Second Act, Scene 2, Zim War Vets in Zanu Pf Succession Politics

By Takura Zhangazha*

Recent media reports in the last week indicate that President Mugabe continues to have key differences with one of his key pillars of support, the veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation war.  He has accused them, in part at least, of seeking to function outside of their mandate within the ruling Zanu Pf party. 

Especially where and when statements officially  attributed to them indicated that they support one of the current vice presidents, Emerson Mnangagwa,  as their chosen successor to their party's leadership.   

The president also made what I consider to be regrettable references to that most tragic period of Zimbabwean post independence history that has now come to be commonly referred to as the Gukurahundi It was a period in which thousands of civilians in the southern parts of our country lost their lives in a civil  war that remains officially unexplained.  

The statements attributed to the president have not come out of thin air with regard to the factionalism that is within the ruling party. They occur against a backdrop in which the war veterans have had their current chairman removed not only from cabinet but also from any roles within the party.  This after their demonstration was crushed by the police as well as after an indaba they had with their patron, Mugabe, who appears to not be on their side.  

And its all about succession in the ruling party for sure.  On that, the mainstream Zimbabwean and global media is correct.  Even if they spin it a little bit.  There, as is said in British parlance, no smoke without fire.  From the dismissal of the former Vice President Mujuru through to that of their current chairperson, Chris Mutsvangwa from government, theirs’ remains a struggle for influence based on what they consider their historical contribution to the liberation struggle and by dint of the same, retention of key pillars of state power.  

It is also a narrative that suits the interests of war veterans, particularly those that were part of  the phase where and when the struggle became most militarized.  This majority  batch of comrades feel they have not been given enough recognition for what they consider their efforts in not only fighting for liberation but also for protecting and keeping the ruling party in power in post independent Zimbabwe.

Even if they were given the War Victims Compensation Fund which was to be riddled with allegations of corruption and cronyism, they still feel they have a stake in the politics of the country and in direct relation to the ruling party, its nationalist discourse and its claim to not only  liberation struggle history but also its victory.  This is despite the fact that they have varied definitions of what complete victory has meant and continues to mean.Or even what their roles in civilian politics should be.

What is important to note is that the war veterans are rallying together in order to follow their own understanding of sequential acquisition of power within a state they virulently claim to have finally established.  

From a personal perspective, I am persuaded that they tend to exhibit a characteristic of entitlement to the state.

It is therefore least likely they will  be open minded about succession in the ruling party.  They have what can be considered as a sequential approach to leadership recognition or succession.  They look at the history of their party and argue that it is now time for at least someone who was at the war-front to get closer to assuming political power.   It is their historical expectation.   By way of their own perceived and real sacrifices for the liberation of the country.  

In this they were never going to be selfless.  Even though it is few of their ilk that have benefited from state largesse.  The greater majority still, even after the fast track land reform program do not have access to basic humanitarian needs let alone post war palliative care.  

The only catch with the still living war veterans is that they are in no way desperate.  Instead they appear determined and are intent on holding their own.  They will fight, at least metaphorically, their own corner.  And in so far as they have retained a continued control of levers of state security, a few ministries in government and the greater part of the ruling party’s political campaign machinery (by way of  political cultural habit), they still seek to claim greater control. Especially if you place controversial electoral victories since 2000 into the equation.  

The sad truth to it all is that their own nationalist and liberation struggle legacies may be lost in the midst of their cutthroat ambition for state power.  It is their own sons and daughters, myself included, who will without a doubt ask more questions than they can democratically give answers. Moreso given the fact that democracy and the liberation struggle will always be historically intertwined.   Even if they wanted to wish democracy away.  

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

Panic, Shock and Abandon: Bond Notes and the State in Zim

By Takura Zhangazha*

Currently there is a familiar sense of panic in the major capitals of Zimbabwe.  It has been induced largely by the announcement by the governor of the reserve bank that by October 2016, government shall introduce  bond notes as  a medium of exchange of goods and services.   So there has been a rush to the banks by the rich, those in what remains of the formal economy, the informal sector and pensioners to sweep up whatever US dollar savings or salaries they have in their bank accounts.  The more entrepreneurial/ manipulative have set  up a parallel money market attempting to sell hard currency at a profit.  

All of this makes for economic drama, panic and tragedy that is somewhat reminiscent of the financial crisis/collapse of 2007-2008. Except that this time there is no Zimbabwean dollar to talk about.  It is the  invidious bond note that has taken the latter’s place.  And matters have not been helped by the fact that very few Zimbabweans understand the rationale being put forward by the government.  Or even if they do, they simply do not trust the government and the banks. 

Despite this lack of trust, panic and inevitable shortage of the US dollar, government does not appear to be particularly ruffled.  Cabinet ministers have been fairly nonchalant about it.  Parliamentarians’ hardly understand whats going on save for the portfolio committee on finance chairperson asking for assurances that the bond notes are not going to be printed/minted in Zimbabwe. 

The opposition has organized, thus far, two marches against the new measures to limited impact despite a credible show of numbers.  The common refrain has been to say to the ruling party, ‘you cannot rig the economy’, a statement that belies more a wait and see attitude than it intends to seize the moment.  Nor does it signify any fundamental differences in approach to the national economy.

What is clear is that there is no broader debate about the economy in and of itself. This betrays a certain comfort that key stakeholders have with our current neo-liberal economic framework. Particularly for government and international financial institutions.  Hence the World Bank or the guarantor of the bond notes, the African Export and Import Bank are not decrying the introduction of these new measures.    So long the economic fundamentals of the ‘free market’ are not challenged.  

The realities for a greater majority of Zimbabweans is that they have to contend with difficult economic conditions with or without the bond note. In desperation, they will accept whatever eventually comes their way.  Especially because of the current drought, endemic unemployment and the increasing politicization of everyday occurrences in light of either Zanu Pf factionalism and/or opposition mobilization for the 2018 elections. 

So while there is panic, there is least likely to be any change to government policy and the introduction of bond notes. Cabinet assumes that eventually there will be grudging acceptance of the medium of exchange.  Just as was the case with bond coins. 

What government, big business and the global financial institutions are very pleased about is the fact that their policies are inducing an acceptance of neo-liberalism as what the Zimbabwean public considers as the panacea to their economic challenges.  The atomization/individualization of how to address an economic challenge essentially means that there will be less organized protests or social movements  against the evident state abandonment of citizens in relation to the economy.  

It is essentially something that has been tried in other parts of the world with dire consequences.  The steps, though differing in context relate to how ruling elites, even where they do not understand what they are doing, are inevitably steamrolled by global capital to shock, awe and disempower their citizens. Especially within the context of natural disasters such as the one we are undergoing in the form of the current drought.

Zimbabwean society has essentially been reconfigured to function on the template of each man/woman for herself and everything else follows the market, real or imagined.  

We should be questioning more the fundamentals of our undemocratic economic dispensation even as we see the real and contrived panic over bond notes.  Such questioning would include tackling issues of state sanctioned/led corruption, externalization of money, and the privatization of social services.  

Furthermore, we must have a broader ideological debate about what we perceive to be the democratic role of the state with regards the national economy.  What we have at the moment is a state that has abandoned its primary obligations of protecting the basic economic livelihoods of the people to the market. Bond notes and all.  We need to stem this.

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

South African Parly's Violent Eviction of EFF: Mechanisms of Democracy Not the Meaning of Democracy?

 By Takura Zhangazha*

It is not really the business of outsiders/foreigners to directly comment on how a specific country's Parliament behaves.  But the recent violent ejection of Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) opposition party from the South African parliament left me wincing. Not necessarily at the pain that was evidently being inflicted on the members and security details. But more because of the negative perception of parliamentary democracy that will emerge from the incident.   

Especially in Southern Africa given the exemplary nature of South Africa’s democracy as well as its broadly accepted ’big brother’ geo-political role.  

So what happens in South Africa’s parliament matters beyond its borders.  Especially if it relates to issues of political accountability of government to other institutions that are bound by the democratic principle of the separation of powers.  

And South Africa, at least since 1994, has generally been expected and known to be leading from the front on such democratic matters and practices.   That its parliament has since the last general election been catching the regional public eye is largely due to the arrival of the EFF and its ability to do the most radical of actions in pursuit of bringing President Zuma’s government to account.  

It has earned it plaudits among many a young Southern African, with some even going as far as forming their own versions of the EFF.  And of course hoping to ascend to power/parliament in similar fashion, even if their political systems are not like South Africa’s based on proportional representation. 

EFF has heckled, sung, mocked authority and been evicted from Parliament in a manner that has been  unprecedented in the region. All seen via satellite television and social media across many capitals in the SADC region.   Their visibly violent eviction this week was however not entertaining nor inspiring.  

