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)