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)

 

 

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)

 

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)

 

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) 

 

Zimbabwe New TV Licenses: Profit, Media and Incrementalism.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) recently licensed six (6) new free to air national commercial television stations.  This is a first since our national independence in 1980 that this has been done at this magnitude and in this age of the internet.  It had previously been conservatively done in the mid-1990s with the brief outsourcing of a second channel from the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) to private players such as Joy TV and Munhumutapa Broadcasting Corporation .

The full scale licensing of private television stations for national broadcasting on their own designated frequencies is however as unprecedented as it has in some instances been viewed by key media stakeholders as controversial.  Not only based on real and perceived inconsistencies within the enabling Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) or its attendant licensing regulations which do not emphasize the necessity of diversity in private media ownership. Especially as it applies to cross/multi-media ownership frameworks where some newly licensed companies own media across the print, radio and television spectrum.  And examples of this type of media ownership are best exemplified by Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp multi-media empire.  Or even on social media with companies such as for example Facebook that already owns a number of popular content and information platforms.

It is almost like a throwback media licensing regime framework in Zimbabwe wherein the  major players in the print media as registered by the Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC) became the licensees of the of the commercial radio licenses.

What is however interesting to take note of, in the case Zimbabwe's new TV licenses, is that they are emblematic of at least two things.

Firstly, the licensing process itself has been couched in the official policy of the government on the ‘ease of doing business’.  While it may be considered a coincidence since the Information and Media Panel of Inquiry (IMPI)  report strongly recommended that government considers the ‘media as a business’, this suits the ‘media for profit’ trajectory of not only the current government but also media owners.  While the viability of the new TV broadcasters is yet to be seen, it is fairly apparent that the assumption is that they will compete on Zimbabwe’s relatively small media market primarily for eyeballs that rake in the money. (Please do not ask why Nigeria either always won the most on Big Brother Africa or why its still the only African country to run its own domestic version of the same).    Media diversity or a multiplicity of ethical journalistic content and diverse views is not high on the list of priorities. 

The second element is that of a relatively incremental approach taken by government and accepted by some media stakeholders to media reforms.  And largely based more on a quantitative approach than one that looks for the quality of free expression and media freedom as a democratic imperative in Zimbabwe.  This was the case with the quantitative expansion of national and local commercial radio stations.  It will be the case with the  new television stations though at greater expense to their owners. It however would no longer be easy to argue that Zimbabwe has a state  broadcasting monopoly. And the government would be in a position to counter such an argument with not only quantitative examples of what now obtains in the country but also citing media reform models of countries from the global north.    What then  becomes significant is that media stakeholders have to ‘deal the hand that they have been dealt’ by the state.  Not by way of imposition but also by way of not having been alwys clear about the parameters of reform that they required.  In this case of the new television stations, the medium becomes its own message and eventually Zimbabweans will get used to them.  Just like they did with the radio stations. 

Barring major policy changes on the part of government these newly licensed television stations are now part of our fixed long term media reality.  No matter any controversies raised about the licensing process. Colleagues in the content creation sectors of the arts will probably view them as an opportunity to breakaway from ZBC’s stringent and monopolistic contractual conditions.  Political parties may see some of them as new platforms to spread their messages to wider audiences beyond ZBC.  Journalists/media professionals will look at these developments as new employment opportunities for their profession (as they did with the radio stations).  While non- governmental organizations will seek to spread their public interest issues via these same said new platforms. Or sports associations leagues will relish income from selling TV rights. 

In this a hegemonic reality is then created in which these television stations become part of a ‘new normal’ in our broadcasting sector.  And for sure, even if one were to argue that these new TV stations cannot compete with social media, it is certain that they will also attempt to occupy the same spaces.  But with the unique advantage of being permitted by the state to broadcast as nationally as they can on designated easier for Zimbabweans to access frequencies. And on that one time status symbol called the television set. 

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

Zim’s November 2017: National Shock, Catharsis, Populism

 Conversations around the military takeover of the country in November 2017 now revolve around, at least according to a majority of pro-opposition opinion leaders, defining popular support for it as ‘a mistake’. 

On social media some memes have gone relatively viral about how the 18 November 2017 march as enabled by the military and calling for Robert Mugabe’s ouster was “National Dzungu Day”. Translated into English this would be “National Confusion Day”.  All because of subsequent disappointment at the Emerson Mnangagwa successor regime. Mainly in relation to the fact that it won the subsequent 2018 elections in their occurrence as well as the fact that a constitutional court challenge of the results ruled in its favour. 

With hindsight, what was fairly evident is that November 2017 was rather dramatic for many Zimbabweans.  Almost like a soap opera and its typical character plots. That is, an ageing oligarch with a young(ish) ambitious wife and her hangers one and the austere, sly uncle biding his time to take over the family business. 

And very few people can claim to have seen this coming.  Not by a long shot.  

