Culture and Praxis in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

A friend recently asked me about what I meant many years ago about “generational praxis”. I will come back to this concept/issue later. But if you want to crosscheck Antonio Gramsci on Google, please go ahead.

 He asked me this in an awkward context wherein we had listened to the new music that is now very popular with the youth of Zimbabwe and also somewhat over-similar in its instrumentation and lyrics. This music is either called dancehall or hip hop as motivated by social media.

We were in Dzivaresekwa high density suburb where I partly grew up. (I also grew up in Chitungwiza and Waterfalls)

The music was blaring at the braai spot and it was not what we were used to when we used to watch Mvengemvenge /Ezomgido. Or go to watch Pengaudzoke or Somandla Ndebele live in concert at Nyaguwa nightclub. Or get over-inspired by Thomas Mapfumo and the Blacks Unlimited’s Chimurenga Music.

The music we were listening to was more brazenly individualistic, self-celebratory and somewhat abstract. But it suited the moment and also helped with memory and nostalgia of belonging. Both to the proverbial ghetto but more significantly of meeting with friends from long back.

In the conversations we had with my friend, I still looked around at the evident poverty of the neighborhood and its contradictory pride. Almost as though, in our dancing and inebriation, the cdes were saying, as in the songs they were dancing to, “ This is who we are! We were born here”

Lyrics that are also derived from popular musician “Killer T” who represents an iconic figure of both recognition of origin from the ghetto but also departure from it. Only to return in pride to prove that things worked out well elsewhere. 

This is not a new comparative argument for many Zimbabweans.  We all encounter it at church, work and in social spaces.  Sometimes with individual pride and competitive work experience.  Or in some cases with individual envy and competitive desire to be better than the ‘other’. Be they from high school, college or university.

It is a very interesting paradox. That is, to want both life experiences in post-independent Zimbabwe.  You were born, grew up and educated in either a rural enclave or urban ghetto and now you can argue about your successful point at arrival in the leafy suburbs of Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, Masvingo or Mutare among many other towns and cities.  

This is a very realistic and emotional point to make because the majority of colleagues who went to high school, college or university between the late 1980s to the new millennium have this mindset.  The ones that were the first to get colonial education before independence are probably more embedded in specific lifestyles and habits that are too ingrained in them to be challenged intellectually or socially. 

But lets get back to “generational praxis” by asking the question of how do we now construct an understanding of a global progressive human existence. Regardless of race, colour, origin or class?

 Within an African context.

The reality of the matter is that this has not yet happened.  Mainly because of our own African materialism and regrettable simplicity over our lifestyles.  As we interact with global capitalism via money, movies and the attendant re-objectification of the female body (black, brown or white).

In this, we are not learning from history. We are entrapped in a neoliberal cycle of assuming that the world is our oyster.  Even as we Africans from all regions die going to the global north in the Mediterranean sea.

Or as we clamour to be recognized as equal human beings via various United Nations conventions that we fought hard for in the past and in the contemporary.

The question that however hangs over our heads is “What  do we now teach our children?” And also one about, “Who teaches them?” 

We all know from an African perspective that mothers are the best teachers of children.  Especially in their infancy. Your first song, sense of understanding of reality always stems from your mother.    

Though with the passage of time, depending on your gender, this can be ahistorically disputable.

But we need to look at the bigger picture. We need to get ourselves to quite literally believe in our being.  As Africans and beyond what we see on television, Netflix, the pastors pulpit or on other social media platforms.

Even if wanted or willed it, we are not all main actors or survivors.  We are a people that should treat each other with equality and fairness.  In as democratic a ways as is possible beyond the bright lights syndrome but an organic understanding that progressive change belongs to everyone. 

Indeed the global political economy sets out the standard for that house, car, trophy husband or wife, but it will never change the reality that life must be lived as honestly and obejctively as possible.  Beyond what you see on television and social media. 

Materialism is not a ‘life standard’.  It helps with how an individual or individuals can be perceived in a given society but it doesn’t change much. Unless you find yourself in a church organization. Or political party with ambitions for both local or national power. Or your remember the Nkrumah maxim, “Educate a Woman, You Liberate a Nation”

The major question however is what are we teaching our children?  Is the praxis of whatever we are teaching them going to make them better Zimbabweans?  At this rate, it is least likely. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zimbabwe’s New Land Policy As Replacement Capitalism

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s President Mnangagwa recently announced a change to land policy within the context of under what we now historically refer to as the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).  This was done at a routine weekly cabinet briefing by his minister of information. 

This new land policy essentially changes the tenure system for the beneficiaries of the FTLRP. There will be changes to the 99-year lease regime to one in which ‘bankable’ title will be given in various forms in order for farmers and investors to either get new loans or on the other side, lose land for failure to pay whatever they owe.

