Shifting Meanings of Art, Culture, Technology Across Generations in Zimbabwe

 By Takura Zhangazha*

We probably need to talk a little bit more about our arts and cultural spaces, actors, even industry(?) in Zimbabwe.  

This would also include the interaction of the same with politics, private business and the general public’s cultural progressive expectations of entertainment and finding meaning about everyday or even long term Zimbabwean life.

And I will start off the discussion with an obvious point about our ‘Arts’.  

And by the term ‘Arts’ I mean it holistically as it relates to theatre, satire, music, film, literature and the technological (media) mediums through which they have been historically conveyed.  As well as their changing inter- generational impact.

Whereas between the 1980s- 90s and very early 2000s, our Arts, as defined holistically above were conveyed through technological formats such as mainly radio (FM or Short wave frequencies), long playing records, radio/video cassettes and eventually compact audio and video discs. As well as via musical and cultural festivals or shows.  A greater official number of them were sponsored by the state or private business for marketing (profit) and propaganda (political) purposes. 

There was however also organic, grassroots and historical based Art, that relied more on physical interaction than it did the technological mediums it could be conveyed through.  Thought after our national independence it did a seismic crossover to radio, television and the attendant commercialization that came with this (record/cassette sales/ advertising contracts for artists).

I have raised this fairly generalized historicity around art and culture because it cannot be ignored.  And it can help us understand why today there has been significant changes to how it is publicly appreciated in the contemporary.    

With again the major change being the fact of the new technological mediums of its conveyance to the public.  

To state the obvious, the internet, social media and mobile telephony have distinctly changed how we all view holistic Art.  Not only its immediacy for our entertainment, self- valuation or reflections on our society and existential or idealistic realities.  

Whereas in the past we could have easily argued that Zimbabwean Art should serve the people in some ideologically organic or even highly politicized way as it related to the liberation struggle or workers rights and sustainable livelihoods for all, now we do not really think about it that way. 

Not only because of the changes as to how it is conveyed technologically but also because of the way the latter also changes its meaning.   So where we used to listen to the music of legends such as Mapfumo, Chimbetu, Zhakata, Majaivana, Dembo among many others for deeper reflections on our society.  This has now clearly changed. 

This together with the likes of Safirio Madzikatire (Baba Rwizi), Susan Chenjerai (Mai Rwizi), Phillip Mushangwe (Paraffin), Aaron Moyo and Simon Shumba (Mutirowafanza).  Including the amazing theatrical plays of Theatre in the Park (Harare), the amazingly talented Continue-Loving (Cont) Mhlanga’s Amhakosi  theatre centre in Bulawayo, Mai Musodzi Hall (Mbare), Zimbabwe Hall in Highfields Harare and the Masvingo Theatre club among others scattered in our urban centres.

Their artistic physical and digital dramas and within their contexts had a different meaning because of of how they occurred within their own contexts, values and preferences. As they related to then Zimbabwean society and what the general populace valued.    

This was slower and more deeply thought out Art. 

Mainly because the technological mediums of its conveyance that I have cited above were also slower.  It was also Art that had a fall back of very key state funding support that did not directly editorially interfere with content creation.  (Did you for example know that there was a once well funded Zimbabwe Traditional Music Dancers Association that once received grants from the state?) 

What was since happened is what can be referred to a significant cultural disjuncture in the history, practice and appreciation of the meaning of holistic Art in Zimbabwe.  

Not only because of the global changes in its technological mediums (internet, social media, mobile telephony) but also because of the cultural assimilation of Zimbabwean and African holistic Art by these mediums.  This included a quasi-privatization of Art via changes in economic programmes where it began to be seen as a luxury and not an integral part of an historical identity. 

In the process, our Art began to mimic not only the structural changes to its mediums but also following a new found celebrity trait that came with its rapid commercialization and privatisation.   As owned by what in cultural academic circles are known as ‘media moguls’ and now individualistic, materialist owners of the  internet and social media platforms.  As they also now interact more directly with political power/politicians and globalised private capital. 

To be particular to Zimbabwe, our Arts landscape has significantly changed as a reflection of global technological-cultural developments. And our easy cultural acquiescence in this. We generally don't defend our Arts as much as other countries are wont to do.  (Hatina nharo).  

Our new younger holistic Art practitioners are a product of their technological and attendant cultural time.  A few of them are the new Marechera’s who couldn’t care less about global ideological questions and would easily tell you as the latter once wrote ‘if you write for a specific nation or a specific race, then f*ck you’. Mainly due to their own commitment to their own view of what it means to be a genuine artist and their right to free expression.   

