Monday, 28 December 2020

Covid 19 Zimbabwe Advice from Year 2020 to Year 2021

 By Takura Zhangazha*

Some things are not expected to happen by default. For example, travelling by aeroplane from one place to the other from Africa is supposed to be a status symbol.  Especially getting a Visa to attend a conference in the Global North. Particularly Europe or North America.  Until a pandemic such as Covid 19 makes you think twice about status or symbol.  Let alone the arduous paper work for travel for a black African.  

And in so doing give pause for reflection as to what contemporary reality truly means on this side of the world. 

There were some things that 2020 was never going to warn us of.  Let alone ask us to remember.  Even as key a question as ‘Whose Humanity is it?”, in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic.  Even though known to have emerged from Wuhan-China, Covid 19 was always expected to reach enormous proportions by way of morbid impact in what has (colonially) historically been viewed as the source of all pandemics, the continent of Africa. Particularly South of the Sahara. It did not.Instead it chose Europe, North America and the rest of South East Asia to demonstrate the dilemmas of underfunded public health systems versus their privatized for the rich corporate counterparts.  

But we were not really expected to think of it that way.  We were expected to think the worst of our circumstances and of possibly ourselves. Friends, family especially those based in Africa tremendous Diaspora kept asking via social media, almost in given anticipation, ‘Has it hit yet’? Waiting for the images akin to those of when the Ebola virus in West and Central Africa arrived and where thousands of black bodies would be buried in mass graves as the global (Murdoch and others) media paid handsomely for the images.  Well, that did not happen.  Not that it makes it any better. Death, after all is death.  Regardless of race, colour but of course except for ‘class’.  

The latter point being reflective of the false assumption that "no way could the ‘rich could die of the ‘Rona’ " (said in an American accent).  It was assumed to be a disease, be it in the global east, west, south or north, of those without access to health care.  Especially the expensive, private kind which is not accessible to all by way of privileged cost. 

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) pronouncements on Covid 19 were taken to be the usual ones couched in either what Said referred to as Orientalism or Conradian, where it came to considerations on Africa, particularly again South of the Sahara and the impact of the same. 

Again it turned out to be neither. 

Here in Zimbabwe we sort of followed the WHO’s guidelines.  Again as somewhat led by our regional hegemony South Africa which behaved like a global urban superpower in what still remains and perceived of as proverbial ‘heart of darkness’ and in defence of private capital.  Lockdown orders were issued and we, in Zimbabwe with some understanding of regional immigration/emigration patterns to ‘Egoli’ (South Africa)  sort of followed suit.  Even if we remained thoroughly but a-historically unwanted there. 

But let us not overthink this.  Because ‘thinking’ on social media does not get eyeballs or clicks.  Lets lay it down as simply as we can. Particularly for many Zimbabweans within our borders, the Diaspora or those that would court the ears of global superpowers. 

The year 2020 as it writes a letter to 2021 will advise the latter of the fact that Covid 19 made it(self) as eventful as it would be non-dramatic.  Whereas it (2020) assumed there would be emerging key questions about the capitalist system and its inability to deal equitably with an urgent public health crisis caused by the ‘Rona’, it turns out those directly affected never found time to question the fundamentals of the pandemic.  They tried to continue their normal lives until it knocked on their doorsteps but regrettably and tragically also moved on afterwards. Having learnt little and tried to normalize tragically affected lives of especially young ones.

Almost like main actors in Hollywood films do when their close supporting act (in the script and visually also do) ‘dies’.  Except that sadly in reality people have been dying. In our Zimbabwean context untested or tested for Covid 19. But the main actor mentality falsely keeps us confident that one way or the other we will get through this.  Especially now that ‘hope’ has emerged with the introduction of a vaccine for Covid 19. 

Ironically in our Zimbabwean context, we have tried to do our politics as usual. As did many other countries.  In fact some like Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, the United States of America (USA) have proceeded or are proceeding with constitutionally bound elections.  In our case we are still trying to demonstrate a specific ability to permit specific human freedoms except where and when it is not convenient to the ruling establishment (warts and all).

What 2020 definitely will metaphorically advise 2021 is that its occupants, actors and survivors were not thinking straight.  Not only about the past, the present but more significantly about the future.  This being an issue that this blog on behalf of 2021 may respond to before the end of the week prior to its newfound existence. Almost as involuntary lessons learnt.  

