Contemporary Political and Cultural Entrapment in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There are many reasons why political opinions and cultural practices are formed. Both in relation to general society and also individuals. These range from history itself, cultural, religious practices as they shape and influence a given political economy.  With the latter being an encompassing of everything cited above. 

But this a universal societal given as established by academics and thinkers in multiple disciplines.  Yet I still find Zimbabwe to be in a uniquely different situation on this subject matter.  Particularly where we consider our last quarter of a century (25 years). 

We have established a political and cultural system designed for an assumption of continued permanence and not progress.  Both by way of individual perception and in collective societal reality. 

This is mainly because our national political economy since 1997 created at least three things.  A highly polarized political culture; a hybrid neoliberal economy that mixed radical nationalism with smash and grab capitalism; and a social system that prioritized individualism and high levels of religiosity.

The uniqueness of this lies fundamentally in the now given historical fact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).  And it’s far reaching impact in how Zimbabweans perceive of themselves and also how they want to be perceived by others.  These others being those in the sub-region, the African continent, the East and more significantly in the West. 

I say significantly in the West because it is the latter that has the greater global and media reach to control the narrative of what Zimbabwe is, should be and also can be.  In the past, the present and regrettably so, in the future. 

It is a narrative that our current ruling establishment has sought to counter with reference to history and radical nationalism. As well as seeking the protection of regional and continental bodies while also getting key protection from Russia and China who are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

These narratives have however had a greater impact on Zimbabwean lives than we are wont to agree upon.  From political polarization through to challenging economic circumstances wrought on by both politics and unilateral sanctions. 

And this is where our own agency as ordinary Zimbabweans comes in. There are certain matters that we now consider permanent in a polarized political and economic fashion.  Mainly because in dealing the story or narrative of what Zimbabwe was, is, can be, we have become entrapped in our own experiences which then shape some of our now almost now unmovable opinions either side of political divides.

And I will give the two most evident examples in our society.  The first is the general immovability of a ruling party supporter on the matter of either the liberation struggle or the radical nationalism that was the FTLRP.  Not just because they believe in both but more because at one point or the other they were involved in either. It shaped their individual political experience.  And because of the narratives I cite above they are persuaded that no matter what happens the ‘enemy’ is always at the door. But with the caveat that they cannot in and of themselves believe that after all they have gone through, they can be found to have been at fault for their actions and opinions. They have no choice but to hold onto what they know and believe. Whether or not it can pass some sort of rationality test.

In the second example, if you take an opposition supporter and ask their views they will reflect similar immovability of their views. This is mainly because they either suffered at the hands of the ruling party via the state of the economy from 1997 or due to political violence being meted on them or their relatives particularly in rural areas.  Their views tend to be strident on this and no matter what handshake of peace they are offered they do not trust it.  Even for example during the period of the unity government in 2009-2013.  It is of limited consequence that their narrative of Zimbabwe then resonates with that of the West because of not only their anger but also their experiences. 

In these two examples I have given it is also clear that in order to have one narrative triumph over another there is a turn to what I consider the perceived and currently popular ‘finality’ of religion or God as the arbiter of a true and expected victor.  By both narratives. Meaning therefore anyone that loses either an election or property still has a firm belief that no matter what a religious deity remains on their side and therefore they have to stick to their proverbial guns. 

In all of this we get caught up in a trap. We cannot let go of our experienced actions and reactions because it would appear that it is all we would know. Especially politically and even where new developments, locally or globally, indicate that it no longer makes sense to hold on to them.  Meaning we may have entered a specific phase where dogma is our cultural staple diet.  Again based on narratives that remain entrenched with no urgency that they be resolved.

For this brief write up I used the term ‘entrapment’ deliberately.  It would appear that we are now prisoners of our own political and economic experiences.  To the extent that we appear unchangeable or unable to reimagine what remains possible beyond the victory of either political or economic hegemons that we support. 

We may need to take time to pause and rethink more carefully what we share in common in our diversity and stop holding on to narratives that blur a better future in their stubborn consistency.

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

 

 

 

 

Dilemma of Political Populism in Zimbabwe

*By Takura Zhangazha

Political populism is a well-studied term.  Or at least now it is more ‘googled’ than studied. And it is also no longer as much a contentious issue as it was in the heady days of political ideological argumentation. It has however generally changed formats historically across the globe.  Especially after the end of the Cold War and the assumed triumph of neoliberalism and the now proverbial prediction that the ascendancy of the latter signified “an end of history”.

In its contemporary occurrence, particularly in our own Zimbabwean context (and probably many other African country contexts) populism is not just political.  It is reflective of a national culture, including enabling communications technologies, national and global political economies.  Together with attendant historical processes as they occur or are remembered. 

In its essentially ‘us’ versus ‘them’ simple format political populism pits an assumed elite versus what would be considered “the people”.  With the people being in radical ascendancy in the hope of victory or conquest.

What is interesting is the interchangeability of both terms, the ‘elite’ and the ‘people’.  With the question being who represents who? And at what point? 

Even more significantly, populism generally requires messianic political figures. Who may or may not have some sort of ideological grounding but would all the same be in complete control of whatever agenda they are setting. Even if it creates or follows general political sentiment.

In Zimbabwe we have an interesting encounter with populism.  It is a mixture of many things.  A dabble of ideology, a heavy dose of national emotion, religion, history and individualised political and economic experience.  Not forgetting a specific mimicry of how it occurs elsewhere on the African continent and globally.

