By Takura Zhangazha*
One the most enduring elements of contemporary global capitalism/ neoliberalism has been its ability to re-invent itself. Even as it goes through what many academics, writers and activists have referred to as ‘major crises’. Or even as it changes form to more financialised forms that include those that led to the global financial crisis of 2008. Or even now as we are faced with the Covid19 pandemic and the still profit motivated role of global pharmaceutical companies. Not only about vaccines but also a ‘push back’ against a global acceptance of the necessity of public health services for all.
In explaining this ability of capitalism to re-invent
itself, again academics, writers and activists point to at least two
things. The first and perhaps more
important one is its ability to create a hegemonic presence over society (ditto
Gramsci). And the second being its
ability to within the context of hegemony it gives the impression of being ‘incrementally
progressive’ with an assumed trickle-down effect. Including by way of creating nodes of
mimicry, consumerism and what eventually turn out to be unrealistic aspirations
of working class people.
In Zimbabwe’s context, which is the primary focus of this
blog, we have not yet dealt with this neoliberal turn of the current government
as extensively as we should. Especially
where it comes to our own understanding of our political economy and our almost
ever present wishes to be assumed to be, in the implied words of the current government,
‘returning to normalcy’.
In analyzing this national context and capitalism/neoliberalism
I will also examine the two points of hegemony as well as incrementalism in
tandem with the contradictory approaches to how we understand Zimbabwe’s
political economy.
Where we consider the hegemonic element of the neo-liberal
thrust of the current government, it is as historical as it relates to
assumptions of what is progress within our political economy. The history behind
it is that neo-liberalism/capitalism is directly inherited from the former
Rhodesian colonial state. By way of
the ideological outlook of long-duree colonial capital (which is still with us
in many forms today). While it was a
minority settler state whose capital and profit was derived directly from the exploitation
of the black majority for labour and also via the latter’s violent economic and
physical displacement, it remained true to its global ideological outlook and
acceptance by its peers. Not only in Africa but internationally.
While we fought a war of liberation struggle against this settler
colonialism/capitalism it also sowed seeds of its continuity that we inherited
in post-independence Zimbabwe. From
urban settlements and racially differentiated urban culture through to the
denigration of African religious practices in favour of Christian ones. Or colonial education as preferable, the inherited
colonial capital’s hegemonic presence was always going to be with us for a long
time.
Even where we embarked upon attainment of independence on
what was assumedly a different ideological trajectory in the form of what came
to be a mixed democratic socialism, the inherent hegemonic envy created by not
only our aspirations to replace those at the top of the previous colonial
capital pyramid eventually let us down.
I remember some conversations with war veterans who worried that their
comrades were now living the good life in the suburbs while they were left
behind in the ghettoes as though they had not all gone to war. Or arguments around their proximity to white capital
owners as being a key determinant to their own individual material
success.
And even later on in the late 1990s and at the height of the
fast track land reform programme some cdes widely decrying any attempts at dismantling
the structural elements of colonial capital.
Add to this rural-urban migration and the lifestyle/cultural hegemony is
complete. Not just by way of the removal
of restrictions of movement but more significantly by way of desire. Or a false nostalgia where some peers of mine
ridiculously and to my personal dismay argue that the then Rhodesia was
better. Yet they never experienced it’s
harsher exploitative realities.
Where we look at our immediate circumstances, even at the
height of the Covid19 pandemic, arguments over and about the economy largely
revolve around aspirational lifestyles/desires and also a government that faces
challenges in being trusted/accepted by global private capital. Including an opposition
that works assiduously to try and prevent that recognition from happening until
it wins an election.
What it means is that political and economic leaders across
political divides accept the hegemonic framework proffered by neoliberalism. Not necessarily because they understand it.
But more because they want to recognized or seen to be the ones that understand
how it works. And also with the possibility
of simply wanting the easier option of cozying up to the money for political survival
or in some cases pursuit of personal aggrandizement.
In this, the creation of patronage networks that follow
their lead then make for a situation in which their popularly, culturally and
materially received wisdom assumes an air of ‘inevitabilism’ with the majority
of their supporters. One in which these
same said supporters no longer see any other alternatives except what their leaders
say. And the recognition from private capital that the same leaders receive are
celebrated beyond their realities or exploitative contexts.
This leads me to the second key point embedded in what is
clearly an expanding historically hegemonic capitalism in Zimbabwe. That of
incrementalist approaches to change. These can be collective but couched in
revolutionary language without querying the ideological basis of the placement
of the country’s political economy. Or
they can be highly individualist with a focus on materialism and consumerism
that also relies on religion, superstition and staying ahead of the pack by many means necessary.
If activists, writers or academics don’t question the
fundamental structural causes of inequality in Zimbabwean society, then it is
this false incrementalist approach that prevails. That does not mean that the alternative
is revolution as almost occurred with the liberation struggle. Instead it means that the contest is one for
a counter-hegemonic, progressive national consciousness of the people of
Zimbabwe. And that is no easy task.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment