Zim Workers Day 2019: Re-Linking the Idea of State with Working People

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s biggest labour federation the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) has given the theme for  the 2019  Workers Day commemorations as ‘We are at a Crossroads! Unite, Fight  Neo-liberalism and Austerity.’

This is a radical theme to say the least.  It is also directly ideological in that it immediately challenges the free market economic reform policy trajectory of Mnangagwa’s government.  Even if by assertion of intent. 

While we wait to hear in their May Day and after addresses what the leaders of ZCTU will outline as an alternative, it is however an important departure point.

Not that there has been no previous outline of alternatives from labour or human rights civil society.  There are a couple that come to mind.  These are for example the 1999 resolutions of the  ‘National Working People’s Convention’ which apart from tasking ZCTU to form a working peoples party, also outlined social democratic values as the panacea to resolving the country’s economic challenges.  There is also the Zimbabwe People’s Charter which distinctly sought to give a holistic and ideological outline of how the country should be governed on the basis of democratic more leftist ideological values.

These are but a few examples and there are others, though these may have been less political-economic in outlook.  Or would have confirmed neo-liberalism and austerity in the same way as is being pursued by the current government.  Or with a specific focus on seeking a change of personalities/implementers of the same free market ideological template in order to suit the interests of global financialised capital.  Or follow post-cold war assumptions of an ‘end of history’ and falsely believe that capitalism as being beyond defeat by the working class and poor.

But this is not to say that capitalism as represented in the contemporary by globalized neoliberalism is down on its knees in anticipation of annihilation.   On the contrary, it is sometimes when it appears at its weakest that it turns around and reinvents itself. The global financial crises of 2008 being a case in point.  Either with false populism or with the direct use of force (in a majority of cases- ditto the re-emergence of political roles for the military via coups-no-coups).  Even if theoretically we would still be wont to argue in Marxian terms that it remains confronted by its own contradictions. 

So when the ZCTU boldly asks the people of Zimbabwe to unite against austerity, it is not a simple matter.  It is a serious indictment on the broad economic policies being undertaken by the government. 

As however is often the riposte from our social and mainstream media commentariat, there will be and already are derisive comments about how Zimbabwe no longer has a ’working class’ let alone the industry to sustain it.  These would be fair comments only if we did not know the ideological context from which they were coming from.  Those that would argue as such are in most cases active sympathizers of free market economic policies and would prefer in most cases a return to the past of either a minority run economy  or the disastrous years of economic structural adjustment (ESAP). The latter in our contemporary case being what we can now safely refer to as 'ESAP 2.0' thanks to government's commitment to austerity.

This is probably what they would rather prefer instead of learning from the past and re-imagining working peoples centered national political economy.

And for the purposes of clarity, it is important for us to understand what it means to be a worker in Zimbabwe, the socio-economic (hegemonic) challenges that workers are faced with, and how to strive continuously to overcome these same said obstacles.

To begin with the first, being a worker in Zimbabwe is to be part of what ZCTU has already described as the ‘working peoples of Zimbabwe'. And this relates largely to class- namely a working class that now includes not just the formally employed and unionized worker, civil servants’ associations/unions, but also the peasant farmer, the farm worker and those that are regarded to be in informal trade as ‘vendors’.  

But in defining workers as broadly as outlined above, it is also significant to understand that at each turn the free market and its advocates in the form of state actors and private capital have also been working hard to weaken the ability of working people to organize themselves either in the form of strong unions and associations.  Or at least for working people to be able to believe in the importance and utility of collective action and above all collective solidarity. 

This is where the second point in relation to the socio-economic challenges faced by the working people of Zimbabwe is significant.  In this, increasingly high levels of individualism and a diminishing understanding of the common public good beyond one’s own pocket has meant acts and understanding of solidarity have not only become infrequent but are also expected only to be undertaken by private capital. And only in the most extreme of cases such as natural or man-made disasters.

This is also despite what should be the political-economic reality that it is the primary responsibility of the state to look after its citizens.  

And this immediately points to another socio-economic challenge faced by workers. That of being essentially left on their own.  Where the state is supposed to be the guarantor and provider of social services, again, it has outsourced this to the private sector and shows no sign of changing tact. This is at the heart of neoliberalism and austerity. An intention to almost do away with the state save for in pretense at regular elections/ democracy and retaining control of state violence/force (security services).  All the while leaving workers salaries to be determined by the ‘market’ together with prices of other basic commodities that are essential but unaffordable to workers’ livelihoods. 

The final consideration is how to ensure that this new call to challenge austerity and neoliberalism by ZCTU is not lost to populism.  An immediate strategy would be for the working people of Zimbabwe to define the alternative as clearly and in as apeople centered a way as possible.  Not in a dogmatic way where we insist in an ideologically puritanist framework but a contextual one that takes into account historical workers struggle events , documents/declarations but also steers clear of the abstract rationalizing of poverty that comes with neoliberalism.  

And these new frameworks as informed by history and the present, need to reach out to young workers and Zimbabweans to understand the democratic value of having a people-centered state that gives everyone a fair, equitable chance and start in life. Despite their parents or other forms of inherited wealth. All with a firm understanding that in the final analysis we are all equal in the state and before the state. A state that should be founded as it was at national independence on social democracy at minimal ideological correctness and at best organic democratic-socialist national consciousness. All of which were betrayed by a revolution that, as Andre Astrow wrote, lost its way. 

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

Zimbabwe @39: A Return to the Source and a Liberatory State.

By Takura Zhangazha*

The number of years since our national independence may increase but its historic meaning is never lost.  And that is as it should be.  No matter one’s political or religious views, our national independence, coming as it did after years of revolutionary struggle is definitive, liberatory and organic to our national consciousness. 

That the person who became the first Prime Minister of the republic, Robert Mugabe,  was violently ousted by the still ruling Zanu Pf party does not make independence any less significant.  It never belonged to him nor to his party.  Independence will always belong to the people of Zimbabwe in their diversity and in their progressive political consciousness. 

And the people have been through a lot.  From Gukurahundi, through to Economic Structural Adjustment (ESAP), repression of opposition politics, a populist fast track land reform programme (FTLRP)  and a sanitized military coup, Zimbabweans remain exemplary on the African continent.  Specifically in relation to their ability to still try and etch out an organic path to economic and political freedom.  All the while retaining a peculiar consciousness of history and our generic struggles against repression.  From the periods of colonialism, through to the attempts at a one party state and further attempts at suppressing a workers movement led opposition. 

In the 39 years we have been somewhat free of settler colonialism we have almost seen it all.  Our national responses to the calamities that have befallen us could have led to worse situations but they did not.  We did not go to war.  We did not ask for liberal intervention from a benevolent but rapaciously predatory West.  Indeed we lost lives needlessly under Zanu Pf’s rule and watch for political reasons.  We also lost livelihoods at the behest of the neoliberal direction of the same ruling Zanu Pf party.

In some instances we have been referred to as ‘resilient’ for expedient, comparative and convenient journalistic purposes.   What is more reflective of our reality is that we suffer but we continue.  Not necessarily on a revolutionary path but taking all lessons learnt to heart.  By default we are no longer as organically political but we seek new ways to better our existence.  Most times with great impatience and less with an understanding of posterity as a political function and value.  And regrettably sometimes we seek more political saviours than we seek pragmatism in dealing with our contemporary  challenges.

What is probably required is the Cabralist concept of a ‘return to thesource’ of national consciousness in relation to our independence.  Not in a dogmatic manner but more to understand what those that came before us, those that waged liberation struggles in one form or the other intended for our country to become.  And how to link the same with contemporary developments not only in Southern Africa but also the African continent and eventually the world.

This essentially entails that we reflect more ideologically on our current national state of affairs outside of the populist personality hue that was bequeathed us by Robert Mugabe and his ruling party.

So, for example, we should query the role of the state in relation to its ability and capacity to deliver social welfare of its citizens regardless of class, race or ethnicity.   This entails a review of how the state engages global (colonial) capital in order to better the lives of the people.  The current template being used by the Zanu Pf government is a negation of the anticipated liberatory role of the state mainly because it seeks to make the state subservient to global (colonial) capital and the global (colonial) free market. 

Moreover we should work toward a state that guarantees equality not just on the basis of civil rights, but economic ones.  And these economic rights are not just the rights to jobs and a narcissist individual culture of consumption.  Instead these should be economic rights to access health, water, transport, education and general social welfare support. 

Even more importantly is the perpetual question of ‘generational praxis.’ It is one that cannot be solved via ‘schools of ideology’ or religious political proclamations.  We need to ensure that we pass on the knowledge of struggle to younger generations not as dictat but as an organic understanding of our history.  In this, we need to understand that dogma no longer works.  Young Zimbabweans want solutions that they not only understand but consider directly relevant to their personal and collective experiences.  So passing on struggle knowledge is not a lesson in history, it is a lesson in the past, present and future. A lesson that ensures that despite the conformity that is sought by social media, we do not lose ourselves in a global community that largely still ‘others’ Africans.

Indeed it has been 39 years of national independence. The passage of time and occurrence of negative events does not however take away from the significance of national liberation.  Warts and all.  Again, we suffer, but we continue. Consciously.

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

Zimbabwe’s Version of Disaster Capitalism, Couched as Resilience

By Takura Zhangazha

A local Zimbabwean artist, Dereck Mpofu, recently released a song called ‘Mweya wechiZimba’.  Even though the title of the song may suggest it to be religious, it is upon listening to it, far from being so. 

Instead it is a satirical song that applauds with humour how Zimbabweans are now almost able to survive any calamity that befalls them.  Or where you hear of someone who, for example, has ‘farmed in the desert’ he/she is likely to be Zimbabwean, jokingly sings Mpofu.

Apart from laughing with sad trepidation at the lyrics (and also appreciating the instrumentation), the song also made me think a little bit on how sometimes we occasionally refer to ourselves (Zimbabweans) as resilient.  Or again as referred to by Mpofu, ‘survivors’. 

And this, with the hindsight of how those still around to tell any tale, may be somewhat true.  Only in an allegorical/ symbolic sort of way.  Because it is only those that actually survive an ongoing economic catastrophe, a cholera outbreak, a natural disaster such as a cyclone that live to tell tales of survival. 

Of late the term 'resilience' has started popping up in government or non-state actors public statements.  This is especially with regards the national political economy.  The official government economic policy of ‘austerity’, which is actually neo-liberalism, has been accompanied by propagandist statements such as 'no pain no gain'.  And a call for Zimbabweans to suffer a little bit more in order to get to a neo-liberal and elitist 'promised land.' 

The state and private capital have joined hands in a way that has created a dominant political and economic elite who intend on determining public perception as to what can be deemed progress.  Hence at every turn, government has courted the private sector to assist it with the fundamentals of dealing with either natural (cyclone Idai) or man-made (cholera outbreaks) disasters.  

And given the urgency of these disaster situations, we may generally overlook the significance of this strengthening relationship between those who have political power and those who have money/private capital. 

There has already been a consortium of private companies (including, you guessed it, Econet Zimbabwe) that are leading a reconstruction programme for Chimanimani and Chipinge as announced via full colour double page adverts in the local print media. 

On the face of it, the intention may be noble but it would be very correct for us to analyse the structure and impact of such private sector led investments at such a large scale.

All with the immediate permission of the state/government.

And to do so we must always undertake a comparative analysis of other disasters as they have occurred in different countries.  Where books on the same are available we must read and again learn to comprehend what exactly to make of an amorous relationship between the state and private capital.

For this, I turn to Naomi Klein’s seminal work on the Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.  In this book Klein gives numerous examples of the devious hand of private capital in collusion with neo-liberal states/ governments to profit from natural or man made disasters.  From Haiti, New Orleans, through to Iraq, Klein outlines the exchanges of tenders, money and the immediate forcible removals of peoples from disaster areas to make way for new forms of enforced gentrification and privatization of state capital. 

To quote her at relative length from an article that appeared in the Guardian UK newspaper in mid 2017, titled ‘ How Power Profits from Disaster’ she writes, ‘After a crisis, private contractors move in and suck up funding for work done badly, if at all. Then those billions get cut from government budgets.  Like Grenfell Tower, Hurricane Katrina reveled a disdain for the poor.’

This is potentially what appears to be emerging in the aftermath of the devastating after effects of Cyclone Idai.  The corporate scramble for recognition for having donated goods and services to the disaster areas does not occur out of intuitive charity as it did with individual Zimbabweans.  Corporates always have vested interests.  And this is what we should query.

Our queries must however be established on our preferred form of direct and accountable assistance to the victims of a national disaster.  With three clear principles.  Firstly that the state must take an independent and people centered lead in providing post disaster reconstruction and assistance.  This, in order to ward of direct profit motives by private corporations that may seek to win state supply and procurement tenders or alternatively gentrify/privatize Chimanimani and other directly affected areas. 

Secondly, corporations and their aid must be subject to independent and direct scrutiny with key accountability and transparency measures put in place to track not only the donations but also the potential for crony aid in return for state favors.

Thirdly and finally, we must come to terms with the reality that neo-liberal approaches to addressing disaster situations may give the impression of solving the immediate problems but may in the final analysis, cause the further disempowerment of ordinary people in favour of corporate/private capital.  While we may be caught up in the tragic and emotional conundrum of the natural disaster that has been Cyclone Idai, and even as we applaud immediate interventions of various stakeholders, we must keep an eye open for our own newer version of what quite literally would be individuals/corporates/state seeking to profit from a natural disaster. Or as Klein calls it, ‘Disaster Capitalism’.

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