Salah and Mane: Symbols of Progressive Pan African Sporting Rivalry

By Takura Zhangazha*

There are two world class African players who since the beginning of this year have had to play for their countries in two major international competitions. They played against each other in the final of the delayed 2021 edition of the African Cup of Nations.  And only this week they have played in a final qualifying match for the Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup.  These players are Mohamad Salah of Egypt and Sadio Mane of Senegal.  They also incidentally both turn out for and are stars for English Premier league side, Liverpool FC. 

In both matches in which they turned up for their countries, Senegal defeated Egypt by way of winning close penalty shootouts.  And as many football fans will know, penalty shootouts, no matter how much you practice, are essentially about luck. 

Given both players’ global football stardom and also the fact that they are national icons in their countries of origin, the last three or so months have probably been an emotional rollercoaster for them individually but also most significantly for their fans.

On the broader African continent, the fact that Senegal and Egypt met twice in a row in a final and  final qualification rounds of major tournaments was both intriguing and entertaining.  Media stories and social media posts were all about the rivalry between Salah and Mane for country. Including assumptions that because of this they probably would not get along when turning out for Liverpool FC.  Such arguments while reflective of both players footballing global superstardom are yet to be proven true.  Either by word of mouth or by actions on the pitch. 

There are however conversations that also emerge in fan circles about regional footballing rivalry between West, South, East and North Africa.  And this is why I am using these two star players as examples.  Except that the perspectives in these conversations rarely end up being only about football.  They tend to get mixed up in convoluted conversations about political, cultural, economic differences which border on racism between regional oriented supporters.   Or at least assumptions of exceptionalism by way of geographical location and or claims at being more African than the other. 

In football, as any fan would know, racism and any other forms of discrimination are a big issue.  So much so that many leagues around the world are still taking the knee before the beginning of every match in having to remind fans of this. (Especially in global north leagues were racism remains  present and yet the majority of prominent leagues stars are black or people of colour.) 

And it is regrettable that "taking the knee" still needs to be done.  

But stories of enslavement of emigrating people in war torn Libya and human smuggling in the Mediterranean show us that away from the football stadiums there are some grim realities that we should never ignore.  And that the colour of one’s skin is still used to determine one’s eligibility to be considered human.  

Though less prevalent South of the Sahara, again notions of discrimination and hate speech are sometimes found in footballing conversations. All based on false accusations of ‘claims of superiority’ of the North of the Sahara. Such fan conversations ignore the simple fact of the historical ties that bind North, West, East, Southern African regions based on incredible acts of solidarity in struggles against colonialism and for human equality regardless of geographical location or proximity to the Middle East.  And how these acts in light of ongoing struggles for democracy, though not as prevalently reported in the media, still exist to present day.  

It is perhaps these narratives that Salah and Mane are challenging by default.  Not just because they are global superstars playing at the highest levels of the game.  But because they represent the fact that football is a game that can beautifully demonstrate our common humanity and talents. And in doing so it reaches out, based on its popularity, to younger generations to challenge disciminatory tendencies and enable each other to flourish regardless of race, colour, ethnicity, class or regional origins.  

It is a default combination of football, stardom and shared African identities and values that becomes progressive Pan Africanism.  One that sees the beautiful game for what it is despite competitive rivalry at the highest level. So even if they do not know it or acknowledge it directly, Salah and Mane are emerging symbols of this.

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

 

 

Neoliberalism as the Base of Zimbabwe’s Populist Politics.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Recently there has been a bit of chatter about ideology or lack thereof in Zimbabwean politics.   Accusations and counter accusations of the same have been historically perennial between the ruling party and our now evidently multiple opposition parties (in and out of Parliament). 

For all their political spats, all large (or those that claim to be large) political parties in Zimbabwe have as their primary ideological outlook, neoliberalism.  Some couch it in nationalism, others in argumentation about the international community and funding.  Others still give it a religious flavour or claim proximity to powerful people in Washington, London or all weather friends in Beijing.  But it is the base of their political intentions or desires organisationally and also individually. 

The most obvious reason why this is the case is because neoliberalism is the most dominant global ideology at the moment.   It is also the one that drives contemporary capitalism in its free market trickledown economics hegemony that prioritises private capital (property) and high levels of individualism, consumerism with great disdain for any state led people-centred development. 

So it is much easier to embrace by our local politicians for a number of reasons. The most obvious being a desire for (individual) recognition by global private capital and the other being that it already has a given template.  So one does not really have to be a ‘thinker’ to be an advocate of neoliberalism.  It’s a given that you simply follow the dictates of the market and allow those that already have the money to make more money as you prioritise listening to their preordained ideas and implement them. 

But in this write up I am not so much keen on exploring this exploitative ideology in and of itself.  But more its end effect(s).  Particularly where and when we look at how it affects our national political discourse and actions.  

Neoliberalism, this side of the world, has a fundamental impact of creating at least two things.  The first is immense economic inequality in the society in which it is implemented.  And secondly it creates because of these high levels of inequality, a new individualism motivated by envy, desire and consumerism.   Individualism because it foregoes the state’s responsibilities to create societal equality to the ‘free market’.  The primary role it values of the state is the protection of private property and of course individual rights of those that are particularly already “private propertied”.   

Envy and desire come into the picture because those the poor in our society desire that which they cannot have but will work assiduously and in some cases religiously/superstitiously to at least mimic the lifestyles of the propertied/rich.  It is a mimicry that comes with a great loss of a collective sense of being and many feelings of comparative but also competitive inadequacy.  And a desire to depart from either the rural or even urban poverty stricken backwater. Individually. Or at best with immediate family. 

The consumerism element is closely linked to that of desire and envy.  The best goods and services acquired by neoliberal elites create a desire for somewhat similar materialist recognition even among the poor.  Clothing brands, music taste, foodstuffs, schools’ children are sent to, movies watched, holidays done, cars driven, rich celebrities admired or houses bought/built or rented tend to demonstrate this.

The broader societal economic equality debate is lost in translation.  Instead of a progressive political discourse on equitable access to actual public heath, transport, education, water, energy, housing, pensions or entertainment we again get lost in our individual desires, envies and consumption. 

Where we now turn to the direct political effect of this, we will be able to discern that because of the celebrity culture that is created from our envy, desires and individualism the ideology that is neoliberalism then sets the ground for populism.  The latter being a blind desire for a recognition of your anger at your situation via a relatively popular collective feeling that is not based on any particular idea or clear understanding of lived collective societal realities.  While this is not unique to Zimbabwe or the global south, it has a unique framework in our context.  It has a double envy.  That of the global north lifestyle (hence we are dying trying to illegally cross for example the Mediterranean Sea) and also envying the lifestyles of our local rich elites.  Never mind how they got their wealth through either privatisation of states assets or whispered allegations of corruption (including during the fast track land reform programme). 

And this breeds what I refer to as unprincipled messianic politics.  The disadvantaged majority poor of our society then place their hopes in singular political parties or individuals that bring them closer to achieving their individual materialist desires.  As opposed to the collective equitable well-being of all of society. 

Naturally the question that emerges, particularly from those that deem themselves as either having ‘arrived’ at success or those that are prisoners of their envy and desires to neoliberalism is, “So what?”  Or for those that have learnt to cope with their existential circumstances and hoping to eventually arrive at least by way of mimicry the question is, “What’s the alternative?”

The alternatives are varied but rely largely on a value system that understands that all Zimbabweans, in the contemporary should live in an equitable society in which the state plays its primary role of ensuring our social welfare, safety, security and collective livelihood outside of the neoliberal ideological framework. 

Where we do this, we will not be burdened with the political populism embedded in and as a result of the neoliberalism that we see today. 

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

 

Stubborn Opinion, Conjecture and Feeling in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

I am not sure if there has been some sort of scientific study on this but I will hazard to argue that we Zimbabweans are a highly opinionated people.  This is for various reasons. Some of them similar to other countries in Africa such as assumptions of the superiority of our education system.  Meaning our ability to speak English or mimic the political economic knowledge and cultural systems of our former colonisers.  Including complex considerations of our generally unrequited desire for equal ‘recognition’ for these capabilities.  Hence for example we have inundated social media chat with convoluted explanations of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, something that fundamentally very few of us would easily understand. 

Another reason for our being highly opinionated is the fact that we are can probably be classified as an angry people due to our economic conditions.  Which we also blame largely on our ruling political establishment.  These economic conditions are those that have, to a greater majority of us, caused poverty and above all else stymied individual, not collective, material prosperity.  Including our angst at the refusal of having some sort of messianic political solution that brings us back into the favourable gaze of the ‘international’ community.  A process that has been as cyclical as it has been unsuccessful in calming down our emotional nerves. 

Because of this, in the majority of cases our political opinions are pre-determined by our experiences and their attendant biases.  Meaning that in most cases, they are essentially unchangeable. In this I would almost dare a reader of this blog to crosscheck with their friends and relatives their opinions of ten years ago and present day to see if any of them has significantly shifted their views. 

The third reason why we are this way is because of the medium through which we can convey opinion in the contemporary.  And this is mainly via social media platforms that help aggregate or accentuate our emotions via algorithms.  Because of a long standing limited media environment, these platforms are more for our own catharsis than democratic public interest journalistic content.  Even for professional journalists themselves. Or political, religious and other society leaders. 

The fourth element that reduces a more organic agency of opinion is a sad disdain for our own cultural productions.  And this is historically understandable due to the fact that the era of colonialism sought to limit our appreciation of them.  While the post-colonial period has inundated us with cultural products from the global north that essentially shape our understandings of what is preferable.  More so with the expansion of social media and cultural product streaming platforms such as Netflix.  By cultural products here I mean movies, music, literature, visual art, theatrical drama, fashion design and architecture.  But its mainly those things that entertain us in the form of the audio visual (films and western news channels) and our envy of what we see and hear.  As well as the biases it represents.  

For example, I remember a friend of mine who was an avid supporter of the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as though he was watching Rambo movies.  I sort of understood why he would have such an attitude at that time.  What I don’t understand is why he still holds on to it now even after the dramatic withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan. The only reason is probably because he has chosen to stubbornly stick to his argument not only out of pride but also because it is intrinsically the way he has been taught to view the world. 

And this is where things become complicated. As Africans generally and Zimbabweans in particular we are the subjects of a global hegemony that frames how we should perceive our own existence. Let alone how we should express it. 

In this we suffer from a debilitating inferiority complex.  And here I am just referring to how we form or shape our own opinions. Our primary challenge is a desire for a recognition that historically, even after all our liberations struggles, was always designed to elude us.

What we need to do is to recognize ourselves first and express ourselves in order to understand ourselves. And have fun while we are at it.  At the back of our minds however must remain the reality that we do not do so as a performance ritual for others.  But we do so for our own progress as a people. Ditto Fanon. 

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