Zanu Pf’s Shadow Boxing with Private Capital.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Presidential spokesperson for the Zimbabwean government, George Charamba this week made what would be relatively startling remarks.  Quoted in a story carried by the Herald newspaper titled. ‘Plot to Destabilise Economy Exposed’, Charamba is, inter alia, reported to have said,

“ We have realised that there is a clear nexus between runaway market activities and runaway opposition politics, that more and more, the security threat to this country, the destabilisation to this country is finding expressing through the market, so there is heightened smuggling of gold, there is heightened transactions, there is release of precious foreign currency into the black market, all to create a generalised instability which have the effect of creating disenchantment on the part of the Government..”

While it read like a familiar script from state officials against the mainstream political opposition in Zimbabwe, it has a different tone of tongue lashing.  Especially where he goes further to reportedly state,  “The politics are being shaped from the market…you will realise that we are in a phase where destabilisation has assumed a market form. The calculation was a health sector led generalised public strike, we are aware of such plots.”

I have quoted his statements at length because they reflect either a sense of panic at the top of the government (presidency) or a new found intention at redefining the relationship between private capital and the ruling Zanu Pf party via the state. 

In both likely circumstances, Charamba is not speaking for himself.  Even if his words may also betray his personal opinions on the matter to a keen reader. 

It would however be easier, if not popular(list), to view his comments as reflective of a sense of panic in the ruling establishment.  All happening in a national political economy in which the political elite and private capital/ big businesses are panicking over control of mobile money, foreign currency exchange rates and the suspension of the symbol of global financial capital, the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE). 

It is a narrative that fits into a neo-liberal framework of anticipating that where a government acts arbitrarily against what would be private capital (in this immediate case, components of Masiyiwa’s empire: Econet and Cassava), a national economy collapses.  

So the ‘market’ that Charamba refers to here is probably comprised of three key players. The state (and its regulators), domestic fixed and financial private capital (local big business) and thirdly, the latter’s global financialised off-shoot as represented by the ZSE. Including what would be considered its hegemonic outfits in the form of political parties, consumers and other forms of Gramscian civil society.   All being together in an axis of and for profit. 

In all of this there are those who would hope that the ‘economy screams’ in the hope that Zanu PF loses its hold on political power in the country. Hence the accusations of plots to destabilize the country.  While on the other hand those sympathetic with Mnangagwa hope he can keep not only power but his own party and its patronage system somehow intact. 

Hence anyone sensing a panicking within Mnangagwa’s government cannot be considered off the mark.  Even if they may sound conspiratorial about coups, potential coups and foreign interventions in Zimbabwe’s domestic political affairs. 

Where one takes the view that Charamba’s statements are indicative of a potential changing of the rules of the relationship between the state and private capital (market), it is probably a more ideological view of matters. 

In this, it would be clear that what is not going to change is the open for business free market policy of central government. At least not in ideological intention.  Instead what appears to be an issue is the assumed dishonesty by private capital toward the olive branch that Mnangagwa had been offering since assuming and retaining power thus far.  Coming from Mugabe’s purportedly radical indigenisation programme, his successor thought he had private capital in his palm. It turns out big business would want to have its unfettered financialised and extractive profit more than seek to help him retain power. 

Hence, if one reads between the lines of Charamba’s reported comments, there would be both a warning and intention of a new approach to government’s neo-liberal project. It would be a change that most likely would be characterized by a reconfiguration of who the state does business with or allows to extract more profit from state wealth.  And this would, academically at least, take the form of state capitalism i.e a neoliberalism that follows the free market, but with the state/government parceling out profit motivated opportunities of the same. 

So there is probably an attempt in central government to redraw the rules of doing business in Zimbabwe.  But because they are courting global private capital, it is least likely that this change of the relationship between the state and business will be more significant beyond regulatory warnings and threats.  Fundamentally, established domestic capital and global financialised capital are looking at this as a storm in a tea cup.  All the while angling for better concessions from the state to continue to open up national wealth for their profit motivated pillaging of the same.  Almost as though the state is inviting them to the dinner table and saying, ‘let’s play nice, we can all eat together’.  And in this, as long as Zanu Pf insists on neo-liberal economics as a panacea to Zimbabwe's economic challenges, it is least likely to win against private capital. Or those that it thinks are conspiring with the latter. 

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

Bolivia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe: In Alphabetical Order?