The general reactions of such ‘parliamentary violence’ outside of South Africa itself will be many.  Among these would be the most obvious one of it all being thoroughly entertaining.  Not only in respect to the pre-eviction debate but also the unbelievable spectacle of security guards evicting embers of parliament in such a violent manner.  It made for great television for sure.  And will be watched over and over again on social media platforms.  

A second reaction will be on a partisan basis. Either in support of the ruling ANC  or the stubborn opposition EFF.  In both cases justification will sought as to who is right in their actions.  In this one there are no winners, just continual haggling and waiting for the next appearance of Zuma and the EFF in Cape Town. 

The less prevalent reaction would be one of immediate disapproval of both the conduct of the South African Parliament and the EFF. Whichever way one looks at it there should be no fisticuffs in a democratic parliament. Even where we have witnessed some members fight among themselves in Eastern European countries, it is still completely unnecessary that as important a representative space such as the legislature’s chambers become emblematic of how not to solve political differences using violence. 

A further but more urgent question is whether this latest incident reflects societal realities or is intended to define them afresh.  Seeing political leaders being forcibly removed from parliament on live television is largely going to have the effect of changing the nature of political engagement at grassroots.  One can only hope that it does not come to that.  But it has been seen by the public. 

While the big issues are in relation to South African domestic politics, such as a numerically futile attempt to impeach that country’s current president, there is need for a broader Southern African debate on the democratic effectiveness and democratic value imbuing role of our parliaments.  This debate has to answer broader questions as to how organic are our parliaments. Inclusive of answering the question of how organic do they want to be?  Or whether the EFF being violently evicted from Parliament is a reflection of societal opinion or just a demonstration of power.  

We therefore need to think of our parliaments not just in relation to actual votes and legislative authority.  We must try and make them more reflective of our own organic democratic value systems.  Not only in relation to their conduct but also in relation to how they reflect our lived cultural realities in our various countries.  For example, beyond the legal import of the continued attempt to get Zuma removed from office, to what extent are the actions of the EFF reflective of broader South African public opinion? And how do parliaments also seek to influence public opinion beyond the political parties that have representatives in it? 

In the final analysis however we must all agree that a physically fighting parliament is not a good thing for the furtherance of a democratic political culture. We would do well to remember the wise words of Kambarage Julius Nyerere of Tanzania who once opined, 'the mechanisms of democracy are not the meaning of democracy'  

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

Africa and the Age of Imagination

By Takura Zhangazha*

I have recently encountered a holistic debate about the future of the internet in Berlin, Germany.  This at a very organic annual internet and society conference called re:publica .  This was the tenth edition of this conference.  It focuses on all things related to the internet, from algorithms, creative art, politics, digital colonialism,engineering, terrorism, health and new digital technologies from a very global perspective.  And as they all relate to the digital world.

As an African, these are not necessarily new concepts. Not least because I have always had a keen interest in how the internet works but also because I have a primary interest in how it is viewed globally.  And these views are many. 

There are those who clearly understand the commercial aspects of the internet, to those who feel it is commodifying humanity and others who focus solely on issues to do with its invasion of privacy.

Others still who view its role much more philosophically and debate how it has led to new forms of either revolt, subservience or at least given the previously powerless some form of ability to find their voices (globally and locally). 

In all of these cases, there is evident belief in the ability of the internet/digital society to change the world (yes, including the global south) for the better.  Even if some refer to it as the age of imagination.

But in all instances there is a firm understanding of the inevitability of the move toward not only the internet of things but the greater role of digitization in almost every other aspect of human life (health, commerce, transport, security, education, entertainment, politics and human rights) 

The uniqueness of this understanding is that while it is aware of the revolutionary/ society changing aspects of the internet, it remains, at least at Re:Publica predicated on democratic values and the best public interest. 

When viewed from my own African standpoint, the weightier question is always going to relate to comparative analysis between what obtains in the global north and what is yet to obtain in the global south. 

The global north has had a departure point that is founded on what are to the greater extent shared democratic values and ideals.  so the internet functions primarily as a means through which these values can continue to be enjoyed or at least enhanced. 

When one turns to our own African experience of this 'age of imagination' or the 'shape of things to come' it is evident that we have the broader challenge of furthering our democratic values in the real, and physical world.  While this is an ongoing struggle and in a greater number of African countries at least a legal reality, the age of imagination is not going to wait for us to come to its broader realisation. 

The big data companies, engineering firms, and any other industry within this framework are already setting the standards of interaction with Africa in their voracious search for new markets.  It is not as though Africa is not negotiating or producing its own innovators in this particular field.  We are trying, but trying badly.  