I remember that I was in Johannesburg the week of 14 November 2017 attending a Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum conference on, wait for it,  “Possible Scenarios as Zimbabwe Heads for the 2018 Elections”.  The night before my presentation, I met up with a friend based in the Diaspora to discuss issues back home. And he shared videos form his social media feed of soldiers driving into town and raised his own suspicions as to what was going on in Harare.  I refused to believe his immediate conspiracy that there was a coup de tat underway in Zimbabwe.  

It turned out the following morning that he was correct.  He shared the video of now Foreign Affairs Minister S B Moyo early morning statement announcing that then President Mugabe and his family were safe. Adding that the military had moved in to protect their commander in chief from ‘criminals’ surrounding him.

The conference I was attending changed tone and in a media report by South African newspaper the Sowetan, I highlighted the following, “The crisis around leadership and succession did not emerge in the villages‚ not in the townships. It comes from within the ZANU-PF politburo‚ the ZANU-PF central committee and in part in the first family and its involvement in ZANU-PF’s succession policies.” And I flew back that evening to a heavily guarded Robert Mugabe International Airport.

The subsequent events that followed such as the war veterans organized rally at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfields, the attempted march on state house, a visitation by a South African delegation to Mugabe and his infamous ‘Asante Sana’ statement were as eerie as they were unpredictable. By the time his resignation letter was read by the Speaker of Parliament to a joint sitting of both houses of the same, the process of national shock and fear had morphed into a national cathartic moment. 

Where we fast forward from 2017 to the contemporary, it is now apparent that with most moments of catharsis the aftermath sees an occupation with either regret at having been ‘overjoyed’ or high expectations of what that moment should have come to mean.

In this, and for emphasis, it worth recalling a couple of key issues about Zanu Pf’s leadership transition in November 2017. 

One of these being the fact that the ruling party and establishment (including the military and private capital) strategically decided to turn the general lack of popular support for Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace to its own populist advantage.  At great risk to the country’s political stability.  I am quite certain that they asked themselves the question who would not want to see the back of Mugabe?  And critically knew that the answer from a majority of SADC heads of states/government would be an affirmation of a desire to see the ‘old man’ retire.  Or that the mainstream opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai would accept Mugabe’s departure with relative enthusiasm at what he would have considered a new opportunity at the presidency.  And of course the broader ‘international community’ which viewed Mugabe as too much of a symbol of Pan African resistance to the intentions of globalization and global private capital. 

The populist elements of the events of November 2017 therefore eventually worked to confirm the lack of popularity of Mugabe across multiple societal and global interests.

What is however also interesting in the contemporary is our continued desire for some sort of catharsis.  Or our apparent search for a seismic event that would hopefully and once again, change everything.   That was the case with the 2018 harmonized elections which the ruling establishment decided to go ahead with.  And all events that have occurred in between then and now around SADC, African Union or United Nations summits. 

In recalling the tumultuous events of November 2017 we would do well to remember that the ruling Zanu Pf put our country at great political risk with what it allowed to occur or refused to see coming.  That it eventually got away with it via reverse populism and an awkward shared desire by many to see the back of Mugabe is something we will have to live with.  And for historians to eventually give us multiple versions of the details that led to it.  What we should collectively agree on with hindsight and in the present is that if we improve our politics, this will never happen again. And should have never happened.

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

Under Currents of Mediated Celebrity Urban Culture in Zimbabwe

By Takura Zhangazha*

I am sure there are sociologists, social anthropologists, social psychologists and cultural studies experts that are examining emerging urban cultures in Zimbabwe in great detail.  I am only writing on it in relation to its immediate occurrence and mediation.

I am focusing mainly on the urban because it is historically the most rapid in shifting its character and popular appreciation. Mainly due to population density, easier communication and the general view that ‘urban life’ represents arrival at what would be considered ‘individual success’ by many Zimbabweans.  Including those based in the rural areas. 

But in the construction of this emerging popular urban culture there are what I consider ‘structured causes for it.  And these are four-fold.  Namely, historical materialism/consumption culture associated with (post) colonial cities such as for example Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, Mutare.  Secondly, the challenge of cultural mimicry of other global cities that are presented to us in the global south as the definition of ‘normality’.  Thirdly, the evident defeat of local/contextual cultures to fit into the narrative of urban life. Fourthly, the advent of the mediation of social media and its algorithmic fortification of specific cultural tendencies that suit the aforementioned three key points.

I will expand on each point below.

In the first instance there is need to understand that contemporary urban cities and their attendant cultures are as complex as they are historical.  The set up of what we in popular parlance refer to as the ‘ghetto’ and our claims to authenticity as to having come from it are effectively colonial carry overs.  And our evident desire to depart from it as exemplified in popular music that is now referred to as ‘dancehall’, ‘urban grooves’ or ‘hip hop’ points to narratives of a desire for arrival in its exact opposite, the colonial ‘leafy suburb’.  In this, we suffer the vicissitudes of a capitalist/neo-liberal political economy that informs the functioning of the city and its class based work culture.  From housing through to access to water, electricity, education, health services and transport, the city annotates that access is for those that have the individual wealth as opposed to those that live in it.  This also included nascent African businessmen who while genuinely improving the well-being of their immediate neighborhoods never hid their ambition to mimic white private wealth as represented and culturally practiced in the suburbs. And as soon as independence allowed it, they took to it like ducks to water.