By Takura Zhangazha*

There was a little noticed story about Bolivia that was carried by the New York Times and ably analysed by investigative journalism online website The Intercept.  It turns out that the data on the disputed election that the Organization of American States (OAS) used to justify the claim of massive electoral fraud and therefore justify the undemocratic ouster of former president Evo Morales was flawed.  This, according to what the New York Times referred to as independent analysts. 

Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald, writing for the Intercept takes specific note of the role American mainstream media played in pushing the OAS’s now disputed data says, 

“In sum, when it came to the 2019 Bolivian coup, the U.S. media played its decades-old, standard role whenever the U.S. wants to depict a military coup against a government it dislikes as a victory for democracy: Namely, it blindly and dutifully adopted the State Department’s view and uncritically waved the flag.”

The right wing transitional government that was undemocratically put in power by the security services has so far failed to hold elections.  It has also ensured that it limits free expression, assembly and association particularly for Morales' indigenous supporters.

In Venezuela the same strategy however has not met with success.  Both from the very intention of imposing a president on the country after, again, disputed elections. And more recently in an attempted military raid to oust current leader Nicolas Maduro. 

Where we cross the Atlantic Ocean to another country in the global south, Zimbabwe, the same circumstances do not necessarily obtain. But they may be wished for.  Not only because of a recent mention by Mr. O’brien, national security adviser to US President Trump of Zimbabwe as an ‘adversary’.  But also as a result of evidently frosty diplomatic relations between Washington and Harare.

The key difference between Bolivia/Venezuela and Zimbabwe is that while the former’s regional bloc OAS is the USA’s priority regional sphere of influence, the latter’s equivalent in the form of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a much different regional actor in international relations. Not that  SADC is invincible.  It is just a bit more historically and organically grounded than its OAS counterpart. 

This does not however stop a number of Zimbabweans from misconstruing political developments as they have occurred in either Bolivia or Venezuela as preferable.  Not only out of a general lack of knowledge of the histories of the two countries. Or out of evident ideological bias against leftist global south governments that do not pander to either neo-liberal foreign policy. As informed by what would likely be a falsely motivated idealization of neoliberal societies in the global north or east.  Moreso in the wake of a potentially new global understanding of the imperative for racial equality as motivated by what the African Union referred to as the ‘murder’ of George Floyd by police in the USA. 

In any event Zimbabwe’s current government is nowhere being as leftist as that previously led by Morales in Bolivia or the Venezuelan one that Maduro retains a hold on.  In fact, Mnangagwa’s government is decidedly neo-liberal with a keen eye of normalizing relations with the USA. It is however a strategy that appears, on the face of it, to not be working.  Much to the delight of the mainstream opposition which has deliberately positioned itself as the go to political leaders of the preferred interests of global capital.

It also appears to be that Mnangagwa is now probably mulling a tougher stance on what his national security council recently called, “Western governments through their local embassies”.  Apparently in a recently released statement for ‘peddling’ rumours of a military coup in the country. And probably therefore signifying a potentially significant shift in Mnangagwa's foreign policy strategy of ‘re-engagement’. 

Either way, the reality of the matter is that in Zimbabwe we must be careful what we wish for. Either side of the political divide.  There is limited little to envy about events as they have unfolded in Bolivia or Venezuela.  The key task is to understand their end effects on the majority poor of those countries. 

Just as we learnt of the devastating effects that liberal interventionism had on the stability and national cohesion of countries such as Libya, Somalia, Syria and Iraq among others.  For all the insistence on some sort of ‘responsibility to protect’ it is very evident that things have not panned out well in the immediate or the future for the aforementioned countries. 

In our various domestic political persuasions and agendas we will invariably require global allies in one form or the other. Historically, in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa, a greater majority of these have been from what during the Cold War was referred to as the ‘East’.  In the contemporary, these are now varied largely because we are naively living as though ideologically we have reached what would be an illusory ‘end of ideological’ history (as now somewhat rescinded by Fukuyama).

We would still do well to still embrace the Cabralist values of organic activism and its attendant intellectualism.  Which is that revolutions cannot be imported.  And that where we don’t seek to understand the full realities of our domestic realities, we will be unable to effectively navigate the turbulent waters that are the open and unpredictable ocean of international relations.

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

From Washington to Harare and Back: Black Lives Matter.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Recent demonstrations in the United States of America (USA) against racial inequality and police brutality have led to some surprising developments in Zimbabwe’s placement in international relations. 