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

 

 

Tuesday, 22 December 2020

The Political Economy of Social Media in Zimbabwe (An Urban Dog’s Breakfast)

By Takura Zhangazha* 

This would generally be assumed to be a rather boring subject matter.  Because social media is exactly what it is- social and ephemeral.  Except that it comes with human behavioral modification elements that cannot be ignored.  Especially at an individual level.  It easily remembers as quickly as it can forget.  Even though a majority of us desire recognition by its algorithms for the things we post. That is wanting to either trend, get in touch with long lost high school friends that we would never have remembered in our previous analogue as opposed to our now sort of digital lives.  

And in most cases we are somewhat justified in feeling like we own social media.  Individually.  The number of spats about trying to take each other timelines, newsfeeds or tags is always amazing to watch or read.  And of course the emergence of influencers, even in a Zimbabwean social context, is also astounding.  With a decent number of these being either musicians, pastors, models, comedians or in some cases journalists that eventually take one political angle or the other as it relates to either their values or their desire for eyes/views of their social media content. 

But like everywhere else in the urban global world, social media in urban Zimbabwe has come to mean highly personalized access to information.  More so information that you individually prefer. Be it political, social, entertainment or economic.  A phenomenon that has been described as the ‘echo chamber’ effect of social media. 

As it is, social media as represented in our national case largely by WhatsApp, Facebook and eventually Twitter, functions in its own awkward political economy circle and cycle.  

And it all begins with ownership for profit. In the Zimbabwean context, there are service providers that are in control of access to social media as well as more significantly the internet.  Initially there were three of them that provided, at cost, this access.  Namely NetOne, Telecel and the largest of them all Econet Wireless Zimbabwe via mobile telephony.  Now the latter has become a primary behemoth via its expansion/investment into not only fiber optic cable companies such as ZOL but also its reach into the yet to be fully explored rural market via transmission towers. 

These companies however do not directly own social media.  Neither do they own the devices that we use.  There are other bigger players such as Facebook (which also owns WhatsApp and Instagram), Twitter and the mobile device manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung and Huawei.  The latter also operates transmission equipment that the three aforementioned Zimbabwean companies also use. 

Simply put, mobile telephony and internet/social media access is seriously big business at not just a national scale but more significantly a global one.   And we are the pawns in this profit motivated game.  Which we all, within the Zimbabwean context, quite thoroughly enjoy as it gives us some sort of quick political and social opinion empowerment that we previously never had thanks to the government monopolizing mainstream state and even in some cases private media content. 

We have therefore taken to social media like ducks to Zimbabwean water.  Except that we do not own that water.  But it is sold to us, like snake oil, on the basis of our desire to not be left out. One way or the other.

So for example, and I am sure a number of cdes reading this will attest to this, you do not pay Facebook, Google or Twitter to open an account with them.  It is for free.  What is however not free is your voluntarily given data.  It is then sold on to potential advertisers by way of quantitative reach for the profit of these owners. AS they deem fit via their privately owned algorithms.

Because it’s a general given that in our Zimbabwean context, the right to privacy is not high on our human rights priority list, we would sooner be recognized than protect any assumption of privacy on these social media platforms.  Hence we are happily social media ‘cannon fodder’ or like ‘lambs to the slaughter’. 

What becomes ironic is that we do not really seek recognition among ourselves but more from the owners of the platforms themselves and their global north societies.  For many of us it does not really matter where the ‘followers’ or subscribers are from, we desire that official recognition (Twitter blue tick/YouTube shield) more than we desire influencing our own context via these platforms.  In some cases, as soon as the United States or United Kingdom local embassies retweet or like a specific post then we appear to have arrived at a necessary recognition.   Except that we forget the ephemeral nature of social media and its equally temporary ‘recognition’ status.   Let alone those that would control such ‘recognition’ algorithms depending on what is permissible for you to post on what you falsely consider your personal social media property. 

The primary value of our Zimbabwean social media content is that it affects our ephemeral urban feelings. And that the owners of our local telecommunication companies, those of the attendant social media platforms and those that sell the actual mobile telephony gadget profit from what we are feeling. While at the same time urging us on to feel in specific ways via algorithms.  It is an urban dog’s breakfast. 