The end effect becomes the age old Marxian one of base and superstructure in creating cultural habits that give character to the above cited consumerism in popular culture. Inclusive of the fact that historically products such as beautification soaps, lotions and clothes, in their differentiation intentions, were first promoted culturally (musicians, churches, drama) in order for them to capture African hearts and minds. I am quite certain a number of us would remember Shimmer Chinodya’s famous line of how some of these would produce ‘Fanta faces and Coca-Cola legs’. 

This materialist ring to our popular urban culture has not gone away.  Hence sometimes with our contemporary musicians, artists and their cultural products we sometimes are not sure if they are promoting certain products or are genuinely doing their art.  Or how cross over marketing of cultural content to promote commodities also comes in tandem with promoting materialist lifestyles. As of colonial old. And as promoted by mainstream print and electronic media.

In the second instance, our popular urban cultures have come to mimic those of bigger and more recognized ‘global’ cities.  All of them, whether you pick New York, London, Kingston, Paris or one-time apartheid Johannesburg have essentially similar histories and backgrounds.  Either on the basis of racial discrimination or even in the contemporary, the maintenance of that same history’s legacy ghettos.  And in all of these cities, popular cultural productions tend to emanate from the downtrodden but captured by private and elite interests to reinvent poverty as something that if one individually can sing, draw, sculpture, trade or beautify themselves out of, then they will be deemed individually successful. And this is something also affecting ‘local entrepreneurs who once successful transfer their wealth to the ‘leafy’ suburbs.  And also become feted representatives of the same said downtrodden in the hope that there is a wealth trickledown effect.  Ditto most successful artists, entrepreneurs  are wont to remind all and sundry that they are from a ‘ghetto’.  But the same said ‘ghetto’ never really changes despite their individual successes. Its just basic popular culture as captured and commodified by an elite.

In the third instance, there is the worrying departure of local urban culture from local cultural origin contexts.  That is, a desire for recognition globally or beyond borders that limits the protection of the intellectual property of local cultural products.  So when an artists lauds his/her recognition in London as a major achievement, it points to the fact that local recognition is either individually despised or is of limited contribution to their individual success.  Whereas and on the contrary, if you try and use a song or content from an artist in the Global North, social media and other platforms will immediately call you out for plagiarism. 

Which brings me to my final point on the role that social media is playing in fortifying a new urban popular culture. All in relation to the above cited three major issues around the same. Namely, materialism/hedonism as informed by a neoliberal political economy framework, our cultural mimicry of others and in the third instance a loss of local content and context in a desire for global recognition. Social media, access to the internet and as still endorsed by mainstream media, has expanded these traits of our urban popular culture. 

Hence we sometimes cry more than the bereaved on behalf of celebrities that we only knew via social media and via a materialist urban political culture. And we claim them as our own while waiting for new social media stars to emerge and remind us that they left the ghetto. And tell us, in mediated algorithms that if we are like them, we may do so too. 

If we rethink the city, democratize it further and expand our own understanding of urban popular culture in order to give it greater value and meaning within our own contexts we probably would not be where we are at the moment.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Globally Entrenched Narratives In and About Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

I remember being interviewed by a journalist for a global media house some time ago during the November 2017 “coup-not- a coup” in Zimbabwe.  In the pre-recorded interview it appeared he preferred an editorial slant that would respond to the general popular view and ‘relief’ that the long duree president, Robert Mugabe had finally been removed from power.  And how of course as with news journalism the public mood as seen via army mediated demonstrations in the capital Harare should be reflected in analyzing events as they occurred.

Given the fact that he considered me an analyst, I went out of my way to break down what I considered the complexities of events.  These included my own perspective that the November events were primarily a direct result of the ruling Zanu PF’s party lack of an internally acceptable succession plan. As opposed to any popular uprising. And that where he considered the military factor as decisive he would probably need to view the latter within the context of divisions among war veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle and not in a typical ‘army simply takes over’ perspective.  Inclusive of the fact that SADC as the primary regional oversight body on Zimbabwe was likely to be a bit more nuanced in its approach to the events depending on how they panned out. 

My perspective on the matter did not make the final cut of the story that eventually appeared on the news channel.  I did not follow up with the journalist colleague as to why this was the case.  But I understood the probable reasons.  My views did not probably suit three criteria. Firstly, the editorial position of the global media house. And secondly the target audience (especially in the global north) of the story and their own pre-conceived understanding of the prism through which political events in Zimbabwe must be understood. That is, a basket case of a country. And the very real possibility that the journalist if he failed to file a story that suited the editorial slant of the media house, he was probably not going to get paid.

The same is possibly true for local state media controlled narratives. Though I must confess to not being interviewed by them in a long while on any major events in Zimbabwe.  But judging from their own content, again there is a predisposition toward pushing specific editorial lines that are sympathetic to the ruling establishment or alternatively seeking out audiences with empathy for the same. 

