The Chinese are Not Going Away Anytime Soon in Zimbabwe. They Do Not Have To.

By Takura Zhangazha*

A cde recently argued about how China is taking all of Zimbabwe’s mineral wealth from the country.  Inter alia mentioning the major mining projects that China and its private companies have invested in Zimbabwe.  These include the Manhize iron mining and steel production company which is now referred to as the Dinson Iron and Steel Company (DISCO).  The cde went further and cited other mining initiatives such as the Bikita Lithium mining company (Sinomone Bikita) and others in Penhalonga or Shurugwi.

These conversations occurred against the backdrop of an invitation to Zimbabwe’s current president Emmerson Mnangagwa for an 80^th anniversary commemoration of the Chinese defeat of the Japanese at the height of the second world war. 

And it is fair to argue around the fact of the closeness of the Zimbabwean government to China.  

In the contemporary, it’s a relationship that is frowned upon because of specific global narratives against China and its economic rise.  Let alone assumption of its 'communism' and attempt at what it refers to as a ‘multi-polar’ world order.  

But when you put this into perspective, Zimbabwe’s relationship with China is much deeper than the mainstream media puts out. Both state media or private media.

China is historically a revolutionary society.  Internally and globally.   From their long drawn wars against the Kuomintang, the Japanese and eventual victory of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) there are elements of revolutionary praxis that can be drawn from them.  Even if you did not ideologically want to.   As Zimbabweans we are in debt to them for the lessons they taught us about ‘guerilla warfare’ in tandem with what then appeared as convoluted 5 year national development programmes.

In the late 1980s we were also beholden to the fact of how phenomenal national development can take place in a neo-liberal global economic context. Inclusive of the re-drawing of the lines between the role of the state and private capital in national and global economic development. 

In this, and between the lines, it is not so easy to see a new narrative about the role of a centrist state in tandem with global and financialised capital.  As it is linked mainly to China or by relative default the very profit motivated global north financialised private capital.  

That’s the catch for the ruling Zanu Pf party.  They have a relatively clear (though factionalised) ideological assumption that they can mimic the Chinese economic development model.  They even have both the financial and political investment to match it.  Hence we are there at the 80^th anniversary celebrations in China this week. 

But it is a mimicry that comes with political and economic costs.

Politically it means that the ruling Zanu Pf party cannot lose power in the long term.  The heavy investments that the Chinese have made in mining, energy and infrastructural development need to be politically protected.  This can only be done if the primary political partner (Zanu PF) retains political power.   This also indicates that our politics while purporting to be about democratic elections every five years are beholden to Chinese economic interests in Zimbabwe.  

As was the case in the early 1980s with British private capital and its London-Rhodesia (LONRHO) interests when it directly affected the Lancaster House conference resolutions on private property (land) and also ensured we had neoliberal finance minsters during the times of Economic structural Adjustment Programmes (ESAPs) in the late 80s and through the 1990s. 

Now most of us are wont to accuse the Chiense of a new form of imperialism.  Akin to the global Western superpowers. 

At the risk of appearing as though I am doing some public relations for Chinese foreign policy, I would quickly argue that this is patently untrue.  Chinese foreign policy functions on a clearly different terrain. 

And it is also embedded in a majority of African countries’ liberation history.  Like with the West, it is now increasingly business and profit motivated.  But less financially and materially extractive unless you will it to do so as a sovereign country.  But it listens more than it extracts.  Except that it listens to governments and analyses their global placement in a global political economy. 

Hence China (and Russia) stuck by Zimbabwe when we were supposed to be placed under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions in July 2008.  Something that I will always repeat that we quite literally dodged a bullet because of them during an age of a Blair-Bush led era of global liberal-military interventionism in the affairs of UN member states.

As was the case in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Venezuela.

But we need to bring the debate to its local context.   Many Zimbabweans have a xenophobic tendency against the Chinese.  Almost as though they would prefer the British or Americans being the ones setting up major mining or infrastructural investments in the country. 

The reality of the matter is that the Chinese are more grounded in their investments.  Even if we accuse them of a multitude of environmental degradation issues or cross-check their human rights records, they have a standing policy of non interference.  In other words, they simply listen to what your current or serving government wants in return for their investments. 

So if you are Zimbabwean and have a problem with the Chinese in your country, you probably have to take it up with the ruling government and party, Zanu Pf.   Because the Chinese do no listen to popular and populist protests. They only deal with your government.

And while doing so, always remembering that global economics in the moment is also about ‘narratives’ that pit the 'global north’ versus the ‘global east'.  Moreso in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war and the ongoing genocide by Israel in Palestine. 

To conclude on a controversial point.  There is an assumption that many Zimbabweans hold that the Chinese are ‘bad’ investors in Zimbabwe due to their proximity to the ruling Zanu Pf party.  This is a mistaken view.  The Chinese are here to measure and get results for their primary economic and political interests.  They are not as imperialistic as their counterparts from the global west because of our limited but shared struggle against colonialism history.

So it matters that we understand more ourselves than we do the Chinese.  Or the Americans, British or the Europeans and what we want from them within our on cultural, economic and ideological ambits.  But for now, I do not fault the Chinese. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his own personal capacity.

 

 

  

 

 

Leading Via Organic, Progressive Values Not Educational Populism in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There has been a little bit of social media banter about the professions that populate our Zimbabwean and African politics at its most executive decision making levels.  With some of the same said banter arguing that we have too many legal professionals in our top executive government leadership.   While on the opposite side of the relatively populist debate is that if we had for example ‘engineers’ (of all types) in charge of our governments, we would easily see faster implementation of development projects and the betterment of the livelihood of the people.

Mainly because ‘engineers' are deemed to be more pragmatic, even mathematical in solving specific problems afflicting our societies. Be it in the form of infrastructural rehabilitation or even in some cases the militarization by army engineering corps of health or transport services. 

I must confess that I was alerted to this debate by an engineering cde who is based in the Diaspora and is very passionate about Zimbabwe and its progressive future.   It had already been doing the rounds, as it turns out, via a blog he also shared title ‘Zimbabwe’s Lawyer Heavy Politics Not Good for Development’.  

It is not clear who wrote this particular article.  

But the article as its title suggests its main argument is to pit the legal profession against what are perceivably more pragmatic professions where and when it comes to governance of countries.  Something that dovetails almost too nicely with the new educational emphasis of many African governments around Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) syllabi frameworks. Not only for educational purposes but also for preferred leadership purposes.

There are however at least two sides to political leadership.  There is the ideological or value based side. And then there is the administrative and technical or administrative side.  Both work in tandem. But with the ideological/values based element being in charge. 

Almost like we used to argue during our own liberation struggle about the politics leading the gun.  Because you cannot fire a gun without a cause.  You cannot fight for the sake of fighting without a justiciable or even popular cause. 

Nor can you establish a rules based system for legal professionals or lawyers without an underpinning value system. One that may recognize human rights as is legally but not pragmatically the case in Zimbabwe.  While expecting those read in the rules to be the only ones best at either implementing or interpreting the same said rules.  

For a clear example of this one just needs to just crosscheck the USA and Trump’s administration of justice and how it is disrupting long held democratic value systems.  To the extent that it is now a society now arguably ruled by fear of what the government will do next via executive order.  Even if their president is not even a lawyer.

So the argument about the background professional qualifications of a president or prime minster may be populist in nature but it does not really matter.   In fact it should not matter.  

But what I consider relatively abstract and populist social and other media conversations make it matter.  Including particular competitive economic interests for state power to enable self-enrichment at the expense of a majority poor. 

These interests include private capital, religious sectors, self regulating professional associations (lawyers, nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, labour unions and even makorokoza or others 4ED, women’s and youth groups that all want a specific narrative about ‘qualified’ leadership. One that suits their peculiar material and political interests.

So leadership is not as simple as is being made out on social media banter.  Be it between engineers and lawyers.  Or even as is the case in the current Zanu Pf party where its being regarded as ‘our generational turn’ to be at the top of the table between nationalist, militarily trained nationalists, pure guerillas and subsequently ex-detainees of the Zimbabwean liberation struggle. 

Or in the opposition political circles where religion and messianic tendencies gained un-politically believable ascendency.  Much to the destruction of the opposition where you had well known lawyers and engineers falling into a valueless trap of ‘cultism’ in order to either become a president, member of parliament or councilor. Something that still obtains today. 

But back to my Diaspora based engineering cde and I.  The issue of the professional background of a political leader is important in its own electability right.  Adding a prefix like Dr. or Engineer, Reverend or LLB to your electoral ballot and rally name helps you win votes.  It is however not the sum total of leadership.

What matters the most is the underlying value system of your politics and its relevant or organic historicity to the existence of the country.  Hence we talk of the now both historical and proverbial ‘struggle’.   For example while revered national heroes such as Chitepo were lawyers they knew the fundamentals of the struggle beyond the legal skills they had acquired.  They wanted the independence and freedom of all Zimbabweans from a very political angle that eventually ended up being a long drawn guerilla war.  With their say so.  As illegal in then Rhodesia as it was.

Even in post indepedence Zimbabwe, we had many technocrats trained in the global east running government departments including the late national hero Chidzero whose expertise regrettably missed the historicity of ‘gutsaruzhinji’ and introduced the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) that decimated local production and caused severe poverty among the people.  A development that led to the reawakening of Tsvangirai (a miner) led Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).   

For brevity I will not delve into the formation of the MDC against such a rich organic historical background in the labour movement of Zimbabwe since at least 1948.

It is however important to indicate that the issue of qualifications in political leadership is not a new phenomenon.  It is both colonial, anti-colonial and post-colonial. The more educated you were the more likely you were to end up in some political leadership role. 

The question that emerged was who were you leading for?  Were you going to be a Muzorewa (a bishop), a Chirau (a chief), or a Mugabe (teacher and lawyer).  

Or alternatively were you going to be like the agronomist Amilcar Cabral and lead for the people?  Or Samora Machel the nurse and again lead for the people?  

Or Julius Nyerere, a teacher, Mwalimu and lead the whole continent together with the lawyer Kwame Nkrumah? This is before I mention Mbeki the economist and his dream of an African Renaissance or Thomas Sankara, a soldier, and his brave Pan Africanism.

You see cdes, leadership is not about where you went to school.  Or how much you ‘engineered’ or ‘lawyered’ up. 

It is about your values, the values and fundamental ideology of the organization that you are leading and its progressive acceptance of those by the masses of Zimbabwe.   Always therefore, in political  leadership, ask yourself the questions, ‘Who are you leading for? Yourself? Acceptance by the global North and global Capital?  Or the people? ”

And most importantly, “Why?” In that way you establish an organic value system beyond your education certificate that you most likely acquired from a university or college run by your previous oppressors.

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

 

 

  

 

 

 

The Fluidity of Contemporary African Religion/Historical Spirituality, Class Division, Materialism in Zimbabwe

 By Takura Zhangazha*

 At one point in my activist life I was accused of ‘not being on the ground’.  

This was an accusation based on a perception that progressive political activism always required having a physical ear on the needs of the people by regularly attending community meetings/events and travelling the length and breadth of the country. Almost in a generic sense. 

I took up the challenge and travelled across many rural, urban and peri-urban areas across the country.  

Sometimes deliberately and in most cases by invitation by education and community health workers.

From Mudzi to Wedza, Bikita, Uzumba-Marangwa-Pfungwe through to Gwanda, Bikita, Chivi, Chipinge, Chiredzi, Bulawayo, Hwange, Victoria Falls, Mutoko, Wedza, Chikomba, Mashava, Zaka, Gutu,  Guruve, Mahuhwe, Mushumbi, Thsolotsho, Lupane, Gokwe and others that I cannot mention in this write up.  Though I must be honest that the only place in Zimbabwe I have never physically been to is Beitbridge. 

 So in taking up the challenge of ‘being on the ground’ as given by the populist comrades we had in our midst there are certain things that came to my personal realization. 

These included the fact that their populist predisposition was a myth.   It was unstructured and unrelated to their lived or desired political experiences.  And I am being very polite here.   It mixed as is the subject of this brief write up, religion, politics, materialism and a specific carryover of an emergent African spirituality as it related to the aforementioned three elements.  It however always forgot ‘class’ and the ‘class structure’ of postcolonial Zimbabwean society. 

It was essentially a reductionist argument.  Or to simplify it further, one that sought to make sure intellectual engagement was to worship at the altar of what was basically political populism. 

All within the ambit of a drawn out newer cross generational understanding of the meaning of post- independence democracy in Zimbabwe.  As it mixes together with liberation struggle historical recognition and global hegemonic counter-narratives to anti-colonialism that are now embodied in the new cold war between the USA as it pits itself against China and Russia in an expanded neoliberal and again global economic order. 

But over the last half year it is relatively clear to see where Zimbabwean politicians and political culture are blurring the lines between religion/spirituality, materialism and default economic class designations.  And I am making this argument in a Marxian and Fanonist sense. 

Our current politicians while touting both liberation and post-colonial struggle histories have by default (that is without organic strategy) decided to steer our national consciousness toward faith, money/ materialism (or desire for money) and by dint of the same, inferiority complexes that come with both.

This includes creating a false political culture around what it means to be a successful Zimbabwean while the majority others are suffering and blaming it on them for not being ‘tenderpreneurs’.  Or not being connected enough to the ruling establishment including not being opportunistic enough to ensure a political seat at the official opposition table where your material needs and gaps are covered. Individually.

But the fluidity of religion/spirituality , class and materialism is somewhat worrying in Zimbabwe. 

Whereas Fanon would have warned against a comprador bourgeoisie (middle class) or Marx warned against misunderstanding global capitalism. Or Nkrumah warning against what he referred to as ‘Neocolonialism, The Last stage of Imperialism”   With all of them warning us of its historical political, economic and social after effects, inclusive of what in our case are its apparent contradictions. 

I will give an anecdote for this point.  If you are Zimbabwean, have you ever asked yourself a question about why we have an ease to material cruelty?  As we link it with either a religious way of life or an assumption of economic success? 

The answer lies in the fact of the fluidity that we have come to accept between religion, politics and wrongly ignoring specific class differences as determined by global capitalism.  And refusing to overcome them.  

Instead we seek to mimic them. 

It is a post-colonial generational fault that I often discuss with comrades.  Something that I refer to as a ‘climbing the colonial mimicry ladder’ approach to our Zimbabwean society.  

As based on our own parents aspirations as they got mainstreamed into colonial/ postcolonial education and production political economies. On this one I hope we all remember the Native Labour Associations that formed our contemporary townships, even as they are now expanded in the same historical formats.

Let me also use a religious allegory for this. Have you ever noticed at least two things about religious services in Zimbabwe?  The first is that those that are well to do or politically ambitious/connected have the time of the preacher/priest/pastor/prophet/ mudzidzi?  And that in tandem they tend to give the impression that they completely agree with the religious dispositions of those that they are allowed to address? 

While at the same time giving out messages of economic and cross-class promises of wealth.

And this is my final point on the issue of the fluidity of religion, spirituality, class and materialism.   There is a false assumption that we are all equal in a patently unequal society based on the four aforementioned points.

What has been happening in reality is the blurring of economic class lines by religion and politics.  Wherein our people are falsely motivated to assume they are in a religiously equitable society in order to hide the wealth of those that are at the economic top of the table.  Not in a Marxian sense (opium of the people).  Instead in a fluid methodology of mixing everything up in populist political culture that Fanon would have frowned upon.    

Go ahead, eat, pray, believe, vote as is your right. But you have to also learn to understand your own society better, more critically.  Nothing is at it seems.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity.

 

 

 

 

Zimbabwe’s Own Factionalized Mafia: A Symbiosis of Politics and Business as Profit.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

When the political slogan, “The ease of doing business” emerged from the ranks of a post 2017 coup-not-a coup Zanu Pf many progressive Zimbabwe activists assumed it was a wrong and unacceptable ideological neoliberal disposition.  One which we also regularly sought to argue against but with limited impact because of the euphoric tendencies of political change processes.  Especially after the fall of Robert Mugabe in November 2017. 

This essentially meant that the not so new political leaders of Zimbabwe could claim a new clean slate as to how to run the country post Mugabe.  Their argument being that we were now in what they referred to as the “Second Republic of Zimbabwe”.  A quasi revolutionary term that was meant to signify a new beginning. 

With the full knowledge of the popularity of any post Mugabe dispensation in its infancy. Mnangagwa’s new government made sure to court the international community by almost immediately cancelling the then national indigenization economic policy and promising a review of its relations with former white commercial farmers.  It also sought to assuage any fears from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) of any further political instability. 

With the promise that there would not be another ‘coup-not-a-coup’ if elections were held as scheduled in 2018. And if they were also recognized as legitimate by the same said regional body. 

With Zanu Pf’s contested but eventually internationally accepted 2018 electoral victory there was a revived pathway for a new reconfiguration of Zimbabwe’s political economy.  That is, a changing of the guard of our country’s national political economy.  Inclusive of a payback checklist as to who should be rewarded with portions of the national political-economic cake.

And this was initially done in elitist fashion and diligently  with large scale Chinese investment projects that were partly carry overs from the previous government but were immediately expedited. 

Or Russian and Eastern European mining, agricultural, transport and other concessions that would indicate to them that they were key priority countries’ in a different and less ideological  Zimbabwean foreign policy trajectory. 

Together with the urgency of courting our former colonial power the United Kingdom (UK) to take a softer economic stance toward Zimbabwe and its again not so new post Mugabe leaders over and about individual or state related enterprises and their sanctions. 

The intention of all of these actions was to create what I consider an optimum economic environment that would facilitate as they sloganeered the 'ease of doing business' in Zimbabwe.   

This meant assuring local white and its linked indigenous private capital that the new government was not going to interfere directly in their everyday profit motivated activities. 

An assurance that also went further with black private and state capital that they would not have any problems linking up with globalized financialized capital be it in mining, agriculture, education, tourism currency exchanges and property development.  Hence the overture of seeking to compensate former white commercial farmers and urgently meet the grievances of Bilateral  Investment and Protection Agreements (BIPPAs) that had been abandoned under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).

This also meant creating new opportunities for local, indigenous businesses that are linked to the ruling Zanu Pf party as a means of creating a nascent business motivated/ comprador bourgeoisie that would benefit from an open ended ‘free market’ economic environment.  As long as they can and could acquire mining permits, link up with palatable foreign investors from the global West or the East or even the global center (Middle East). 

With the firm understanding that so long you do not cross the current government’s hairs you are guaranteed safety and security of business tenure. Whether you are a local investor or an internationally based one.

The problem that is increasingly evident is that this ‘optimum’ environment for investment that I have referred to earlier requires politics.   And in particular  the politics of Zanu Pf as the ruling party.   As accompanied by ingratiation to its key power holders as well as brokers. 

Within an ambit of playing emergent succession factions against the other in Zanu Pf. Wherein proximity to power is most evidently a methodology of accessing wealth. Or at least protection of acquired wealth. Or even in some cases being able to transfer wealth to other international financial and economic hubs. Out of national sight and mind.  

I will explain this further.  

The factionalism within Zanu Pf, be it via the war veterans as led by Blessed Geza and his accusations of ‘zvigananda’.  

Or those that are serving in central government that are touting a term extension of Mnangagwa’s current term of office by two years from 2028 to 2030. 

And also those that are evidently part of supporting deputy president Chiwenga in seeking his eventual ascension to the presidential throne in Zanu Pf by the time they hold their 2027 elective congress.  

The central issue in all of these factional tendencies within Zanu Pf is the political economy and how to control it.  Together with private local and international capital.   So what we essentially have in Zimbabwe is a factionalised political and economic mafia.  

Where the state is split in two symbiotic ways.  Namely, the politicians accede to the demands of international financialised and local materialized private capital.  On the opposite side, where international financialised capital feeds the politicians their needs in order to retain their power via trickledown economics and personal aggrandizement.  Inclusive of assuming a political benevolence that we are witnessing today with either the donations of luxury vehicles, money and other forms of fixed property to celebrities and politicians.  

What I am certain we are seeing is the mustard seed of in Zimbabwe is a ‘symbiotic mafia state’   One in which politics meets business and agrees to work together. Be it in relation to factions (choosing sides) but more importantly profitability.  

Zanu PF’s succession battles as they are currently playing out reflect this.  There are those in charge of the politics. Then there are those in charge of the money.  They key question, if you are a Zanu Pf member/support, is on which side are you on. Not just for the elections but within the matrix that is the new mafia symbiosis of our national political economy.

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

Dilemmas of Southern Africa Former Liberation Movements as Ruling Parties.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

Former liberation movements that are also ruling parties recently held a summit in South Africa.  They were hosted by the current African National Congress (ANC) president Cyril Ramaphosa.. There were also at least three other Southern African Presidents representing their ruling parties.  These were Daniel Chapo of the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO), Nandi Ndaitwa of the South Western Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) and Emerson Mnangagwa of the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (Zanu PF).  This event was also attended by former presidents Thabo Mbeki (ANC) and Joaqim Chissano (Frelimo). 

The exiled leader of the Western Saharawi Republic and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) were also represented.

The theme of this meeting was dubbed “Defending the Liberation Gains, Advancing Integrated Socio-Economic Development, Strengthening Solidarity for a Better Africa,”

Normally this meeting would not have attracted actual presidents.  It would have been largely viewed from the perspective of party functionaries such as secretary generals or administrators and heads of party international departments.    

But there is now an evident sense of concern from these former liberation movements that are still ruling parties. 

And they now have a five year programme of action in which they have instructed their respective party administrators and treasures to, among other things, prioritize the following:

1.      “Defending and consolidating the gains of our liberation”

2.      “Confronting imperialism, neo-colonialism and geo-political subversion

3.      “Charting a radical new path of socio economic transformation driven by grassroots mobilization, regional integration and people centered development”

Normally this would be almost ‘run of the mill’ token resolutions of these former liberation movements that are still ruling parties.  Except that international global relations and economics have shifted significantly in the age of Donald Trump, the Ukraine-Russia war and the genocide that is happening in Palestine, particularly in Gaza.   

All of which are occurring within the conundrum that is their own domestic/national electoral cycles where they have to contend with emerging opposition political parties and leaders that are a direct threat to their hegemony.  

Mainly because of a lack of continual liberation struggle history consciousness across generations and also the inherently stubborn hegemonic post-colonial intentions of the global north or as we traditionally refer to it, western European and north American countries.

In this mix is also the cultural dynamic that comes with Africa’s demographics of a much more youthful population than anywhere else in the world.  So ‘age’ becomes a key political tool for the former liberation movements to contend with, even in their assumptions of their infallibility and internal power succession plans. 

In Botswana this was made evident in their last elections where the former liberation party Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) lost the presidency to the new Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC).  In Mozambique the former liberation movement Frelimo had a close and contested call against the Optimist Party for the Development of Mozambique (PODEMOS).

Tanzania’s Chama Cha MaPinduzi (CCM) has an election this year (scheduled for October 2025) and the former liberation movement and ruling party has been accused of trying to unfairly repress the mainstream political opposition Party for Democracy and Progress (CHADEMA).

Against the backdrop of their recent summit, it is evident that former liberation movements are smarting from the losses of their peer parties from the anti-colonial struggle.  And are therefore trying to shore up their liberation history struggle solidarity to retain power as current ruling parties.

That they cite interference in electoral politics by external forces and colonial interests in the mineral wealth of the Southern African region is indicative of not only what they know to be their precarious political existence but also their own long-duree internal and national performance legitimacy weaknesses. 

Inclusive of how they are now accused by a relatively populist, religious, globally malleable and celebrity culture motivated young Southern African population.  A youth demographic that does not prioritize liberation and anti-colonial struggle history. And one that lives in the material moment.

So these former liberation movements that are also still ruling parties are faced with an existential dilemma.  One that is historical and global. 

With the first question being, can they electorally retain power within the ambit of electorally accepted universal democratic norms?  Or can they risk losing power at the behest of the same said universal democratic best practices and norms?

What their statement indicates from their recent South African meeting is that they are still willing to risk it in terms of democratic best practice when it comes to retaining political power.  But ensuring that they assist each other as long as they are still ruling parties.  Both in relation to funding for elections but more significantly about an emerging urgent requirement for solidarity where elections are contested globally and internally in the countries that they still rule. 

It is a very complex situation for them as former liberation movements that are still power. And it is understandable that they are reflecting on this.  Except for the reality that they still have to be democratically re-elected every five or six years by what is now a very fluid and young electorate. 

Whereas when they came to power, anti-colonial and liberation Pan African ideology really mattered. Now it has been thrown to the periphery because of their own weaknesses around performance legitimacy and the global neoliberal tide as led by the west. 

Now and in conclusion, this is a very complicated argument to make.  The former liberation movements that are still ruling parties in Southern Africa need to re-examine the placement of the region in global history and acknowledge their own complicity in the fact that there are younger voters who do not like them.

 They also need to understand that changes in global economics after the Cold War is not on their ideological and cultural side. Nor is the passage of time and desire for progressive political change.  And neither is social media and our long standing Diaspora with global north experiences and understanding of the ‘good life’ on their side. 

Because of this, they may need to reinvent themselves much more organically than they have done to date.

But ordinary Africans also need to ask themselves questions as to the meaning and interaction of the history of liberation and contemporary African politics.  Including how we are where we are in our collective ahistorical gullibility.  And the wars that reflect the coloniality of the global west that in most tragic circumstances we do not query because of our false and shallow admiration of the lifestyles of the global north.

The former liberation movements that are still ruling parties may need reminding of that famous Julius Nyerere dictum, ‘The mechanisms of democracy are not the meaning of democracy”.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State of Zimbabwe’s Political Opposition: No Historicity and Misreading the Passage of Time.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There are, in the contemporary at least, three ways to look at Zimbabwe’s mainstream political opposition.  The first is to allege that as it has evolved from the historical 1999 Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as led by Tsvangirai and to now barely exist in name after acrimonious factionalism that has spanned at least 23 years. 

With the main reasons for this being profound factionalism ranging from personality clashes based on egos or proximity to Western embassies and a global liberal interventionism (end of history) political/economic ideological outlook. As then largely championed by the then USA and the United Kingdom

Be it as MDC (in its current convoluted form) and what an attempt at political reinvention became with the short lived MDC Alliance for the purposes of the 2018 harmonised elections. As well as the post 2023 fractured political outfit that was and is still referred to as the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC).

Or even the emergence of smaller political parties that were quite literally offshoots of the same original MDC as it continued to splinter.  So on the face of it, without any need to over analyse the facts, the general initial view and understandable view is that without a doubt it is a former shadow of its organic self.  Beyond being an electoral phenomenon that dissipates after court or SADC processes. Until next time when there’s another harmonized election.  With all the opportunities it may present.

The second popular perspective of what remains of our national political opposition is that Zanu PF as a ruling party, in control of various arms of the state, worked very hard to decimate it.  Inclusive of the use of political violence during the opposition’s strengthening years from 1999 to 2008.  Thereafter the SADC mediated inclusive government that was to last until 2013 saw a significant change in the strength of the mainstream opposition. 

To the extent of losing its slight parliamentary majority to the ruling Zanu Pf party in elections that were held in the same year. This was largely due to cooption but again due to a carry over of factionalism based on not only egocentric individual tendencies but also desires to demonstrate greater proximity to the global political economic order. Embassies and all.  Anyone remember Wikileaks and the files released on Zimbabwe’s political leaders?  What they would say and the assessments in particular of the Americans? 

In this second instance the general perception has been Zanu PF is the cause of the demise of its nemesis that began as the MDC and is now a multi-headed but non-lethal beast. This view is fair but it cannot be allowed to miss the point of the oppositions own complicity in its demise.

A complicity that brings us closer to a truer reflection on why Zimbabwe’s opposition is in such a bad state. This is a perspective that is shared in smaller circles or those that may be considered to be more akin to Zanu Pf contempt.  But it also a view that must be considered seriously.  The mainstream Zimbabwean opposition was hoist by its own internal petard.  What goes for popular social media talk about its poor state at the moment is more like pub conversations.

The reality of the matter is that Zimbabwe’s opposition has generally made the mistake of not having a complete understanding of its historicity and the passage of time.

I use the term ‘historicity’ in a dual sense.  The first just being the fact that all opposition parties that emerged after 1999 in Zimbabwe tended to forget their origins or why they were formed and had the popularity they had. This included the highly unpopular policies of Economic Structural Adjustment (ESAP) policies of the then government and a rising labour union demand for a place at the table of the state. And this was representative of both urban and rural citizens of Zimbabwe. 

The second part to a lack of ‘historicity’ is the ideological question that in the contemporary we keep trying to avoid as Zimbabweans.   Organically (in relation to true lived political meaning) the people of Zimbabwe have not desired a capitalist state.   Hence they fought a liberation struggle that was popular based on socialist ideology.  Hence they also formed a labour movement rooted in both socialism and social democracy as ideologies.  

Inclusive of having the labour movements of the late 1990s being the first to re-amplify the land redistribution agenda before the war veterans initiated what we now know as the Fast Track Land Redistribution Programme (FTLRP). And worked violently hard to seek to prevent the opposition from getting power for a good 10 years (1999-2009) until the inclusive government. They are yet to apologise for that.

But the opposition itself morphed into a conduit of neoliberal political/economic ideology particularly during its time in the inclusive government.  While it did not denounce its labour roots openly, it  became the frontrunner for neo-liberal capitalism in a country that required on the clear face of it, a re-emergent social welfare state. 

Even if just for economic recovery after the terrible hyper-inflationary period of 2007-2009 before the introduction of a pro-rich multi-currency regime.  

One that still negatively affects the national consciousness to its core because of our very existential worship of foreign currencies and by default materialist political, economic and social cultural practices.

With that said let me briefly delve into the other point about ‘misreading the passage of time’.  This is more an assertion that seeks to question a little discussed element of Zimbabwean politics.  This is that of inter-generational value-based and ideological consciousness.    

Because of a lack of its own historicity, Zimbabwe’s mainstream opposition has resorted to basic populism.  And I quite literally mean ‘basic populism’ that mistakenly considers ‘age’ as an ideology.  Or that age in and of itself is a major political asset within Zimbabwe’s historical context.  That is not correct.  Age also comes with lived and desired experiences.  

And these desired experiences can be completely illogical in Zimbabwe’s context. They will relate to materialistic assumptions, religious superstition (and I am being polite here), gambling and high levels of individualism as quite literal political causes.  When in reality we know  that these cannot be long duree political causes by any stretch of a calm political imagination. Nor can they be values.  We all age. And time passes.  IT is what you stand for that matters the most. 

But here we are.  The opposition’s lack of historicity and inability to understand the need for a consistent time-based thread to its existence across generations has been what has been debilitating it.  Desires for power for egoistic purposes, lack of ideological grounding based on not only founding values but also a clear understanding of the passage of time and generational praxis are its major albatross. 

By 2028, it may recover.  Even if not to win an election outright.  But at least to reignite a progressive national consciousness that strongly challenges and prevents a wholesale neo-liberal, pro-capitalist takeover of Zimbabwe as Zanu Pf keenly intends to do. More so in the age of Trump. 

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

    

 

 

 

Makandiwa's Ridiculous Flat Earth Theory:: Re-finding God

 By Takura Zhangazha*

I did not have to write this. But it was  impossible to ignore. There is a pastor who sort of decided to say the Earth's flat. In front of nodding heads.

I am sure that these nodding heads are probably accountants, medical  doctors, lawyers, political scientists and sociologists.

All with the assumption that their preacher is always correct.  And must be followed to the letter of whatever he says. Which is all fair and fine. In Zimbabwe we have a constitutional right to freedom of worship. You are allowed to believe in what you chose to believe in.

Jesus, Allah or Midzimu. Or anyone or anything else.

It remains your fundamental constitutional human right. What has become interesting is the fact of pastors beginning to make claim to scientific issues.

 Including as argued above argumentation around the issue of whether or not the earth is flat. Or the true power of what we scientifically know to be gravity.

At worst these are laughable propositions coming from a so called 'Man of God'. Until you crosscheck the nodding in affirmation heads in his congregation. 

It is completely unbelievable (no pun intended).

Grown men and women who would take their time to listen to a peculiar ridiculousness even as educated as they are. And continue to sit in a sermon where they are told things that do not make scientific sense.

Even as they work in hospitals, scientific laboratories and social science institutions.

Makandiwa's flat earth theory is on the face of it a publicity seeking ruse. We all know that the Earth is rotund and that it revolves around the sun in tandem with other planets. At different intervals.

There is no wall at the end of the Earth. No matter how thick your tie is. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West for geographical and geological  reasons.

God is not in that equation.

In saying this there is a specific naivety that I recognise in many Zimbabweans.

We naively believe what we want to hear and we hear what we want to believe. As it links and relates to what our local pastor or religious leader says.

The reality of the matter is that we are faced with a lifestyle crises.   It is completely ridiculous to have thousands of people sitting and listening and telling you that the Earth is flat. 

You have to quite frankly ask yourself them question if you are right in the head. Literally.   Even if it is about your own faith which you have a right to, but in this day and age you are querying that geography and aerodynamics which gets you on a flight from Zimbabwe to China?   In less than 24 hours?  Without counting the airport stopovers?

So Makandiwa is not only misplaced about a flat earth theory. He is also misleading the Zimbabwean public on the matter.  Given his immense public stature he should not be making such uneducated utterances.  It is what we were officially taught in school at various levels that the Earth rotates around the sun.  Even if I wanted his supporters voters for an election I would and should know that this does not tell the truth to the people.  Its again an attention seeking  ruse.

But you cannot argue with religion in our current political economic context.  Too many of us believe in Christianity.  Too many of us would believe Makandiwa’s statements that the earth is flat and pay to be lied to. 

Like I argued its understandable.  WE are who we are. By experience and by acquisition of knowledge in one form or the other (inclusive of the bible).

What I can safely assure any reader of this blog is the scientifically veritable fact that the Earth is round and not flat.  It rotates around the sun annually. If you go to his church for whatever reason please correct him.

This rotation has nothing to do with Jesus.  The sun is the sun.   The Earth is the Earth.  There is no edge of the cliff. The sun sets.  The sun rises. 

And you are better off telling humanity, it will be alright. Cde,

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

The Foolishness of Tagwirei’s Tenderpreneurship and Populism Model.

 

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe now has its first publicly self confessed “tenderprenuer’ in the form of a rather religious and nationally well-known businessman, Kudakawashe Tagwirei.  “Self confessed” because at a recent meeting at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, he did not mince his words.

To quote verbatim and at length for clarity, snippets from his key note and guest of honour address he said,

“ If you are not a tenderpreneur you are foolish…There is the biggest buyer or seller in this country is government. So if you do not want to get a tender from the biggest supplier, the biggest buyer, where are you going to get your business from?  So anyone who tells you, you must not get tenders is foolish. You must actually strive to get a tender from government.  Those who are saying these ones are tendreprenerus are jealous because they don’t get the tenders. Because  if you have the tender  you will not say you are a tenderpreneur. In fact I would rather be called a tenderpreneur. Let me tell you this…do you know a gentlemen by the name Elon Musk?... Elon Musk the richest man in the world is a tendepreneur. Because his biggest contracts are with the American government. So he won those contracts…That coining of that word was done by white people to discourage black people from gaining access to business from government…”

I will end the quote there for the purposes of brevity.  And besides the full video clip has already gone viral on Zimbabwe’s favourite social media platforms (crosscheck X, Facebook and Whatsapp).

The term tenderpreneur as he outlines in his speech and also as originating from South African political lingo refers to businessmen who are positioned to provide services to the state or government.  

It is not necessarily a positively considered term as it comes with allegations of either corruptly awarded tenders or complicity between government officials and businessmen in feeding off what should be national wealth. With the added arrogance of opulent displays of what the public may consider their suspiciously acquired wealth.

Or in the case of Tagwirei, quite arrogantly giving his audience the impression that this is normal business practice.  Even by making reference to Elon Musk and his contracts with the USA government as an example of the normalcy of pursuing this line of  acquiring wealth and interacting with the state for more opulence.

And like the example he cited with Musk, he is closely associated with our own Zimbabwean government both economically and politically.  

On the economic side of things he is reported o be in charge of a large state investment fund (Mutapa Holdings) and a new land tenure commission that is in charge of new title deeds after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).  

While on the political side of things he is now a member of the ruling Zanu Pf’s central committee (at least by nomination)and has been going around the country donating vehicles to same party’s provincial leaders.  Among other things such as being closely associated with its youth league. He has however also publicly denied any ambitions to be president stating that there is no vacancy until 2030 in the Zanu Pf presidency.

Yet it all makes for a good show where he appears to be combining his evidently strong links to the government with his business interests and what are clearly well-choreographed public rallies. 

Since he called some of us who are not tenderprenuers ‘foolish’ we also have a right to assess his Musk led model also as ‘foolish’. 

For at least three key reasons.

First the state that is called Zimbabwe does not belong to private capital and tenderprenuers.  It belongs to the people of Zimbabwe.  It does not need to follow the warped and thoroughly undemocratic model that is the Trump-Musk linkage that is now found in the USA. 

Historically Zimbabwe is not a country that places individual greed above collective national well being and equitable redistribution of same said national wealth.  Hence we continually remember and reflect on the values of our liberation struggle and also post independence programmes that sought to make the country a fairer one for all who live in it.  Across multiple political divides.  That is the first ahistorical foolishness of Tagwirei’s utterances.

The second foolishness of Tagwirei is the implication that contemporary political power can function in a vacuum that is controlled by solely by wealthy people like him and their proximity to the presidency.  A foolishness in which he assumes the people of Zimbabwe are pawns to be played around with in any political direction as and when the ruling party and businessmen like him will it. This includes the 2030 slogan that he touted at his recent meeting in Bulawayo.  It does not work like that.  This is not America.

Even if  there may be envy of his wealth and connections with the presidency.  Or how he works closely  with young Zanu Pf linked businessmen and their new consumption/ materialist culture that they do not hide.  There are limits to which money, the state can create a false sense of political legitimacy. And no matter how hard he may try, he is likely out of his depth with how money while able to influence an electoral process, does not give legitimacy.

The third foolishness that he has exhibited is his assumption that dealing with Zimbabwe’s young population, its poverty and unemployment issues in such a populist and money motivated fashion is both politically and economically unsustainable. 

In wanting to create a money motivated youth support base for himself and others in the ruling Zanu Pf party, he forgets that money can be as ephemeral as youthful age. 

And that it does not create a long term political value based progressive future for the country.  In fact it is dangerous in that it intends to create oligarchies out of Zimbabwe’s political economy. A development that portends political and oligarchic economic instability in the future.

Where Tagwirei acts like a godfather in our national political economy via entities like Mutapa and special advisory roles to the presidency, he would do well to go back to seperating business and the church from seeking to impose their repressive values on the people of Zimbabwe.  And not being deluded by Musk, Trump and a false messianic approach to how Zimbabwe can and move forward only in his own image. 

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

 

 

The Changing African Mainstream and Social Media Realities

 By Takura Zhangazha*

 There is a new Reuters Institute and Oxford University report on the changing characteristics of the media and journalism. Not only in relation to the internet, social media but also the emerging field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). 

This is a global report whose executive summary can be found on their website here. 

I would however advise colleagues or followers of my blog to read it as extensively as they can.  Not only be cause of its importance as to how the old and new media industries are interacting.  

But also more importantly as to how the new is shaping global journalism, reception of information, social media use and how as is now a sociological given, affecting not only human behavior at a global level.  This would include how we interact with global politics, economics and everyday existence as human beings.  Be it at a pragmatic (food, sustenance, money) or even an emotional (religious, political and historical) level.

I am not going to summarise the report in the form of a review. 

I will take note of some of its key findings as they differentiate global consumption of media products, new technologies and their use between the global north and the global south. 

While the report does not directly touch on Zimbabwe specifically I am quite certain that it reflects general trends in the Southern African region where it looks at South Africa, the country as an example.

What it makes generally clear to all of us is that we are no longer both globally and regionally relying on traditional or mainstream media for everyday news.  Though in some European countries mainstream media remains more important for more serious news. Be it via television, radio and in some cited instances, traditional print media. 

In the global south like almost everywhere else in the world there is a rise in the use of social media platforms to create new sources of information via what we now refer to as ‘influencers’.   These are individuals that as outlined in the report are now either influencing news cycles through increasingly utilized platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok or just generally shaping public discourse as they deem  for more likes and/or revenue.  

Specifically in Zimbabwe we have witnessed the impact that social media influencers are gaining.  Not only in politics but also entertainment (comedy skits) and religious matters.  Even with our mainstream media, we are no longer as sure of who their primary sources of information are because many news stories are broken first on social media platforms such as Whatsapp before they are seen or confirmed in your regular newspaper, radio or television station. 

We have also within the Zimbabwean context seen how government is trying to straddle these new platforms in order to control their societal impact. This, by trying to have its own team of influencers in the form of ‘Varakashi’ countering narratives they deem to be detrimental to their hold on power. 

Ditto the recent incident of war veteran Blessed Geza going viral on social media and the subsequent at least three month detention of journalist Blessed Mhlanga for interviewing him. A matter that is still pending before the courts but caused international condemnation at the government's repressive tendencies against the media.  

What is however clear from the report within an African context is that while we are not that much studied in it, we are clearly enroute to the same societal impact in how we interact with mainstream social and AI media.

Where in part this is now a generational question.  It is younger men that are more interested in new media and what I would hazard to call populist views on social media.  One that tends to be more misogynist, nationalist and materialistic.  Especially in the global north. Even though we now have our own mimicry versions here in Zimbabwe that mix masochism, religion, displays of wealth, political partisanship’s as measurements of life success. All mainly online.

And where it concerns young African women things become more complex because of either gender based cyberbullying and the dominance of young men online. Or an emerging celebrity female influencer culture that remains highly sexualized and again misogynist.  Almost in the same tradition of mainstream British media ‘Page 3’ photoshoots of hyper-sexualised young women. 

The report however in a penultimate comment on it, makes reference to Africa’s skepticism of AI.  On this, I would agree that for now here in the global south we are not too trusting of news brought us via that ‘artificial’ way.  The only catch is that we will be taught to eventually do so.

Mainly because of AI’s inevitability in how we receive and interact with news or critical technologies.

The only sad part is that we will not realize until its too late that AI is couched in what I consider borderline racist tropes about African people, their languages and their histories.  Mainly because of the origins of its key inventors and how they process information, algorithms in their own imperial and preferential image(s).  Please don’t talk about a gorilla fighting a hundred men in Africa! 

Finally, and based on the report I have been citing, I should have probably done a video ‘podcast’ of my views on it.  Even within the African context.  Unfortunately I am not that photogenic.  But we are now going to a situation in which where what we see and simultaneously hear is increasingly more important in the media.  Or our access to information.  Over and above what we have the patience to read. 

And that will be a big problem soon.  If not already. Unless we become more contextually organic to our African diverse and progressive media cultures.  

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

 

 

 

 

The Re-Emergence of Racism in Global Relations: Africa and Mimicry

By Takura Zhangazha*

It is getting harder to explain to younger and older Zimbabweans or even Africans about the way the world is now working retrogressively against us. 

There is now limited room to talk about ideals and values given the fact of a re-alignment of global power dynamics.  I use the term re-alignment because indeed there is a return of a new ‘Cold War’ pitting the global West against Russia and China, the global East.

And then there are also proxy wars that are occurring across multiple continents including our own African one in Libya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, South Sudan and in the broader West African region incorporating Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea. 

Proxy wars that also include the Israeli genocidal one against the struggling people of Palestine who we must always, as Africans, be in solidarity with. Mainly because of our common anti-colonial struggle solidarity and its attendant history.   

The key question that I have raised earlier is around the fact of trying to explain a progressive worldview to young and older Africans in light of various high level global impact events.

These include for example the election of Donald Trump as the president of the USA, the war between Ukraine and Russia and its global impact.  Or even as mentioned prior the proxy wars we are seeing in various continents and regions of the world.

Gone are they days where we could take our time to not only understand these emerging conflicts as we used to do in the 1990s and wait for the next quarterly journal to give us the details of the matter.

Now its basically what you see, what you prefer is what you get on social media.

We used to for example anxiously wait on a United Nations report to understand the conflict in the DRC.   Or an investigative journalism long duree analysis of what was happening in either Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan.  Or even the amazing whistleblowing work done by Wikileaks and Julian Assange on the now clearly false premise of the ‘Global War on Terror’ as led by western superpowers.

In these years we were more reflective of global international relations.   It may have been predicated on an assumption of the universality of human equality as espoused by the United Nations (UN). As also accompanied by a Barack Obama ‘black’ presidency of the then only world global superpower, the USA. 

As Africans we made and are probably still making many wrong assumptions on issues of universality of human equality in todays’ global political dynamics and international relations.

As they relate not only to race but also global capitalism and its main financialised neoliberal global banking and shareholding systems. 

Hence the emergent challenges around new racist tropes in the global north where immigration is a major electoral issue and the colour of your skin is a shockingly new dehumanization tool in what were previously considered legacy democratic countries.  

This is even before we bring in the other key global question of religion and how it has come to affect again global consciousness and what can be accepted culturally.   Where the latter concept, culture, becomes one of global mimicry of the west or the east.  With conversations all ringing around the repressive and elitist dynamics of global capital and its new found energy around ‘trickle-down economics’. 

So its getting harder to explain progressive ideals to young and older black Africans.  Mainly because of the same said cultural/lifestyle mimicry understandings of what can be human success and what can be human regression.  

The idealistic days of Kwame Nkrumah, Nyerere, Cabral, Machel and others and neither looking to the west or the east but ‘forward’ appear to be lost in the annals of history.  Or even more recently argumentations around what would be considered an ‘African Renaissance’ as led by Mbeki, Abdel Aziz Bouteflika, Abdoulaye Wade and Olusegun Obasanjo  seem to be now be behind us.

All of this was compounded (made worse) by the terribly racist treatment that Cyril Ramaphosa received from Donald Trump at the white house.

But we have to recover and see new global realities as Africans.   The world as we know it today has gone “nuclearly” neoliberal and racist. And this is not a rumour.  It is evident not only in the proxy wars that are currently being fought but also in the evidently racist and exclusionary attitudes of citizens of global superpowers.

Mbeki et al were wrong about assuming an acceptance of an African Renaissance by global superpowers.  As noble an idea as that was.  

We need to dig deeper into our African consciousness and history to begin to re-think how we interact with the rest of the world beyond post colonial capitalism and neo-liberalism.   Even as we learn from our own histories and liberation struggles. 

For now it is self-evident that being African is looked down upon.  Not by just those that see us as that.  But also by ourselves.

Perhaps what is required is a broader balancing of ‘generational praxis’.  An admission that those who led liberation struggles and also countries on the African continent have failed to think outside of the postcolonial and neoliberal boxes that they were and are hemmed in.  Or even the shallow populism that links religion and political arrival at power with the approval of the ‘white gaze’ as fundamentally important to our African futures.

I know we cannot all read Nkrumah, Fanon, Nyerere or Cabral.  But we still need to see and understand that the global perceptions of Africa have come back full circle to us being ‘othered’. Not only by way of racism but also by way of assumptions of dependency.  The question becomes whether we can bridge mimicry and contextual reality. 

I prefer contextual reality first before we assume we can all be Donald Trumps. 

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

 

 

 

 

Africa's Newest Cultural Battles and Artificial Intelligence: Remember the Maxim Gun

 By Takura Zhangazha*

Africa has newer cultural battles within our current Trumpian global context. The re-emergence of global economic contestations between the USA,  China, Russia, European Union (EU) and the generic former colonial Global South (GS) have serious cultural connotations beyond the immediately material.

Because what now exists is a rewind of a Cold War and post Cold War global perception of what can be considered human progress. Together with multiple racist connotations that come with a globally awkward repetition of history. 

 I have used the term 'newer' because there are older ones that have existed since our struggles against colonialism. 

 Ones that were led by for example cultural, musical and literature in Africa luminaries (in no preferential order such as Fela Kuti, Thomas Mapfumo, Kasongo Band, Oliver Mtukudzi, Lady Smith Black Mambazo, Ray Phiri and Stimela, Miriam Makeba, Brenda Fassie, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, China Achebe, Wole Soyinka, Buchi Emecheta, Peter Abrahams, Ezekiel Maphalele, Bessie Head, Dambudzo Marechera, Steve Biko and many others I am sure I have forgotten but not deliberately left out. 

I cannot, for the purposes of this blog list all of them. Please reflect on your own preferred consciousness semblance including an historical and contemporary list of your own African cultural icons. Because they are many. And they influenced our cultural African struggles for liberatory and emancipated African minds differently. 

In this while with the specific purpose of making us more confident in striving for a more equitable, justiciable and therefore fairer world for not only ourselves as Africans. But also every other previously oppressed people on the planet. 

I have deliberately mentioned culture because it is in the final analysis what makes us function on a daily basis as it relates to our own collective and in the contemporary now individual values. 

And how it is closely enmeshed within a capitalist, Hollywood determined lifestyle experience of what it can or should mean to be a human being today. No matter your global geographical location. 

 Not only because of our increasing and in most cases privatised access to electricity, telephony, mobile telephony and fibre optic enabled access to the internet and social media.

 And an expansion of the historical context is important here from an African and even global anti-colonialism perspective. 

In this technological African reference point it is important to recall how the arrival of in particular the maxim gun which defeated us in our initial struggles for liberation left us in awe of same said arrival by ship military technology. We fought gallantly but we were defeated in that moment.  

By the time we saw not only the first mechanised wagons (cars) and electricity that was combined with religious fervour and a change of our social lifestyles we were lost at the proverbial (colonialist) sea.

 We recovered with our second struggles for liberation across the African continent and the Global South. 

This was mainly because we had begun to grasp the full import of these technologies and how they were aiding in the decimation of our peoples. So we learnt how to use them in solidarity with others in similar corrosive/oppressive environments or with those in the global north that sympathised with us. 

We learnt how the radio worked not only by way of frequency but also by way of propaganda. Same with newspapers and magazines together with the full import of what ownership of a printing press can do. 

In this eventual mimicry of what we were up against we became entrapped as Africans in a false understanding of the progressiveness of the technology that we had used/borrowed during our liberation struggles (military or civil). 

We forgot that the owner of the medium also determines the message (to paraphrase a famous British engineer Marshall MacLuhan who argued about the social life changing impact of electricity on human behaviour (black, brown but mainly white). 

We have come full circle to that interlinked colonial, post and neo colonial discourse of where Africa is placed with emerging "technologies of being" outlined above. 

Including how they have impacted our perceptions of our existence and more significantly political, religious, economic, social and other values in the world we now live in. 

And as argued by globally public intellectuals such as Naomi Klein, Soshana Zuboff and Yannis Varoufakis from varying nodes, we are now being reinvented as human beings. By what they invariably refer to as 'techno-feudalism'. Something that affects us more in the Global South than the global north due to our less protective privacy laws around social media and the internet (including banking).  

But as Africans and beyond their understandably Eurocentric/ GlobalNorth centric arguments, on our own we are faced with a colossus that seeks to repeat our technological defeat to colonialism. 

 And this via the big issue being discussed globally, with our bit part as Africans on Artificial Intelligence (AI). 

 I used the turn of phrase 'bit part' because again as Africans we don't own the main algorithms nor the fibre optics that bring the new ICT infrastructure to us directly. 

 Even as we naively clamour for Starlink to keep us in the loop with mainly social media connectivity at a for now comparatively cheaper cost. 

 In this sense, and as a word of caution, our embrace of AI may be our newer encounter with a maxim gun. Except without the physical and rapid bullets. Just cultural ones. 

 You cannot harness what you do not own or control. Be it via Chinese or American owned AI or telecommunications and fibre optic companies. Where you chose to not resist and join the fray and it's attendant benefits, remember the full import of the maxim gun. 

 We need a much more Pan African approach to this. And I acknowledge the work being done on language and imaging on what AI algorithms do.  But its not all about business and money or trying to be the next owner of Meta (which will never happen if you are an African and in particular a black African).We may need to rethink what entertains us as Africans. And where we want to be recognized not only physically but also via the clearly unstoppable AI, internet and its attendant social media algorithms. With the added caveat of how it affects young Africans consciousness, a debate for another day. 

Unless we take on a more coherent and people driven cultural approach, we may be faced with a new maxim gun. Culturally only. For now.

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