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

 

Friday, 11 December 2020

A Casual Neo-Colonial Cruelty: Zim’s Urban Local Government

By Takura Zhangazha*

What is the meaning of the urban and its attendant aspirational lifestyle for many Zimbabweans?  This is a question that rarely gets asked in the now because the answer would be assumed to be historically obvious.  But in most cases remaining oblivious of the same past.  This is a point I will return to during the course of this write up.

Recently there has been a public outcry over the demolition of houses in one of Harare’s densely populated suburbs, Budiriro.  According to mainstream media the now demolished houses were built on illegally allocated residential stands. And that it was the City of Harare (CoH) that went out of its way to seek a high court order to not only evict but demolish the houses that had been built by what one can consider poorer urban residents of the capital city. 

As is known, no public outcry can/will occur without catching the attention of political parties and their leaders. In the immediate aftermath of the demolitions the political blame-games and showmanship began. In reality and on social media.  The ruling Zanu Pf party and senior central government officials accused the opposition MDC-Alliance run CoH of being corrupt and incompetent.  In turn  the opposition leadership not only countered the accusation but went a step further to seek to tour the affected areas.  And in saying ‘affected areas’ I do not mean it in the sense of a natural disaster, but a fundamentally ‘man-made’ one.  

On either end of  the political divide what without a doubt will be quickly and sadly forgotten are the voices of the victims of such violent evictions. Never mind the ineptitude of CoH local authorities and the central national ministry in charge of the latter. 

Some pundits will be wont to argue that there is also the question of the gullibility of those that purchased these allegedly illegal residential stands from land barons.  On the face of it, this is a fair point.  But it misses the fundamental issue I raised earlier in querying the meaning of the urban for many young Zimbabweans.

And this is perhaps where we should put on our thinking caps. Even for a little while. The urban settlement is historically an aspirational one.  Even as we read urban geography books in high school, we were taught about the ‘bright lights syndrome’. As it related to rural-urban migration.  What we never understood was the change of that so called syndrome into one of assumptions of permanence (arrival) and recognition forty years plus after national independence.

Whereas in the settler colonial years of Rhodesia, the city or the urban had gatekeepers who would determine those allowed to come, go or stay along racist lines, in our post-independence years we have not changed these repressive and exclusionary approaches to the same. Save for the fact that we do it to gate keep ‘class lines and sill imagine success in neo-colonial materialist terms. Hence the majority of housing demolitions always happen in previously black only residential areas. 

 Even more importantly we have not sought to make the city/the urban an equitable social livelihood arena for those that seek opportunity in it.  Especially as they arrive from what many of our policy makers probably still consider a ‘backward’ rural. Hence the ease with which Operation Murambatsvina occurring as it did in 2005 has been easily forgotten in urban memory. And its victims’ voices long lost to the rural.   

Returning to the aspirational materialism that the city represents it is a commonly held perception that owning urban property is a symbol of individual success.  In many conversations, and I know that if you are reading this you will attest to it, a key lifetime achievement is to own an urban residential stand, house or flat.  Its something that your parents/guardians, even as they are living relatively frugal lives in rural areas will relate to as not only an achievement of their offspring but also themselves.  Hence even if we were to blame gullibility of individuals for falling into the aspirational and materialist trap of getting illegal housing from ‘land barons’, we would still need to consider their desperation for success in the urban.

What this slightly historical narrative indicates is that we need to rethink the city and the urban.  Not just in relation to legally planned housing Instead a broader approach needs to look at the urban for a post-colonial (as opposed to neo) new paradigm that values equality, inclusiveness and social and economic justice.  This would entail newer architectural re-imagination of urban landscapes that defy repressive colonial frameworks that we still regrettably use to this day.  All within the ambit of ensuring the urban provides equitable housing, education, health, transport, water and other ancillary social services.  While keeping in mind that these services should be availed to rural areas too as we work to create new rural futures. 

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

 

Tuesday, 1 December 2020

Mnangagwa’s NDS1 Economics: Angling Performance Legitimacy via Private Capital

 By Takura Zhangazha*

There is an increasing ambiguity when influential Zimbabweans debate their current government’s macro-economic policies.  This is probably because they do not have structured differences with its neoliberal/free market/ease of doing business thrust. 

Ordinary Zimbabweans are not so ambiguous in their own debates and discussions.  From general observations they remain highly skeptical due to issues such as allegations of corruption.  Or their own political biases as they relate to internal Zanu Pf or mainstream opposition factions/formations. 