African governments have taken on a less organic role in how they interact with cyberspace.  They want to utilise its profit motive more than they do its democratic value role and effect.  Hence they regularly shut down internet access during elections or turbulent political periods.  Or in most cases monitor and snoop in on its content without judicial oversight. 

The primary challenge for Africa is to debate the digital/imagination age much more holistically and organically.  This is they key lesson that the re:publica tenth conference has taught me.  And to ensure that such discussions are less about the profit motive but more the contextual democratic and progressive value of the internet. And to also learn to negotiate much more thoroughly with global companies and capital as to how to avoid the expansion of digital technologies on our continent which does not mean that Africa does not have its own progressive cultural local context. 

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

Zim Media’s Current Burden: A State that Wont Get Off its Back

 By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s media and media related organizations this week, and correctly so, join the rest of the world in commemorating World Press Freedom Day 2016. They do so, as is their custom by holding various press club debates, marches, road shows and distributing relevant publicity material to members of the public.  These activities are a long standing tradition and practice since the early 2000s wherein journalists and media-related  professionals undertake to show their all important relevance to our national democracy. 

Within the context of the 2016 commemorative events our media environment has undergone a semblance of incremental change.  Constitutional court judgments have led to the striking down of some of criminal defamation laws from our statutes. These legal developments are regrettably still to translate into a change to the culture of impunity against freedom of expression in our country.  Especially where it concerns political and social media driven expression.

In relation to the functionality of the mainstream media, the new constitution, while being of incremental importance, has not also come with change for the slightly better in relation to sustainability.  The private print media is currently functioning on an economic wing and a prayer.  The state controlled and also funded/subsidized media is also facing similar sustainability challenges though to a lesser extent.

The private radio stations are also barely keeping it together in a highly competitive environment for what is largely an urban market.  They have also chosen to the greater extent to remain focused on younger audiences and entertainment driven content in order to maintain what they consider higher levels of market relevance. 

Our media organizations, in their various interest areas are also facing the challenge of grappling with diminishing donor and member funding or support.

The government on the other hand, appears to be in no rush to undertake any transformative changes to the media landscape.  Both by way of the law as well as the culture of disdain for freedom of expression and access to information.  After somewhat successfully persuading media stakeholders to the now stalled and probably irretrievable Information and Media Panel of Inquiry (IMPI) process, government no longer sees any urgency in broader media reform.

Its functional premise is to treat media freedom as a privilege and not a right.  So everywhere, journalists have to retain that caution, and always remember the weight of the state on their backs. 

Instead it is focused more on dealing with the matter of digital migration.  This is largely because that is the only current revolutionary aspect of the media industry at the moment.  The expansion of television access, its potential profitability and the generation of new media content is obviously something that the government is keen on controlling. 

In all of this, the Zimbabwean media is still faced with challenges that are no doubt familiar but increasingly muted after the IMPI process.  The first and most significant one is regrettably an internal one.  The media still has to literally claim its space and territory as the fourth estate.  Not just by way of reporting and bringing power to account.  But also by way of strengthening its existent institutions such as the journalists’ unions, editors forums, media associations and even publishers associations.  Without doing so, the media will never be accorded the respect it duly deserves. Even in as incremental a democracy as has become ours.

Secondly, all media stakeholders are faced with the challenge of not having a holistic and shared understanding of the future of the impact of digitization on the media.  Not just in relation to television and radio but also the expanding and inevitably influential role that the internet shall have on Zimbabwean society.  Any inability to face this tackle and challenge head on will lead in part to the media and its key stakeholders being left to play second fiddle to commercial interests in the industry. 

In the third instance, the media has to begin to think much more creatively about its sustainability in our current economic and social context.  

State and donor funding for the mainstream media is showing no sings of immediate improvement.  Treating the media solely as a business as opposed to matching that with a clear public interest role is going to be the sine qua non of many media owners going forward.  In this, journalists shall be compelled to become more in tune with the thinking of the publishers and only oppose them at the risk of losing their jobs.  Media stakeholders need to examine new ways of media sustainability and ownership/shareholding that takes into greater account the media’s public interest and promotion of democratic government role. This includes state funded and state controlled media.

In the final analysis however it is the fact of Zimbabwe’s media and its stakeholders standing by the democratic values and principles that establish the fourth estate that may move long awaited reforms a little faster.  If not with the government, then at least with the broader national public understanding and support.

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