In what we, in Zimbabwe, would have assumed would be accusations against the ‘usual suspects’ of aggression and interference in the domestic affairs of the USA,  the national security advisor to President Trump, Mr. Robert O’brien pulled a cat out of the hat.  To the great astonishment of many who would follow Zimbabwean political developments, he is reported to have referred to our country as an ‘adversary’ of his country.  All in the same sentence as China and on live television.

He quite literally said the following,

“ I’ve seen a number of tweets from the Chinese today that are taking pleasure and solace in what they are seeing here. I want to tell our foreign adversaries, whether it’s a Zimbabwe or a China, that the difference between us and you is that that officer who killed George Floyd, he’ll be investigated, prosecuted, and he’ll receive a fair trial,” 

The Zimbabwean government through its ministry of foreign affairs responded by firstly denying any role in the anti-police brutality demonstrations that are occurring in the USA and also summoning, as would be diplomatic protocol, the latter’s ambassador to Zimbabwe in Harare for an explanation.

Soon after the formal meeting in Harare, the resident American ambassador Brian Nichols issued a statement in which while acknowledging his own African American heritage essentially emphasized by implication and in not so many words, a dictum of American foreign policy.  That of exceptionalism.

Outlining how his government will not be denied its right to speak on the fate of peaceful protesters in Zimbabwe, not only in recent times but also in the immediate past, he made clear that his country would continue to, “meet the ideals of our founding”. And that it would, “change this world for the better”. 

The formality of the engagement between Harare and Washington (as represented by the local USA embassy) would make for a local diplomatic tiff.  With the only difference that this particular one did not originate in Harare but in Washington after the remarks of US national security advisor, Mr. O’brien. And as picked up by the international mainstream media. AS well as within the context of the formal statement of the African Union (AU) statement condemning what it called the ‘murder’ of George Floyd.  

As a consequence, Zimbabwean social media went agog at the turn of events. Either in keeping with the general global apprehension at the violence against black people in America. But mainly in a partisan fashion based on our own local political perceptions about the role and moral worthiness of American foreign policy in our domestic politics. With those that would be sympathetic to the ruling Zanu PF establishment attempting a moral high-ground criticism of events in the USA.  While those aligned to mainstream opposition politics pointing out in every other way possible the hypocrisy of the former’s social media content.

Both postulations, while expected in our Zimbabwean context, may full well miss the global historicity of the current moment. All for many reasons but perhaps for now at least two will be easier to outline.

The first being that African American history and the history of the African continent are inextricably intertwined.  Not just because of the crime against humanity that was the Trans-Atlantic slave trade but more importantly because of how the African American experience in fighting rascism gave birth to the Pan Africanism that in turn led to struggles for liberation on the African continent.(Crosscheck W.E Du Bois, George Padmore and Kwame Nkrumah )

So if there is unfinished business of African American liberation/freedoms in the USA, it is something that cannot be ignored on the African continent. Let alone in Zimbabwe. Not by way of preference but by way of historicity and the emerging contemporary as it represents legacies of the former.

The second reason is that where we want to compare human rights records of African countries versus those of the USA, we would be careful not to be either simplistic or populist. Both in relation to the implications of domestic or foreign policies.  And this is perhaps the most difficult part for many Zimbabweans.  

Not only because of the high esteem they may hold the USA but also a lack of an objective knowledge of global history and contemporary international relations.  We would still however be correct to point out, in the expected fact of the universality of human rights, violations as they occur in our own African countries. Not just because we hold any global superpower in high esteem but because we believe in these universal democratic values and principles with or without the approval of another country’s gaze.

As a Zimbabwean, I have been to the USA courtesy of the same country’s State Department’s International Visitor’s Leadership Programme (IVLP) in 2010. This was during Obama’s first term presidency.  While visiting the latter’s ‘home’ city, Chicago, in my naïve enthusiasm, I wanted to go hang about the ‘black’ neighbourhoods.  I was politely told, that it was not ‘safe’ and given a brief summary of drugs and gun violence. I couldn’t argue with that as a guest of the State Department.  After all I thought I was there to de-mystify and experience the ‘land of the free’.  I was also astounded to hear of the equivalent of ‘Native Reserves’ for American Indians, even if they do not appear to have problems with them.  Something that still baffles my mind today.

Even my own recent attendance of this year's Black History Month festivities at the invitation of the USA embassy in Harare did not prepare me for the recent diplomatic incident between Harare and Washington. What I would understand however is that any further fallouts, accusations and counter-accusations do not help either of our countries.

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