move away from Mugabe era not only in respect to human rights but also and probably more importantly to property (land) rights.

In both however, if we look closely, we see an attempt to move on or move back.  As informed by both immediate or long term history and perceptions of it. In any case, as has been now proven, history does not end.

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

Christianity’s Political Overreach in Zimbabwe?

By Takura Zhangazha*

At one time a Zambian comrade told me that their then new constitution had declared that theirs was officially a Christian country.  I did not panic but I was abstractly concerned.  I asked myself what it would all eventually come to mean.  And how would future generations of Zambians come to view it.  This was because it was and appeared to be final.  At least legally and with protections for the freedom of religion.  This was circa 1996 and to the best of my knowledge the constitution of Zambia has not been changed. At least in that regard.

Zimbabwe’s own political processes that led to a new constitution being signed into law by Robert Mugabe in 2013 avoided declaring the country a Christian one.

This despite some active campaigns by some church leaders that it is officially declared one.  That policy advocacy failure did not however stop its citizens from remaining exceedingly Christian.  And it was beyond the purview of the law.  What was guaranteed was the freedom of worship.  And that remains a good thing, unless of course you are a traditional spirit medium or what is then referred to in our statute books as ‘animist religions’. 

There the freedom of religion is a bit more limited and derided as being irrational.  Largely as a legacy of colonialism but also because it is how many Zimbabweans view it.  As exactly that if not borderline ‘evil’.

Hence a majority of our contemporary politicians have a strong Christian religious background.  Or if not, they will probably join one Christian church or the other for expedient or genuinely religious but in the end political purposes.  Regardless of how some of their own personal backgrounds are clearly to be found in  non-religious activities. 

This is important to mention primarily because the Zimbabwean Christian community has decided to weigh in on our national politics.  Both as arbiter and enabler.

Again, both historically and in the contemporary. The historical dimension being the ambiguous role played by the formal Christian church in our struggles for national liberation against colonialism (education and support to the liberation armies).

 In the contemporary and quite recently so, the Zimbabwe Council of Churches (ZCC) recently held a ‘National Dialogue’ symposium with political parties.  Ostensibly to build a new national discourse on peace and tolerance.  And that’s the arbiter part.  The ZCC is persuaded that in the name of God in whom both the serving president and his arch nemesis in the opposition are firm believers, it can heal the nation.  Or at least bring the country back to a normalcy that it is yet to define.  And that is a good thing. Though it should not be beyond secular reproach.

The ZCC and its members or affiliates were reported in the media as having, at that meeting, ‘lashed out’ at the main political leaders in the country for not finding common ground for peace.

My personal persuasion is that it is always important to examine whether the ZCC is overreaching its mark and its mandate. Not least because it is becoming an important player in the realm of the secular.

 But then again we deal the hand we are dealt as a ‘Christian’ country.  The involvement of the Christian side of the church is based on the fact that a majority of Zimbabweans claim the same as their own religion.  And in any event, Christians remain the most organized (nationally and locally) of Zimbabweans.  Both in relations to their faith as well as their ability, once in agreement, to be mobilized to a specific political cause. 

In both cases, the Christian church is quite persuadable.  Not least because of its historical proximity to the colonial and post-independence state.  But also more conveniently because our contemporary political leaders are heavily reliant on its endorsement for some form of popular political legitimacy and more importantly, support. 

Quite significantly, the Christian missionary ethos of an ideological social justice cause in the colonial past and its post- independence narrative  is now somewhat lost. Mainly because the church appears less liberatory as it was in the past.  It is essentially a part of the establishment.  And where it tries to be somewhat different, it will eventually pick a side.  And that again, is most likely to be the establishment of the day.  But with relative caution that takes into account many things such as the protection of its material capital in the form of land, capital investments in institutions such as universities, banks, media, schools and hospitals. And possibly residential stands.

It all makes for a very awkward arrangement between what is assumed to be the secular state and the Christian church. An arrangement that suits both.  Those that would lead the state get political support. Those that lead the Christian church then get capital ( stands, educational stands and financial capital with tax exemptions).  A situation that may lead to a term of office perpetual ‘I owe You’ (IOU) with the ruling political party and by dint of the same, the state.

So why would the Christian Church not be politically influential in Zimbabwe’s context?  It is historically.  It can be in the contemporary.  It will be in the foreseeable future.

The only dilemma it faces is that it is already at the precipice of attempting that which it will eventually be unable to control.  Bibles in hand.  With its attempts at ‘national dialogue’ it is oblivious as to its own history under the aegis of Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith. Controversial as both historical narratives were.

And that’s its ambiguous side that is little talked about. Largely because the Christian church is perceived as liberatory. Church leaders that supported liberation and those that countered it were aplenty.  Both as redemptory to the then ‘natives’ as well as in order to keep them under control. 

A situation which changed with the increasing success of the liberation struggle.  The church for example under Catholic Bishop Lamont quickly learnt how to challenge a repressive state.  (Never mind the fact that Lamont was deported and the church carried on via the increasingly important Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace.)   Or the African Pentecostal churches of, for example, the Zion Christian Church and the Assemblies of the Family of God.

In the contemporary scheme of things however the Church will be unable to explain runaway political violence from those it either sought to bring together or in the final analysis, gave partisan and ‘spiritual’ support or guidance.  And it may eventually be unable to explain its role in a crass neoliberalism that will lead many Zimbabweans to poverty in the name of ‘austerity for prosperity’ as announced by government.   But then again, its all about faith. With a word of caution as to how that same said ‘faith’ can be partisan and convenient. All at the same time. Either to get state capital or (tax) reprieve. 

I am however of the personal view that  the attempt at some form of ‘national dialogue’ remains worth it in our Zimbabwean context. It is understandable given the fact that a majority of us Zimbabweans are Christian believers. And popularly so.  A key consideration however remains that the Christian Church should know the import of its impact and limits on what would be the ‘secular’.  After all, it remains colonial in its import to Zimbabwe. Together with its influence on the country’s perceptions of modernity/austerity or the current ruling party’s modernization/stabilisation  neoliberal programmes. It would be advisable, for now, that the majority Christian church proceeds with extreme caution.  Unless it is completely certain it can solve the problems it has interpreted. In the political/secular realm.

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

An Imperial(ism) Re-creep? A Brief Zimbabwean Reflection on Venezuela.

By Takura Zhangazha*

A friend, in 2003 and much to my surprise remarked that he supported the United States of America (and its allies) invasion of Iraq.  I tried to caution him on believing what the global media was putting out for his consumption and preferences.  He remains unapologetic for his views and still avidly believes that almost all that comes from global Western superpower foreign policy toward the global south can only be good. Or in our best interests, even if we do not know it.     

In 2009, I was to watch the first black American president give a speech at Cairo University (Egypt) on what would ostensibly be the key features of his government’s Middle East policy .  Barrack Obama, true to form, spoke eloquently about the universality of human rights and how such a universalism would inform his governments policy.  It never actually turned out that way.  And for all his amazing speeches, Obama is partly responsible for the continuing break-up of Libya which in turn has contributed significantly (and arguably) to the deaths of thousands of African migrants in the Mediterranean Sea.  

We also now know (and see) the rise of radical white nationalism in the global north that was always going to counter assumptions of a global universalism for humanity.  Hence we now have 'fortress' global north and more stringent and in part discriminatory immigration policies.

But this was all rather distant from us here in Southern Africa or in particular in Zimbabwe.  Except for the time when a retired British military general mentioned, with hindsight,  the fact that former United Kingdom (UK) prime minister Tony Blair had made a case for military intervention in Zimbabwe.  And also as reflected upon by former president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki’s advisor, Frank Chikane. 

Recalling the latter events with particular focus on Zimbabwe is not everyone’s cup of tea. Mainly because of a collective African historical amnesia as to the full import of colonialism and imperialism. Both as the past and a reinvented latter day ahistorical universalism.  As supported by an evidently pro-capital economic neo-liberalism and liberal interventionism from powerful governments in the global north.  And as they seek to compete for diminishing resources in the global south. 

I mention this in the wake of the neo-imperial foreign policy positions of the United States of America on a country that is now publicly its new arc Latin American nemesis, Venezuela (after Cuba of-course).  Donald Trump’s government has recognized the now main opposition leader Guardo as the president elect of Venezuela after the latter had declared himself the same over and above the actual president, Nicolas Maduro.  And at least four other governments in Southern America took the cue from Trump with the eventual support of some European governments.  

And this is where I return to the examples I cited above in relation to Zimbabwe.  And more significantly with its particular post 1997 struggles for further democratization which I have been a part of individually and with many of my elders, contemporaries and younger colleagues. 

We did not quite understand the mechanics of global politics and how they really work.  Especially in the aftermath of the cold war.  And understandably so.  

Faced with as dictatorial regime as Robert Mugabe’s which also created problems in order to pretend to solve them (economic structural adjustment was one of the most astounding), we would more often than not misread our placement in the global scheme of things.  This would occasionally mean our genuine struggles for democracy would be caught up in narratives that would limit our ability to negotiate better with either perceived or real allies.  

Or to at least measure what the interests of these same said global allies are. Together with a strategic reconsideration of what their support or allegiance would mean for our intrinsic democratic values and principles together with our right to national self-determination.  

A necessary exercise for all activists and as learnt from the insights of Pan-African revolutionaries of yore, not least, the inimitable Amilcar Cabral in his speech to the Tri-Continental Revolutionary conference, Havana, Cuba in 1966. 

Hence the situation in Venezuela, based on our own experiences in Africa during the drawn out Cold War of the 1960s-1980s, should clearly instruct us to be wary of a return of imperialism of old.  Not just by way of global superpower leaders bestowing presidents on us but in particular reducing our own national and pan African consciousness to being only important if they recognize it. Or assuming that theirs are acts that are intended only to serve our national interests. When the reality of the matter is that we are now faced with the serious threat, at least in the global South, of unmitigated ‘imperial re-creep’.  And we must be wary of that as our struggles continue.

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