A greater number of others are both patriotic and link up with the state and private business for social media skits, clicks, likes and sponsorships that appear to be sustaining their livelihoods quite well. This would be the ‘ephemeral’ influencer generation that now appear to be the favorites of ruling Zanu PF politicians and tend to be given vehicles and large monetary payments based on the affinity of their content to the same said party.

There are others that are decidedly oppositional in their Art. Also for the same sponsorship and recognition reasons.

The fewer ones are those that still believe in the meaning of their Art as a somewhat objective reflection on what is happening in Zimbabwean society and how it resonates with the more youthful population of the country.   But they are unfortunately largely unable to harness the new mediums of conveyance of Art (social media and the internet) due to either the algorithmic tyranny we know exists or just to lack of funding and mimicry of cultural and highly sexualized cultural content from the global north. 

To conclude, our holistic Art in Zimbabwe has changed seismically.  It is now mediated by new mediums of technology.  Which in turn create new public expectations of it.   It is understandably steeped in new cultural mimicry of global trends and the ephemerality of social media which we do not own. 

Is there a way forward?  Sure there is.  It is one that resides in our own re-emergent cultural recognition and understanding that a progressive African society can never function without Pan African, free, organic, critical and stubborn non-mimicry holistical Art.  Across generations.

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

     

Zimbabwe’s Forgetful Mode: We Cannot All “Make Money!” Mr. President.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There are many ways to look at Zimbabwe’s current political economy (where politics meets economics). 

One could easily begin to look at the state of the current ruling Zanu Pf party after its recent 2025 annual National Peoples Conference and go mentally hay-wire with speculation at its succession politics.  Which a lot of anlaysts have already done in the last week. 

Or one could look at our national fundamentals around the national economy (jobs, money, goods and services) and how the future is not as bright as the ruling Zanu Pf party presents it. 

And then there is the social element as to how to look at this.  One which would include our little talked about rural-urban and again urban-rural divides, drug and substance abuse and not forgetting our increasing over-religiosity, superstition and gambling tendencies. Even before we talk about 'class' and and 'class aspirations' as they are occurring in the country. 

It is easier for a lot of us to deal with our politics as they are occurring. Mainly because of what has occurred since the year 2000. You are either for or against one political party.  Or in support of specific populist narratives as they have occurred.  Mainly because we can all have a political opinion.  Moreso with the expansion of social media and its related influencers. 

But it all sometimes appears a bit ephemeral/temporary.  In fact, it arguably is.  Zimbabweans have a new tendency to move from one issue to the next.  In short-shrift time and attendant ease.  Which is what one considers to be the stuff of populist and celebrity style politics ala-carte the USA. 

There is however a specific political precariousness to this that we are not discussing.  Whichever way one wants to look at it.  We talk about Zanu Pf’s factionalism with a specific casualness. Almost as though we intend to sit in front of a television, lap-top or smart phone and watch a soap opera.  In the moment. Until soldiers start rolling tanks in the streets of our major cities (2017).  And then we shift in shock but more significantly in awe and in support of changes that with hindsight do not really change anything!

So we all have a visual and partially thought out impression of why Mnangagwa and Chiwenga have their factions.  And also why the opposition that we have known for at least 25 years (MDC, MDC-T, CCC, MDC Renewal, PDP, MDC-M), there are also highly personalized factions that are irreconcilable.

Even though, with application of a bit of common logic, we would/should be able to think beyond these factions in a broader, non-partisan national interests. 

There are many reasons why we are entrapped in this populism.  And they are quite literally inter-generational.

We have failed to understand our own society beyond its immediacy in our existence.  I know this sounds somewhat complicated but it is necessary to outline. 

And this is where history matters or cannot be whitewashed.  On a number of occasions I have had to remind young Zimbabweans of who we are.  Even if the populist winds are pointing in a different direction as to what can define the present. Be it money, religion and combined family material expectations.  

At the same time we find ourselves in an unfortunate political and economic conundrum where one has to ask themselves for example a question as to what is it that they work/struggle for? Or what is the purpose of life as do others in different nations. Except that in our case we are not steeped let alone willing to capture a specific historical understanding of who we are and who we can be.  We want to mimic more and leave the platitudes to the politicians. 

There is no future in that for the country. Such an approach would regrettably be ahistorical. 

If we continue to live in immediate political moments such as the ones we are living in now such as these Zanu PF political factionalism moments, we are refusing to imagine a different political and economic future. 