As reported in various online and mainstream platforms, this is a significant shift to the FTLRP.  One that appears to generally be welcomed by 99-year lease or offer letter farmers who were not defaulting on their state guaranteed loans. 

This new framework will prioritize (no surprises) veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, youths and women that are already beneficiaries of the FTLRP. 

This new policy will also be appealing to current and potential urban land developers whom it identifies as another priority target group of investors/businesses. 

The referred to ‘bankability’ of the tenure system also immediately means that the financial services sector is another key priority target group.  Especially where and when they can invest in a loan system that can/will cyclically allow them to retain physical capital.  

Be it on behalf of individuals or corporate entities such as urban land developers that already either have permits, 99-year leases or offer letters. 

It will however not affect colonially designed communal land tenure.  That land will still fall under the purview of traditional leaders and Rural District Councils (RDC’s). 

This is also a new policy that will take a little bit of time to be effected due to necessary legal processes that follow such government announcements.

But be that as it may, it is a huge and economically significant one seeing as it is coming from cabinet and in the name of the current president of Zimbabwe, it must be taken with the utmost seriousness it deserves. 

Especially where it has occurred after an already given government position on a compensation deal for former white commercial farmers as provided for by the constitution for developments on the land at least.

Even if it is not yet fully formulated for the purposes of governance and remains a policy announcement.

In this new and sort of expected development there are however some ideological, political and economic considerations that must be part of the public debate or acceptance of the emergent new land policy.

The first being the ideological question of when the liberation struggle was fought was this the envisioned land tenure system?  What exactly did ‘Ivhu kuVanhu’ as a major motivation for the liberation struggle entail? 

The answer to this is multifaceted because we are at least 44 years after independence and its promises.   From our socialist ideals at the inception of our freedom through to our highly unpopular neoliberal  Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes (ESAP’s) and now our newfound state capitalist projects wherein the government is functioning on behalf of private capital in its variegated local and international interests.

Ideologically this new land policy is a return to the privatization of land that though acquired with the ‘revolutionary’ premise of ‘land back to the people’  reflects more of governments intent to do what I would call ‘replacement capitalism’.

It is a pretty basic concept.

It’s a return to a past or pre-FTLRP land ownership political economy.  Except for the fact that the now majority land owners are black, not white.  Almost as though we are flipping an ahistorical coin. 

Those that benefitted from the FTLRP are being given an opportunity to either use it as a bankable investment or sell it to the highest bidder based on the tenure granted to them by government.  Or to lose it based on the fact that they will now be able to get bank loans which if they do not remit, their land will be lost to financial services institutions or loan sharks. 

This is neoliberalism writ large.  Or as a close cde of mine reminded me recently, it can be a form of ‘Socialism for the Rich or Politically Connected’.  

Except that the beneficiaries of the FTLRP are not all rich or politically connected.   They are as vulnerable to these emerging government facilitated market trends as much as the communal farmer with the newly proposed policy. 

Politically though, this is a relatively populist move for many farmers that can either pay back the state backed loans they acquired during the height of the FTLRP or those who recently got the necessary state leases and offer letters.  They will be sloganeering all the way to the banks so long they can develop their acquired farms or pay back the money in one form or the other (sub-lease or sell). 

The key political issue is that it is likely that with this policy, the ruling Zanu PF party intends to create a specific farming political class that it will protect, nurture and create new political meaning about the FTLRP.  It already has the seedlings for this and in all likelihood with this new policy will expand it.  Both at a technical, political and economic level.

And it is the latter that I will seek to lastly deal with.  The economic effects of this are that if you are already a landowner via the FTLRP, you are basically in a position to expand or retain your capital with the support of not only this new policy but also your ability to maneuver around financial investments on your property. 

This also means that government expects that you will understand the necessity of a ‘trickle down economics' benefit for your investments based on the land that you got under the FTLRP to create be it employment or find new ‘markets’. 

In all of this, there is an unwritten and unspoken assumption from officials in the government and the ruling party that Zimbabwe’s agricultural and urban development sector can rise in the same manner that either China or Singapore did.   Mainly via prioritizing private but sitting government friendly global and local capital.

But also giving the impression that they know better in land policy mimicry that will pass the test of time because of radical historical nationalism.  Without revolutionary praxis but impressionable neoliberal false populism. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

A Journey Through #Zimbabwe Political Consciousness.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Most of us as Zimbabweans do not examine the trajectory of our contemporary but also individual national consciousness.  For example we do not really ask, what shapes our individual political opinions?  Is it the school we went to?  The churches we attended or the political processes that we witnessed or experienced?  Let alone the economic success desires we harbored, did not achieve and blamed multiple political establishments as to how we did not get to where we wanted?

Or how we got to where we materially wanted to get to via affiliation to particular political and economically linked political establishments? 

The truth of the matter is that we do not have to.  We generally live in the moment.  And we do not also have to overthink our existence as individuals or as a society.  Mainly because we assume everything is already established is unchallengeable.  At least not in the short term.

This might appear like a complicated concept but it basically means, there are now things that we think can no longer be challenged economically or even in a societal equitability sense.  At least in terms of our own opinions.

And this is the point of this blog or brief write up.  

Where we remember how we all grew up, the aspirations our parents or even grandparents had of us, we suffered an initial primary weakness.  One that was embedded in an ahistorical desire for success that remains essentially one of mimicry of colonial and post-colonially defined material success.

This is a debate I occasionally have with comrades that tends not to go beyond organic discourse because at our (multiple) ages, certain decisions and social behavioural standards have already been conservatively set. 

The questions we must however begin to ask ourselves, even if you are a rich person in the now, an urban or rural urban worker, a nascent youthful or successful entrepreneur (as is the global trend), a pensioner or civil/public employee, is how did you come to your specific political and/or economic consciousness in Zimbabwe?   

I am talking here about you, if you are reading this, at a personal level.  It is always something to reflect on as it relates to what your value the most, individually and in relation to like-minded individuals.  Be they from your workplace, your place of worship, your sports club(s), Whatsapp groups or any other social activities that motivate you to feel you are human and belong to some sort of social value based community. Beyond what you earn or what you can earn. 

This is a non-gendered introspection since we are all equal intellectually. Though gender remains not only a societal construct but a lived repressive reality for many women in Zimbabwe.  

 But back to the main question.  What informs your political and economic consciousness?  What makes you have an opinion on either anything or everything?  Do you read, do you feel it, do you pray it? Do you pay for it?

 Or in some cases do you experience it based on personally lived pains and experiences (Zimbabwe’s national economic and drought crisis of 2008 as an example?)  Including the possible reality of you being in the Diaspora across rivers or across seas and oceans and its multiple identity and economic implications for yourself or your immediate or extended family back home?

These are questions I also ask myself on a regular basis.  I have at least two immediate answers. 

My consciousness is based on what I have read.  It is based also on my own political activism and understanding of Zimbabwean politics.

And here I will give a specific example of once having been a progressive constitutional reform activist based in Marondera, Mashonaland East in Zimbabwe.  And how you get to grasp the reality of a dual Zimbabwean society (urban and rural) as you interact with the people for various activist reasons. While in the process realizing that at some point, in your preferable consciousness, you do not quite understand your country.  Until that experience of those moments of grasping differentiated national realities in Murehwa, Mutoko or Mudzi districts.  Before going home to Bikita for a Christmas or other holiday break.

Which included an emergent understanding of both rural and urban poverty, its attendant political economy and how our national cyclical electoral politics have never really changed since the year 2002.

The key issue however is how we as individual Zimbabweans view our political opinions and what inspires or dissuades them. 

In the majority of cases these are about our families’ survival ( school fees, rent, home construction, small scale entrepreneurship, tenderpreneurship, marriage, the Diaspora and some sort of material satisfaction or happiness). 

Where you mix this up with political ambitions you have politicians that are hard pressed to see an organic national political and economic future beyond their personal interests. Particularly those that choose to live in the moment of either their ascendancy or their victimization en-route to some sort of power ascendancy. 

But if you ask them and yourself this key question, “What motivated you to have these ideas, these values, these beliefs?” The answers you will get and you will reply even yourself remain ambiguous. 

These answers are generally multifaceted.  They will begin with history from both collective national history and also an individual’s role in it.  And end with the necessity or pragmatism of the contemporary situation. A pragmatism that essentially points either to a desire to return to the old or embed our society in a global neoliberalism and as the Chiyangwa adage goes, “Make Money!” Even before you get arrested  on allegations of corruption.

What is more of a reflection exercise that most Zimbabweans remain to talk about is that their knowledge, their personal experiences, beliefs do not make our society revolutionary.

We are now more incrementalist politically, economically, collectively and individually.  And this is historically understandable. To simplify it again, we are now a ‘slow change society’.  Even if we think  of the next general election in 2028. We are not waiting on a revolution. But a new reality of our politics.   It will be slower and less populist.  

What Zimbabwe has gone through, given the diversity of our views, and the influence of global capital on our economic systems and our politics, our collective and individual thought processes about our own consciousness, we are clearly not yet ready for what we really want. 

Rethink what makes you politically conscious. Individually and collectively in your next WhatsApp post.  

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