There is however nuanced comments on issues to do with infrastructure development.  Particularly where it concerns roads, bridges and state owned buildings/monuments.  Something that points to Mnangagwa’s keen eye on some sort of eventual ‘performance legitimacy’ putting paid to his vociferous detractors.  Especially as they emerge intermittently on social media. 

Mnangagwa’s economic blueprint for the next five years (2021-2025) is referred to as the National Development Strategy number one (NDS1) which was launched on 16 November 2020. With the assumption that there will likely be NDS2 as we head toward what they refer to as a ‘middle income income economy’ by 2030. 

And the caveat that he wins the next elections scheduled for 2023. And also that all national annual budgets including the recently presented 2021 one should be read within the overall ambit of NDS1.  (For an overview of the key issues in the 2021 Zimbabwe projected national budget you can visit NewZWire website here.) 

But it still remains important to analyze the priorities of Mnangagwa’s anticipated and desired performance legitimacy over the next five years.

Priority number one is clearly pandering to the whims and intentions of private capital.   And this is outlined in the NDS1 document which states,

“The 2021 -2025 Macroeconomic Framework is premised on the adoption and swift implementation of bold strategies, policies and programmes aimed at achieving economic transformation. This will be done through the creation of a thriving private sector led competitive economy, implementation of sound macroeconomic policies anchored on fiscal discipline, monetary and financial sector stability including enhancing an open business friendly environment, which promotes both foreign and domestic investment.” (Item 93)

You could easily refer to it as has been done in the global north as a ‘socialism for the rich’ Wherein the intention is to make it as easy as possible for global (east or west) private capital to do business in Zimbabwe. Particularly in mining, agriculture, energy and telecommunications/digital companies.

In tandem with this first priority would be a second one which is referred to in Section 94, the re-engagement of the international community (again read as global private capital).  

The key principle of this international re-engagement is the sanctification of private capital/property.  Regardless of its nefarious colonial history of dispossession and eventual profiteering motivated globalization. In perpetuity. (Crosscheck Thomas Piketty’s most recent book “Capital and Ideology”)

Reading between the lines, though it is not directly mentioned, there is an intention to then arrive at priority number three at ‘performance legitimacy’.  This being the assumed ‘trickle down effect’ of neoliberal economics. 

As highlighted earlier, this begins with the pursuit of a massive infrastructural development or rehabilitation programme. This includes some of those currently underway with regards to roads (some which urbanites like me do not know of), airports, Parliament, power stations and hospitals.  What the public eye can literally see is what it will appreciate.  Hence social media has been slightly agog at the Harare-Masvingo-Beitbridge road rehabilitation project or even the new Parliament building in Mazowe.

This infrastructural development has the end effect of demonstrating a ‘man at work’ persona for Mnangagwa and he knows this.   

Through this he however is ensuring the creation of a local private capital investment, for lack of a better word, ‘mafia’ that not only sees business opportunity but also understands that once in, they are all in this together with the current government.  It then becomes an elite state-local business/private capital pact about how if ‘you look after me, I will look after you’.  And this is the trend in global superpower countries wherein the revolving door between state and private capital is not only regular but is an establishment or oligarchy on its own.  

Including new pacts with former white commercial farmers that are now scheduled to be compensated for the ‘infrastructural developments’ they undertook on land that in the majority of cases was acquired during the period of Rhodesian settler colonialism. 

And a fourth priority becomes one in which there is the elevation of public-private partnerships for social service delivery.  The key issue being that these services such as health, transport, water, energy, education, media and broader social welfare can be achieved in tandem with the profit motivated interests of private capital.  As it accedes to and recognizes the fact that its latter-said profits will come from state capital. 

But lets go back a little bit to conversations on the national political economy of Zimbabwe under Mnangagwa’s government.  Many neoliberal economists, civil society activists and political actors are finding it difficult to fault the NDS1 except on the basis of implementation and allegations of corruption at various levels. In other words, they in all likelihood silently/secretly agree with it. I personally disagree with it in relation to its ideological premise of setting up a free market framework for a ‘socialism for private capital’. 

The reasons why some would want it to succeed is not so much politically partisan on either side of our political divide.  It is regrettably mainly about recognition and a return to what Mnangagwa himself has referred to as ‘normalcy’ in international economics/private capital. With the primary question and competition being about who in post-Mugabe Zimbabwe, achieves this under the judgmental gaze of private capital. 

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