In the three years after November 2017 these narratives has again shifted due to a number of factors.  While the global media and its target audiences sought a Zimbabwean success story made in their own image, the leaders of what is now referred to as the second republic presumably failed to meet these standards. Especially after the 2018 general elections and every subsequent major international meeting where Zimbabwe came under some sort of global scrutiny.  The ruling establishment has however been trying its damned hardest to still fit into this entrenched narrative that it is still in the short term, least likely to win.  Not only via its embrace of global neoliberalism but also by way of insisting on ‘re-engaging’ those that would sooner see the back of it.

On the other hand, the mainstream opposition has sought to also harness the same said global narratives because these are backed by powerful countries in the global west.  While also claiming greater proximity to the leaders of these same said global powerhouses and the singular ability to ‘unlock’ immeasurable wealth.

In either of the aforementioned cases, what becomes clear is that the entrenched narratives about what Zimbabwe is or can be are not necessarily about the people of Zimbabwe.  By default they will reflect sentiments that are to be found on the ground in relation to popular or populist opinion but in the final analysis, it would appear that the approval of them will be found elsewhere.

This is an existential dilemma for Zimbabwe. There can be more serious conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan or an escalation of Covid 19 cases in western Europe but Zimbabwe will always hog a news headline or two.  This does not just stem from journalism but more significantly from entrenched narratives.  Even when the neo-liberal IMF projects economic growth in our country, this is less significant and not in merit of follow up stories and analysis in the immediate. 

We are a country that is assumed to basically always be on the brink of catastrophe. Globally.  And in some cases internally as a result of the former.  Unless there is a globally anticipated and accepted narrative of change as viewed and accepted by others. 

In all of this, we lose track of values, principles and in some cases, facts about our own country. Instead we seek more what we want to hear and from whom we want to hear it than what we should pragmatically know and come to understand. 

What should occur is that we own our own Zimbabwean narratives more. And that we come to understand issues, events in the fullness of our own national contexts and our general placement in global politics. Were we do not own our narratives others will gladly step in and casually decide, in ephemeral moments, what suits their own interests.

I will end on an ambiguous anecdotal note. In an interview with a journalist the late Tanzanian leader and Pan-African luminary Julius Nyerere was asked about the African proverb  ‘When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers” He laughed and said that he had once used that same proverb with the late Singaporean founding leader Lee Kuan Yew who retorted, “ When elephants make love, the grass also suffers, no?”. Nyerere also laughed at the counter narrative.  But the African proverb has never changed.

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

Re-Inventing Zimbabwe Public Libraries for a Post Covid-19 Conscious Future.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

A struggle cde recently reminded me, via social media, of the importance of libraries. He had tagged me in his own reflections on the importance of Walter Rodney’s epic book “ How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.”  And I remembered how I first encountered the same said book via initially the Waterfalls and eventually the Dzivaresekwa District Council library as an emerging teenager straight out of boarding  high school.  With a specific curiosity that queried why anyone would write a book with that title when a decent number of my relatives and friends were lauding the same said ‘Europe’ as the promised land.

More so in the context of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and the partial re-opening of education classes for primary and secondary school examination classes in Zimbabwe.  Or even higher up in the education food chain, the partial re-opening of universities and technical colleges. 

In this reminder one gets slightly overwhelmed with a little bit of nostalgia.  This would be mainly as a result of the fact that in growing up in urban Zimbabwe, the library, was a place of knowledge acquisition and socializing during school holidays.  It quite ably, at that time, competed with the television or radio station because it was a permanent fixture and not reliant on electricity or your parents' black and white  occasionally functional television set. Or in contemporary times, your Wi-Fi internet receptor.  Or if the radio, as hogged by elder relatives, had enough battery power or was broadcasting educational content (also referred to as edutainment) gave you time to learn about the world around you.

So the library was a physically safe educational and social space.  You could quite literally go and grind out your Ordinary Level Mathematics there. (I know a number of cdes that eventually came to hate the library because of failing their exams after spending months if not years there.)

Or read some non-syllabus literature while keeping a lookout or writing a letter for a teenage love interest from high school. 

In the process and incidentally you would wander past bookshelves of various literatures and other subject matters that would draw your attention in many different ways. 

Because education in Zimbabwe has been/was always portrayed as sacrosanct and the only way out of black poverty, we tended to take it all very seriously.  Except that the library would always offer a couple of aberrations to the official education ‘pass or lose’ syllabus.  It was a place and space for discovering and learning new things by way of reading that which you were not taught at formal school or at church Sunday school.

Nostalgia aside, key questions that are now emerging around the role of libraries in our education system are multi-fold.  The first and most urgent one being that well, there are not really that many books that are still available to libraries in the contemporary.  This is as a direct result of the closure of publishing houses and the end effect of us having less diversity in published written/printed knowledge. 