This may seem slightly philosophical (something that we should embrace a little bit more as did our ancestors), but it is necessary to consider.  

While we cannot live in a past consciousness (for example the liberation struggle), we cannot also accede that history to a simplistic, populist and materialist present (neoliberalism mixed with religion).  Let alone an uninformed future of global economic and cultural mimicry (kuteedzera zvavamwe/ open for business).   

So we need to recover a more organic and progressive national consciousness. For many of cdes my age, this is almost a no-go-area.  Almost like as Thomas Mapfumo sang in his song, “Dangerzone”.  For cdes in their 30’s they are more keen to heed Mnangagwa’s convoluted and ambiguous but unsustainable advise of ‘make money!’ While failing to answer the question that no matter how rich you are, you still live in a broader society and in any event, the ‘money!’ you have been advised to make, however you make it, will dissipate.

Or those in their early twenties and beginning to explore the Zimbabwean political economy in admiration of ‘mbingas’ or the publicly and politically rich may not understand that no one above their age group and in power is looking for an equitable Zimbabwean society.

To put it as simply as I can without giving you the usual relevant but important quotes of Fanon, Nyerere, Biko or Nkrumah. Or even Marx, Gramsci and Lenin, we are faced with a crisis of national consciousness in Zimbabwe.  Almost like an ‘age group’ differentiation of what Zimbabwe can be.  One that is also ‘gendered’ through marriage, materialism and how our children are preferably educated and raised.

We know for a fact, in as capitalist and unequal society as ours, we cannot ‘make money!’ in the manner that Mnangagwa is always advising us.  It is an elitist and cutthroat competitive argument that does not build a better more equitable Zimbabwe.  Almost like watching the much discredited movie ‘Wolf of Wall Street”.

We must return to our national liberation ethos.  Our post-independence anti-neoliberal struggles and in the final analysis, no matter the ages of our current government leaders, understand organic progressive generational praxis. 

In this, Zimbabwe is a country that does not belong to those that claim to be ‘vene’ (owners) as though they are inimitable oligarchs.  It basically belongs to a hopeful, progressive and compassionate people.

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

Zanu Pf’s “Liberation Capital” 2028 Succession Battles: A New Nationalist State Embedded Capitalism

 By Takura Zhangazha*

This is a slightly complicated article. So it is easier to get some of my own definitions out of the way for your ease of understanding. I have also put some sub-titles for your ease of reading.    

* “Liberation Capital”- refers to the Private Capital acquired after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) of 2000 and ongoing Urban, agricultural, mining, tourism and general resettlement land) as controlled by the ruling Zanu Pf Party

*  “Succession Battles” - refers to the ruling party’s political contestations on who can/should/will succeed current president Mnangagwa

* “Land Baron”- refers to those that benefitted from the economic ambiguity of the FTLRP cited above, including those that acquiesced to it

 Introduction.

Ever since the ouster of one of Zimbabwe’s luminary liberation struggle leaders Robert Mugabe from executive presidential political power in 2017, there have been many evident conversations around who, again within the same party, should succeed his successor.  

The current president Emerson Mnangagwa was post 2017 seen as the most able to bridge a gap between former liberation struggle fighters and nationalists as determined by the historicity of the liberation struggle against colonialism.  

He was deemed not only the most senior after previous nationalists but also one of the few who could command a healthier respect from a military that was composed of former guerrilla fighters who had ascended to positions of army colonels, lieutenants and commanders. These would be the likes of current vice presidents Chiwenga and Mohadi and others who are currently serving at the highest level in the security services of Zimbabwe.

The unwritten rule during Mugabe’s tenure was that there was an eventual succession plan after what was anticipated to be his voluntary and in part benevolent departure from power.  This was as explained by war veteran cdes such as Wilfred Mhanda (cde Dzino) and cde Freedom Nyamubaya who outlined the anticipated hierarchy of succession in the then liberation struggle but which also never became a reality.

In their outline, they had been advised, even after national independence, that those that were the original surviving nationalists such as Mugabe, Nkomo, Nyagumbo and other who were at the forefront of negotiating the Lancaster House agreement were to be supported as the ones to take the country forward immediately after independence.  They would eventually give way to those that were the guerilla commanders who were more radical such as Commander Tongogara, Lookout Masuku and other members of the then separate high commands of either ZANLA or ZIPRA to be at the apex of political executive authority in the country. These were considered half nationalist-half military.