The ‘dabble of ideology’ largely relates to nationalism as it relates to history and the liberation struggle.  That on its own has been used by the ruling party to retain a certain instrumental populism. 

The “heavy dose of national emotion” relates to the general anger over the passage of at least three decades at the state of the national political economy since national independence. This has been used to great effect by mainstream opposition parties or movements. And as aided and enabled by an even heavier dose of religiosity and individualised materialist desires.  With the latter being motivated by what we see on television and on social media as being the assumedly enviable “good life” of the global north. Aligned with an unbelievable intention and desire at mimicry politics and its attendant recognition.

In contemporary African and global politics this is not unique to Zimbabwe.  It is populism that led to colour revolutions in the last two decades.  All of which were reversed almost at the blink of an eye by either military coups, big business and/or global superpower foreign policy interests.

 The damaging end effect of political populism is however not seen in the immediate. Mainly because it is ephemeral and highly emotional. Only in the immediacy of its occurrence or its moment.  And this is a key point.  Political populism, whatever it gets its progenitor, is unfortunately easily reversible and easily swayable in the opposite direction of why it existed in the first place.  Even if, with a dabble of ideology or religiosity it had initially appeared noble.  And tragically it also costs peoples lives and livelihoods because it is never designed to be organic with the people but with the political moment.

Again in our Zimbabwean context and in the contemporary we have to accept the reality that our national politics are largely driven by populism for many reasons. These as outlined above can range from some ideological considerations of the liberation struggle, emotive anger at the state of the economy, materialist individual desires and religion.

As such, we have come to stubbornly accept populism as though it were progressive politics. Especially because it responds to our emotions and waits for the next electoral cycle.  It does not do posterity.

If one were to ask if in the short term there is an alternative, I would despairingly say no. Mainly because this is a global and inter-generational phenomenon. More so when it is based on the fact that our democratic processes, particularly in Zimbabwe, are based on a first past the post system at a majority of levels. 

But in the long term I can easily argue that this is a dying phenomenon that is dependent more on our own recognition of progressive cultural and political habits based on our past, present and how we want to own and imagine our national political futures.  

To conclude, in conversation with some war veterans of Zimbabwe’s second liberation struggle, one can sense the angst that they have that a lot of young people do not understand or positively recognise their national stature. This is not necessarily the young people’s fault.  It is the coming to full circle of political populism in its immediacy. And in the opposite direction.  

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

 

 

#Kenya #Zimbabwe and the Disputability of Elections

 

I have been keenly following the Kenyan 2022 election court case. Mainly because as a Zimbabwean I have to reflect on electoral result disputes as they occur in my own country.  As it turns out the Supreme Court of Kenya has decided, at law, that William Ruto is the duly elected president of Kenya.

And the reasons that court gave are varied.  At least on the nine (9) points that they gave. What is important is the fact of the disputation of presidential election results.  Both as a general expectation and as a general electoral habit.   A development that remains completely understandable.

Even if when presented before a court off law, the mathematics or legal argumentation appears to fall short of expected requirements.

What is apparent is the fact of all elections in Africa, South of the Sahara being expected to be disputed.  Or at least ending up at one constitutional court or the other. 

This is the case in Kenya and Angola.  As will be the case in Zimbabwe, Botswana or Nigeria when they hold their next elections. 

What remains in vogue is the fact of the disputability of election results.  And how such disputes will always end up being presented to a Supreme or Constitutional Court. Together with the fact that in most insistences this becomes an international relations issue.  Almost as a force of habit.  With the expectations that after every other five year election period, this is actually an expectation.  Meaning that no matter the assumptions of ‘electoral reforms’ there will always be disputation as to the results.  Even if the same assumptions are made in Global North countries. 

What is apparent is the fact of an emerging culture that we should and can dispute electoral results.  For the sake of it.   It is almost an electoral campaign that so long we run for political office we should be able to dispute electoral results.  Or in other words, we cannot lose an election.  Especially if we have the sympathy of the Global North and its foreign policy intentions.

In this what emerges is the assumption of what is an election? Who actually votes and for whom? Even if the candidate is as straight forward as can be, we have to realise that it reflects more the interests of those that prefer that particular candidate than they would an opposing one.

But this may not matter as much.  The essence of electoral campaigns’ in contemporary Africa is a specific populism.  One that manages materialist desire and legality of the same.  And this is a complicated point.  “We are what we are not.  That is the paradox of fiction”.  I am quoting here from Dambudzo Marechera from his novella “The Black Insider”.

The fact of disputation of elections is one that means we are what we are not.  Our anticipation is that we will always have victory.  Yet victory always eludes us. As though it was a curse.

Our abstract struggles at liberatory beings are those that tend to belong to the immediate.  The struggles for the organic understanding of the future of the people of Zimbabwe is not abstract.  It is immediate.  And we know that those that fought the war of liberation understand this. If they do not then we have to have a conversation about the fact of the reality of what it meant actually fight the oppressor in the most trying of circumstances. 

It is apparent that the liberation struggle was complicated. And that it remains an historical reality we can never wish away.  Even if we were in the political opposition. The importance of Zimbabwean being is that we do not dispute the war of liberation.  We also do not argue with the fact of desire for electoral change.  Nor the reality that democracy has mutated to mean many things to many people.  Some in power. Others close to power. 

What we do know is that democracy represents a political culture that is essentially about posterity. It is not about the immediate.  And more about the future.  Where we embrace it for posterity we will be alright.

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