And I could list the publishing houses/companies  that have either shut down or have taken on a strict profit motivated ‘educational syllabus’ approach to their print bottom lines.  The Zimbabwe Publishing House (ZPH) is barely functional. College Press and Longman are now focused largely on syllabus publishing. While Weaver Press still holds a candle for creative writing and publishing, it is without a doubt struggling. 

Add to this the proliferation of the ephemerality of knowledge acquisition via the internet/ social media, the 'book' is slowly being phased out of our education system and historical social anthropology in Zimbabwe.  That is to say, the book, as an emblem of knowledge acquisition and enlightenment is now being replaced by the mobile phone, laptop or depending on your class, the shared desktop computer. 

What emerges as a result of this is regrettably a probable false-materialist consciousness among young Zimbabweans.  We move from one thing to the next as it emerges via #hashtags or temporary and highly sexualized Instagram/WhatsApp/Facebook photos of our black bodies. As accepted and allowed via specifically controlled algorithms by the owners of these latter platforms.

But it is not a train smash if it can be balanced somehow in the era of Covid 19. 

The library in both urban and rural settings is key to online and offline knowledge acquisition for young Zimbabweans in the contemporary despite Covid19.  Policy makers at both national and local government level have an obligation to review the nature of the library infrastructure that already exists and how to enhance it to contribute to socially distanced learning and knowledge acquisition in these Covid19 pandemic times.

Not only in the short term but more importantly for the long term.  While schools have places they call libraries on their premises, we know that the long term library is to be found in the lived urban and rural communities where every child has access to knowledge that depending on the class character of their school they would not have been able to acquire. Especially in-between school holidays or Covid-19 motivated breaks or disruptions to education calendars.  

So the public library remains not only important but fundamental to the progressive future of our Zimbabwean society as a safe, conscious and physical space for young Zimbabweans. 

To conclude, I am personally aware that the fact or even specter of death via pandemics in the contemporary always looms large in the minds of young Zimbabweans. 

The experience of the passing of my father in 1991 made the library a sanctuary of new possibilities and new ideas. Albeit in a different time context.  And I learnt to understand the fortitude of my mother via reading and understanding lived African post-colonial experiences about materially recognized success and failure of an adult single/widowed mother.

What I do know and came to realise, while playing basketball for the Dzvivareskwa Raiders is that even though books and libraries do not come to fully define us. They help us to understand ourselves better. Even at young ages.  That would be why, the library in Zimbabwe needs to be reinvented as relevant and important to our national consciousness. For posterity and not just our own nostalgia. Let the young cdes read at will. For free.

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

 

Populist Contradictions in Zimbabwe’s Political Opposition.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s mainstream political opposition in its current divided formations, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance or MDC-Tsvangirai is evidently in crisis.  The MDC-Alliance which brought other opposition parties, including its own splinter groups, together for the 2018 general/harmonized elections has found itself in a split that has sought to distinguish the original MDC-Tsvangirai from the then electoral alliance. 

Based on a Supreme Court judgment that gave the then first vice president, Thokozani Khupe of the MDC- Tsvangirai (before the Alliance was formed) control of the party, there have now been recalls of opposition members of Parliament and also elected local government councilors.  It has not ended there.  There have also been battles for the control of the headquarters of the opposition in Harare. A development that means either this will not end well or will not end soon. 

It is an interesting if not tragic conundrum.  One which has had the characteristics of not only being personal but also populist. 

The personal has been mainly found in the leaders of these opposition factions taking potshots at each other’s integrity or intentions.  As well as their partisan supporters taking to social media and occasionally to their Harvest House headquarters to claim some sort of ownership of being the ‘authentic’ opposition leadership. Or argue on behalf of those that they deem best placed to lead a now very disunited opposition. 

I am however more interested in the populist dimensions of the state of the opposition and the attendant contradictions thereto.  I also use the term populist because to all intents and purposes that is the current approach of the  leadership of the opposition to what it considers its democratic change mandate.  It is a populism that has at least three main elements. 

The first being that it is Manichean.  It really does not matter who you are as long as you are against the ruling Zanu Pf party.  That is the tie that sort of binds.  Hence the formation of the MDC-Alliance while strategic forgot that the members of the same were only bound together by the same said Manichean view of Zimbabwean politics.   Attention to ideological detail was not high on the list of priorities as it was assumed that was already taken care of by supportive domestic or international ‘think-tanks’ in one form or the other. 

The second being that in either case of the MDC-Alliance or the MDC-T, there is the leveraging of the charisma of the founding leader, Morgan Tsvangirai. From arguments about his chosen successors through to quite literally claiming him for legitimacy (even though a majority of the current leaders were at loggerheads with him.) But even if they were to push it to its populist ends, it eventually wears off.  These leaders will need to stand on their own, even if they claim to be standing on Tsvangirai’s shoulders.

The third is that it’s a populism that seeks recognition from the global west.  A development that is understandable given the general Zimbabwean mindset of admiration of everything that occurs in the global north.  Opposition and also ruling Zanu Pf party leaders appear to need to be popularly recognized by Zimbabweans as being close to leaders of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or the European Union. As opposed to taking more time to understand the Southern African Development Community (SADC) or the African Union’s (AU) historical and liberation struggle based international relations dynamics.  In their regional, continental and global elements.  This may be understandable given the legacies of colonialism as well as our overt admiration of those global north societies and neoliberal consumerism, but it unfortunately is not enough to cross Rubicons.

A frequent question however, and I am sure it will be asked in social media threads to this blog, is “What would you do better?” And it is an easy one to answer if I was an opposition political party leader.  In at least four parts.

With number one being that I would be ideologically clear.  No ambiguities.  To the extent of for example, not lauding current American President Trump’s xenophobic nationalism and neoliberalism.  Or Chinese President Xi Jinping’s version of state capitalism.  And always remembering Amilcar Cabral’s words at the first Tri-Continental continent in Havana, Cuba in 1966 where he advised delegates of the ‘the struggle against our own weaknesses.’

And also, “that however great the similarity between our various cases and however identical our enemies, national liberation and social revolution are not exportable commodities; they are, and increasingly so every day, the outcome of local and national elaboration, more or less influenced by external factors (be they favorable or unfavorable) but essentially determined and formed by the historical reality of each people, and carried to success by the overcoming or correct solution of the internal contradictions between the various categories characterising this reality.”

Secondly, it would be important to understand that it is internal political processes that give meaning to external ones.  No matter how unpopular or against the trends they may be.  Intra-party democracy matters as much as national democratic practice.  Even in the most populist of moments.

Thirdly, it remains important that we lead for posterity. Not just ourselves and our moment in the sun.  We must always lead for the future. While the past and present remain important, they are more relevant to an envisioned future if leadership is designed to perpetuate long-duree equality in our society.

Finally, in all of the aforementioned three points, it is important to have ‘praxis’.  To combine both ideological theory and practice. That is to create progressive counter-hegemonic frameworks that last beyond the moment.  All with an understanding of other existent hegemonies and how best to try and navigate a path toward the peoples’ progress going forward.

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

Zimbabwe at the United Nations General Assembly @75: Doing a Houdini on Permanent Interests.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The United Nations 75^th General Assembly (UNGA75) has come to an end.  Held in what is an historical first virtual/online setup, it didn’t have the glamour, glitz or chutzpah of old. As a direct result of the Covid 19 global pandemic.

 No heads of delegations could walk out on each other speeches, though the discomfort of the Chinese ambassador to the UN when the USA president, Donald Trump, spoke was apparent for all to virtually see.  

But despite that slight drama, it was clear that a majority of the members of the UNGA75 support a multilateral approach to resolving global problems going forward. Inclusive of ensuring that whatever vaccines and new approaches are found for dealing with the Covid 19 pandemic should be within the reach of all human beings and not just those that are developed countries or the very real 1%.

From a Zimbabwean perspective there was a key political moment in our current placement in the world. This despite the fact that despite a previous accusation by a US government National Security Advisor that our country was part of a group of “foreign adversaries” over and about the Black Lives Matter protests that escalated in June 2020, our country was not mentioned in Trump's UNGA75 address.  This meant that in this particular instance we were not viewed in the same interventionist manner as Venezuela or Bolivia.  Or alternatively, we would at least at the presidential level escape any direct or immediate wrath of American foreign policy aggression. 

Of course this does not mean that we are in any way better off than the two aforementioned South American countries.  Instead, and this is a key point, we sort of temporarily escaped, being designated further pariah status. For now.

So the happiest minister in Zimbabwe’s cabinet is obviously Sibusiso Moyo our current minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I have deliberately mentioned the full ministerial title due to the fact that Mnangagwa’s government is a neoliberal one that panders to the dictates of global private capital in it's foreign relations. 

And it’s all a little bit contradictory.  While the Trump government is calling us out on human rights violations, it is simultaneously and as reported in the mainstream media asking our national army to help with stabilizing Cabo Delgado in Mozambique.  Even though SADC appears to be fully appraised of the matter given the recent resolutions of the SADC summit held virtually via Mozambique in August 2020. Or while the Chinese are involved in massive infrastructural developments (coal mining, the airport and the national Parliament building.) Or the Russians investing in an already unprecedented singular  investment in platinum mining.

What all of this potentially indicates is a Machiavellian understanding of international relations by Mnangagwa’s team.  Almost akin to the adage given to international relations studies students about how there are ‘no permanent friends but just permanent interests.’

Understanding the evident hostilities of the American government to the current one in Zimbabwe with the latter government touting a neoliberal and even populist Pan Africanism is not an easy task.  All this while Mnangagwa is at the same time managing what are evidently frosty relations with economic regional hegemon South Africa, via its ruling African National Congress (ANC) party is as academically interesting as it would be curious.

This also means that if one were to crosscheck with any counter-hegemonic intentions on Zimbabwe, there would be a key question as to the meaning and import of the recent UNGA75 meeting. What we know for a fact is that at least four presidents called for the lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe.  Including the current chairperson of the African Union, Ramaphosa of  South Africa. And the president of another regional hegemon,Kenyatta of Kenya. I may have missed it but Cuba, Venezueala, China and Russia did not mention us. An important point that points back to 'permanent interests'. 

But all of this with a common denominator being the fact that Zimbabwe needs to return to the global neoliberal economic mode which had been disrupted by former president, Robert Mugabe.

While Mnangagwa’s official speech to the UNGA75 was in no way motivational about any new world order, it was designed to show some sort of ‘strongman’ leadership in that neoliberal ideological direction. On behalf of global private capital and in his preferred words/ways, the 'ease of doing business.'

This also means, if we read between the lines, that there is an emerging pro-global capital consensus on Zimbabwe.  Which is that if it ticks a number of boxes, despite a vociferous mainstream but     splintered political opposition, it can be tolerated in the global political-economy scheme of things.  Or as far as the country’s ruling establishment is concerned, it can be directly assisted. Ditto John Deere tractors being presented as part of a newer agricultural revolution despite United States economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.

So for Zimbabwe and those with an interest in it, there is no rule of thumb ‘carrot or stick’ method to what happens next in terms of our international relations. And this is regrettably true for assumptions of how the international community will react to issues of human rights abuses in the contemporary.   And our ruling establishment knows this.  They are probably trading off permanent interests and not looking for permanent friendships.  Even if it potentially means creating new private capital oligarchies.  So long they have the approval of those powers that have the same said permanent interests in the country.

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

 

 

Misunderstanding Democratic Local Government in Zimbabwe

By Takura Zhangazha*

 It should not have been this urgent for Zimbabweans to re-examine their thinking of what ‘local government’ is. But given the recent spate of recalls of elected Harare and other city/town councilors at the behest of the evident factionalism in the mainstream opposition MDC-T and MDC Alliance parties, it can rationally be considered necessary. 

Even if, as we are now wont to expect, there will be a myriad of court cases going all the way to the Constitutional Court, on the legality of the recalls.  Or if the ruling Zanu Pf party, decides in its political opportunism wisdom, to effect its central government powers, in the interim,  to attempt to run specific local governments’ directly via appointed commissions.  Especially the capital city of Harare. 

What remains apparent is that in the immediate, local government in Zimbabwe is facing severe challenges of democratic relevance or legitimacy as a direct result of recent recall political developments.  

In between what we know to be ‘harmonized’ general elections that are due every five years.  These are elections in which we do the equivalent of a ‘bambazonke’ electoral system of voting for an executive president, a directly elected member of the House of Assembly, a proportionally elected member of the Senate, a proportionally elected member of the women's’ quota of the House of Assembly and probably as a last consideration, a local government councilor. 

The fact that we may prioritise the presidency over the member of Parliament and the latter over a Councillor may be understandable in relation to what we can consider ‘power dynamics’ of the title of an office that one would electorally hold. 

In this brief write up I would like to focus on local government and its political meaning for those that would hold office therein.  While at the same time taking into account the fact that most cities and town councils, the opposition MDCs (in their varied factional formations) have had a hold on them for a significant amount of time. And also that the riling Zanu Pf party has generally been the one with the final say as to whether these opposition run councils are allowed to operate independently and with limited central government interference. 

In this, there would be many ‘moot’ points if it was all just political or politicized contestations of power.  Except for the fact that dating back to the settler state of Rhodesia to present, local authorities do yield a lot of power over the lives of ordinary people.  They are quite literally authorities that hold sway over both public and private financial capital investments in society.  At a local level.  From your local clinic through to your local school, football stadium, public toilet and bustops, these are important power brokers over the urban and rural livelihoods of many Zimbabweans. 

The main reason why these local level leadership positions are treated with a general disdain/casualness is because they are considered low-rung levels of leadership.  Yet they have a direct and immediate impact on the lives of many of us.  This being a direct result of a political culture of assuming that power and or leadership is always ably demonstrated at the highest executive levels (presidency) and not where it directly interfaces with the people, i.e local government/ councilors. 

So when we track back to the decision by one faction of the mainstream MDC to fire 11 Harare City councilors after an in-council mayoral election contest we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  

Not only to their factional motivations but also their evident misunderstanding of the democratic importance of leadership at a local government level.  

This would include the fact of the central government’s responsible minister in charge of local government, July Moyo’s, legal acquiescence to the same wherein he obviously knows that he has basically agreed to causing a crisis of legitimacy for the still remaining Harare city council leaders. 

With the likelihood of this immediately benefiting the ruling Zanu Pf party, causing further divisions within the mainstream MDC factions but more importantly demonstrating a tragic nonchalance of the importance of organic democracy at local government level in Zimbabwe.  Either side of the political divide(s).

What comes into vogue is the fact that we need to respect the democratic process at every level of leadership in our society.  It does not really help us if we can casually get rid of elected leaders at local government levels when we cannot do the same at national/central government levels.  Or even if we can recall members of Parliament, the ease with which we do so becomes arbitrary and not based on the actual public interest performance of these initially directly elected leaders. 

Where the ruling establishment has been touting devolution as key to our national development programmes, it is ironic that there would be no assumptions of an accompanying democratic culture to the same.  Indeed there may be local government leaders caught on the wrong side of the law (corruption etc).  Or others considered to have arrived at leadership without the necessary expertise.  The key point however remains that those that voted for them, even at that lower level tier of government, matter.  Not only in relation to their votes but more importantly to their expectations.

What is apparent is that we need to re-think our local government governance and accountability systems much more organically and with the people directly affected by the same in mind.  This may include the democratic possibility that we may need to separate local and national elections once again. But as always, we may not think beyond the immediate and harass the political partisanship out of local perceptions of what progressive, democratic leadership should be. 

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

 

 

 

What It Now Means to Be Black. Globally.

By Takura Zhangazha *

I first encountered Steve Biko’s collection of Black Consciousness articles via the book titled ‘I Write What I like’ in 1997 at the Dzivaresekwa District Council Library in Harare, Zimbabwe.  I was initially drawn to it on the basis of its somewhat stubborn title.  Being young and looking for some sort of intellectuality to my personal existential circumstances, I took to it like a duck to water. And as is now generally known, one of the striking lines in an article in which Biko writes, “The greatest weapon in the hands of the oppressor, is the mind of the oppressed.”  This was probably as borrowed from Franz Fanon.

Biko was writing within the context of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa but spoke for many people of colour on the African continent and beyond. 

By the time I got to understand the intellectual writings of other luminaries such as Cabral, Nkrumah, Gramsci among many others on not only African liberation struggles but also the psycho-social perspectives on ‘blackness’ Biko still rung through my mind.  Especially because he sought to assert a specific understanding of how being black should not be defined by the ‘white’ liberal gaze.

In the contemporary, we are now oddly and unexpectedly faced with the dilemma of having to discuss and re-understand racial inequality based on events that are occurring in the United States of America (USA). As mainly led and framed by the #BlackLivesMatter nascent movement and the attendant counter narratives seeking to re-affirm some sort of ‘white’ supremacy or ownership of humanity. 

The question that emerges in the now is, “What does it now mean to be Black, globally?” The easier answer would be that being black is always to be ‘bodied’ and ‘othered’. In a Fanonian sense.  Hence the shootings and in most cases killings with impunity of multiple black men by the police in the USA.  It is almost a throwback to the times of looking at the black African body as an aberration and as something to be harnessed/ controlled or eliminated.

From a contextual African perspective however the more difficult answer points to a return to the Biko argument about that metaphoric greatest weapon in the hands of the oppressor. This being our minds, perceptions and aspirations. 

And this is a somewhat complicated argument to make.  Being black in the contemporary remains an historical construct. Especially in Africa. Colonialism, post-colonialism, neo-imperialism, neo-liberalism are essentially about putting us, as black people, in our inferiority complex ‘place’.

The primary challenge is the extent to which we counter the narrative of being put into the same said “inferiority complex place.”

What has been a problem with this is that we have a false admiration of societies in the global north. Even as they implement policies that point at exclusion and discrimination against us as black immigrants. We would still want to cross the treacherous Maghreb and drown in the Mediterranean Sea in order to reach Europe. While at the same time, the Europeans do not want us there at all. 

What we probably need to understand is the fact that there is no ‘Jerusalem’ in the global north. Though the latter perpetually present themselves as the same.

But the more important question remains. What does it mean to be black today? I have four relatively casual perspectives on this.

Firstly, being black means being perpetually ‘othered’.  To be seen as an aberration as opposed to the norm. Hence we are generally expected to be the harbingers of disease and violence.  That’s why it is morally easy for global corporate media to show our dead bodies. With the added complexity of the fact that a majority of us accept this perspective and narrative. Including our inexplicable desire to be recognized as citizens of the global north. Hence we are easier to shoot or at least have our deaths accepted as run of the mill.

Secondly, being black now also means that you should essentially have special physical prowess as derived from a the mystical ‘dark continent’ that Africa entered global discourse as. From our sports stars through to our mythologized physical prowess, we remain unique in what is physically and mentally expected of us by our ‘white’ others.  Where we demonstrate intellectualism we are presented as unique and the exception, not the rule.

Thirdly, being black in the contemporary, means that to get to any point of recognized success, we have to do mimicry.  And this is essentially to mimic what ‘white’ people do. In this our psychological dilemma has been the fact that we want to not only mimic but also claim legitimacy on the basis of a false reflection in the mirror.

Fourthly and finally, being black in the now should mean that we understand the global political economy. Even though we generally, based on point three, in the majority of cases choose not to. And this is where Biko and Fanon’s ghosts return to haunt us.  Global financial capital is fundamentally racist based on its history of slavery, colonialism, post-colonialism, neo-imperialism and neoliberalism. 

Our racial identities should not have had to come to matter this much in the contemporary.  But as events in the global north show, they regrettably do.  

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