And this unwritten succession plan would go on sequentially to those who were full guerillas such as Chiwenga and others that I cannot mention but who claim they bore the brunt of the war at the various fronts. 

Then it would follow that those in the then training camps, through to those that were war collaborators and be completed by those that were part of post independence youth brigades. 

Before we as Zimbabweans could easily say we are done with our liberation struggle history and its organic kneading of our politics. 

Mugabe’s Mis-anticipated Long Duree Rule and the Rise of Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC)

This was obviously disrupted not only by Mugabe’s long duree holding on of power and delaying of succession but also the emergence of a labour backed opposition movement in the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) at the height of not only a national but global economic crisis between 1997 and 2000 caused by neoliberal economics (World Bank/IMF) and what we now refer to as climate change.

This was as serious a challenge to Zanu Pf’s hegemony as ever since 1980 and that of ZAPU as led by Joshua Nkomo. 

The FTLRP of 2000

What happened thereafter politically is common knowledge around the role that war veterans of our liberation struggle with the support of a united Zanu Pf decided to do with the programme that we all now refer to historically as the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP)- and with thanks to Professor Sam Moyo for helping coin this term.  

The multiple elections that occurred after the 2000 constitutional referendum (2002, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2023)  were indicative of a shift in our national consciousness.   It was clear to many urban based Zimbabweans that politically Zanu Pf was no longer invincible.  More so by the time we had the SADC mediated inclusive government of 2009-2013. 

The FTLRP as Part of the National Political Economy

But by then the FTLRP had become embedded in our national political economy.  White farmers had been quite literally in radical nationalist fashion been kicked off the land they either inherited, had purchased for many years by the ruling party.  And even within the ambit of the inclusive government were never going to recover that land with any sense of immediacy. 

This led to the creation on either side of the political divide of what we now refer to as ‘land barons’ (LBs)

Now these LBs did not just look at land in an historical sense of restitution. They looked at land as primarily private capital.  Be it urban land, agricultural land and also mining land.   And they knew that when Mugabe at his many rallies announced the FTLRP as irreversible, all they had to do was play the game right in relation to newer statutory laws, including black indigenization policies about their claim to ‘revolutionary ownership’ of the ‘new land’. 

This also included opposition political party funders, functionaries/leaders and members particularly in the urban areas who had the protection of various ministers of local government so long they towed the political-economic line.  

A New Nationalist State- Embedded Capitalism

This national political economy has birthed what we can now refer to as a new nationalist elitist state-embedded capitalism (NNSEC).  One in which the state as the harbinger of the FTLRP can easily get into various forms of private capital to control the national political economy. Be it in mining, urban land development, agriculture, rural development (privatization) and religious allocations of fixed capital for political survival of the ruling party. 

This includes the financialisation of state capital, primarily land, for climate carbon financiers and claims to be part of a global neo-liberal (pro-private capital) village. 

So Where Do Current Zanu Pf Succession Battles Fit into All of This? 

It would appear that the ideological economic framework for the country has been pre-set by Zanu Pf after the 2017 ouster of Mugabe.  The removal of indigenization laws and the oxymoronic nationalization and privatization of land as capital is no longer in dispute.  The question that emerges is one of who controls the levers of political power and economic largesse stemming therefrom. Even in trickle down format. Or downstream industries.

 Either by courting the West or the East and ensuring a new elite economic class for control beyond loss of power.   Both via direct political control and secondly via controlling the narrative on what can popularly be deemed nationally benevolent national progress.

As has been publicly reported by credible mainstream media, all is not well in the Zanu PF presidential camp.  Be it rumour or reality, we do know based on what happened in 2017 that there is no smoke without fire in Zanu Pf about issues of who is ultimately in control.  At least until their next congress in 2027.  

But as ordinary Zimbabweans we are allowed to comment on what we see, hear or even perceive. 

Conclusion

And in this, we are seeing a battle for what I have defined above as battles for what can be considered a uniquely Zimbabwean ‘liberation capital’ after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) being key in Zanu Pf’s succession battles as they play out on their and opposition social media platforms. And in their physical realities (rallies, conferences, and pending Congresses). 

It creates new nodes of competitive individual and almost cartel/mafia like wealth that we are now suffering for.  And where sometimes we are purchasable for it (tisataure mazita).  Across economic, political, social and religious sectors. But more significantly among more individualistic and materially oriented younger Zimbabweans who could not care less about the ideological nuances of the First or Second Chimurenga.  And where we lose them, the values and the younger generations simultaneously we may never recover.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity