Remembering Zanu Pf's G40 Faction

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The year 2017 will always stand out in Zimbabwean history. At least the post-independence political side of it.  Not that previous years since 1980 were not dramatic, populist or in some cases tragic.  But the events that unpredictably led to the ouster of Robert Mugabe will probably leave those who witnessed or celebrated them with many more questions than answers about the passage of political time. 

And I have a few of my own.  What we now know with the benefit of hindsight is that Mugabe was hoist by his own petard.  Having led the ruling Zanu Pf party in government since 1980 and played many of his political rivals against each other, he allowed his own succession politics to reach a tragic crescendo in 2017. Risking not only himself, his family but the stability of the country in the process. I use the turn of phrase ‘allowed’ because before he became frail he quite literally held a tight grip over the internal and external affairs Zanu Pf.

But his own succession politics was not a decidedly one sided affair.  Where he sought to play one faction against the other, the same factions also played against each other in their own opportunism and attempt at being favoured. 

The one faction that eventually triumphed over all the others during his tenure was the one that was referred to in the mainstream print media as the ‘Generation40’ or by its more popular acronym ‘G40’ one. 

How it came to be closer to Mugabe in his last years of power is something that historians and political scientists will write about with greater accuracy. 

That it assumed a prominent role in Mugabe’s latter day politics became relatively self evident when the former first lady Grace Mugabe was rumoured to be backing it. And when she entered the succession political fray. 

As its media designated ‘G40’ title suggested, this was a faction of Zanu Pf that positioned age or youthfulness as its sine qua non.  Not just by way of its assumed leaders but its projected politics.  It was probably confident about the ‘political’ demographic of Zimbabwe. In so far as it related to the ‘youth’ voter component of our national politics.  In this they had probably done some mathematical calculations about the voting population for the next scheduled elections in 2018 and noticed the exponential rise of young versus older voters.  Hence they were likely comfortable with referring to their faction as a ‘generation 40’ one. 

In doing so they were also looking at their counterparts in Zanu Pf and knowing the popular national sentiment decided to position themselves as the youthful successors to an ageing Mugabe.  To do this, they needed to get those they considered geriatrics out of the way. Especially war veterans who were laying historical claim to be in line to succeed Mugabe. 

What was a little astounding was how G40 then placed Grace Mugabe at the center of their succession strategy.  She became instrumental in enabling Joice Mujuru to become the first female deputy president of the country.  And subsequently in also making her the first female deputy president to be removed from office in 2014. Paving the way for her eventual arch nemesis, Mnangagwa to replace her. 

While we may not know Robert Mugabe’s direct role in all of this, the mathematics of a possible future election victory for the ruling party were however probably clear in the minds of G40 functionaries.  Remember the issue of demographics?  Mugabe’s government introduced a raft of youth focused initiatives under the then indigenization policy which included loans, expanded tertiary education and populist cultural productions designed to endear it to young Zimbabweans.  The only problem was that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) under Morgan Tsvangirai also commanded support from young people in Zimbabwe.  But G40 probably thought they would eventually work it out with the opposition. One way or the other as long as they were firmly in the driving seat of Zanu Pf. 

But as we now know with hindsight the plan fell apart with what would have been their final masterstroke of enabling the dismissal of Mnangagwa and purging war veterans from the mainstream leadership of Zanu Pf. 

In their pursuit of what has been referred to as Africa’s ‘youth dividend’ they perhaps forgot that age, while politically important, is not as decisive in shaping politics in and of itself.  And they also probably forgot history’s lessons of former first ladies who tried to play pivotal roles in the succession politics of their long ruling husbands.  From Russia through to China.  And how even if initially successful, it all turned to tragic end.  Not just for themselves but also those that worked with them.

My memories of Zanu Pf’s G40 faction and its multiplicity of players remain focused on what really motivated them to assume that Zimbabwean politics can be that simple.  Even as they rode on Mugabe and his wife’s coattails?  Or as they honed in on the mathematics of what they considered a ‘youthful’ electoral victory in the expected 2018 general/harmonized election. 

Or how after their primary handler Mugabe had been ousted via a popular coup, they still sought to push the demographic dividend through a post Tsvangirai MDC for the 2018 harmonised election.

Which begs the question about the extent of their ambition.  Or in some cases, their naivety.  Again that’s one for the historians and political scientists to answer or theorize over. 

What is however clear is that projecting political futures on the basis of demographics is sorely inadequate.  Being young in mind or heart does not cut it.  It’s the values, principles in tandem with physical placement that matter more. And that make up for ‘generational praxis’. 

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

 

Dilemmas of Zimbabwe’s Popular Urban Culture

 By Takura Zhangazha*

Trying to explain or analyze contemporary urban culture in Zimbabwe is not an easy task.  Mainly because it is the sum total of a number of issues.  Be they historical (colonialism), ideological (globalised neoliberalism) and/or as the relate to expectations of what I would refer to as raw individual materialism/consumerism that can be considered a direct result of the aforementioned.

In Zimbabwe, the primary genesis of what we would want to refer to as ‘urban cultural history’ is essentially colonial.  This is mainly because the ‘city’ in its current physical/geographical and cultural format is decidedly a creation of colonialism.   And by cultural import here I am referring to how the majority of our urban lives are shaped to a greater extent. From the politics through to the sport, education, religion, music and attitudes toward modern ‘work’.  And by ‘work’ here I mean it as it applies to both bosses/business-capital owners and employees/workers. 

Within this framework we also know that in our own Zimbabwean context urban culture is pretty much fluid.  It tends to follow modernist and consumerist winds. As determined by what happens in global metropolises of global superpowers and what either history thrusts upon us or in the current, what we most admire about these historically powerful cities and their urban culture.  Even while turning a blind eye to their mistakes or even in some cases poverty inducing ideological frameworks.    

So we are burdened by the history of the colonial city and our aspirations within it.  Even in the contemporary. Arrival and material success in the urban remains a critical national measurement of individual (material) progress or at least arrival at success.  Which in part reflects our contradictory admiration and/or mimicry of the lifestyle of our former colonial ‘other’. 

There are many economic historians that have outlined how our cities, towns and peri-urban centres legally came into existence.  A few other cultural historians have written on the changing cultures that these urban settlements brought to our music, religion, literature and sporting competitiveness. 

But I am certain none would have anticipated what we have had to experience in the contemporary around an emerging urban culture.

I will start with the political.  We have always assumed that the enlightened African requires the urban experience. Historically and in the contemporary.  And in this experience, there must be a demonstration of material and educational success.  This is as historical an attitude if there was any when we consider Zimbabwe in 2021.  Very few of our national politicians, even those that are still serving after having fought in the liberation struggle, do not subscribe to assumptions of material success as residing in the urban.  Even though they may have grown further by coming into organic national consciousness via the rural.   Hence in part when we discuss what we consider a progressive national consciousness, its expansive populist origins were the nascent cities (at home and in apartheid South Africa). This not only in terms of initially borderline celebrity politics but also on a desire for recognition by the urban based political powers that be.  Even though eventually it was the rural consciousness that came to be the bedrock of successful liberation struggles we again in our post independent/colonial times have reverted to the urban as being the source of consciousness.

Also when we then crosscheck traditional religion and attendant spirit mediums roles in our society, in the contemporary we remain enamoured to ‘prophets’ and their attendant gospel of prosperity.  Mianly because it fits snugly into our current populist urban culture.  And it also stubbornly insists that individualism is the best sort of lifestyle at a time when we should be trying to find collective solutions to common problems.   

In music, again our urban popular culture fell into the trap of mimicry. Even though it had in the early years of independence had sought to reflect our local context. And where we tried to push local music and its original composition to greater heights.  With the onset of economic structural adjustment in the 1990s and escalating urban poverty our tastes for music became more globalized and less local. Except for language. Hence the phenomenal rise of ‘urban grooves’ and more recently ‘Zimdancehall’.  These genres have both been a reflection of our lived realities as they have also engendered a mimicry celebrity culture in young Zimbabweans.  Whether we think of the hip hop culture in the United States of America or the dancehall culture in Jamaica.  And in most cases, these are tidal waves of emotive and entertainment consciousness that reflect more our contemporary political economy and feelings toward it in the immediate.  As it does in many other countries including those the origins of these genres. 

In our literature/movies we have to regain the ability to write as broadly as we possibly can of our global experiences. And allow various voices to emerge beyond those recognized only by awards determined by the global north.  While remaining cognizant of the fact that our life stories in their creativity are not designed for poverty exhibitionism to others but where it occurs it must be to ourselves.  Hence the need to allow free expression to continually flourish to enable us to imagine our society and experiences therein to be appreciated in posterity.  Not only by Zimbabweans but also others who would seek to learn from us. 

In sport as a key component of urban culture we again reflect the former colonial center.  And that is all understandable.  Our sports leagues are designed that way because sport is now a global phenomenon and industry.  It cannot be wished away for identity alone.  Though it is still plagued with racism and the ‘beastifying of the black body’, it represents an important counter-narrative to false assumptions of superiority and in part humanizes us all by common performance standards and competition.  And the emerging hopes of many a parent this side of the world that they have the next Serena Williams or Usain Bolt under their wings. 

 We probably need to take our popular urban culture much more seriously.  Not just by way of promoting it in its various forms but more by querying its relevance to our own context.  But not as a form of censorship.  Instead as a form of a renewal of collective self-discovery that transcends the immediate.  Or the popularly felt.  Where we do this, it means we will reflect our lives, our history and our controversies in the same much better for future generations.  And then we may possibly be less casual with who we are. 

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

Zim's International Relations: History, Context, Agency Matter.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

Linking Africa and African history to its contemporary placement in international relations is now rarely done.  Not least in Zimbabwe’s case with its peculiar pariah status globally.  Particularly where it concerns its relationship statuses with its former colonial power, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).  Or the United States of America (USA) and the European Union(EU) who in all likelihood followed the lead of the UK in how they approach their relations with Zimbabwe. 

On the other hand there are at least two other global superpowers that have generally differed with the more hegemonic ones in how they relate with Zimbabwe.  These are the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Russia Republic (Russia).  They have both taken a different view on Zimbabwe. The most demonstrable difference with their superpower counterparts was when they jointly vetoed a draft United Nations Security Council (UNSC) draft resolution to sanction Zimbabwe’s political leaders and their allies in 2008. 

In either global hegemonic camps' intentions it can all be considered as being fair enough in love and (diplomatic) war.  As we were taught at university, in international relations there are not permanent friends but permanent interests. 

So in the case of the differing global hegemons’ approach to Zimbabwe the key question is not what their intentions are because these are generally the same in the final analysis. That is where they can, they will extract or negotiate extraction in their own interests.  It is more important to ask what our own interests are in our relations with them. Or to put it more simply the responsibility of agency in these relations remains primarily with us and not them. 

Even where we would argue that Zimbabwe has been the proverbial grass that suffers when elephants fight, it would still be remiss to assume we are mere pawns in the game.  We also make decisions about who to interact with and why.

In this, I will give a specific example of how as an example, in 1966 at the Havana Tri-Continental Conference, the inimitable African revolutionary Amilcar Cabral explained the following (and I quote him at length for clarity) :

 “It is useful to recall in this Tricontinental gathering, so rich in experience and example, that however great the similarity between our various cases and however identical our enemies, national liberation and social revolution are not exportable commodities; they are, and increasingly so every day, the outcome of local and national elaboration, more or less influenced by external factors (be they favorable or unfavorable) but essentially determined and formed by the historical reality of each people, and carried to success by the overcoming or correct solution of the internal contradictions between the various categories characterising this reality...”

We know and even knew upon attainment of our national independence that no matter the amount of help we received mainly from China and Russia as well as Scandinavian Europe, none of these countries that came to our aid defined the revolution for us.  They helped but they did not own it.

Where we come to our contemporary Zimbabwean placement in the world, we may have now forgotten historical aspects to how we got here.  Both in the recent as well as distant past.  And its all understandable given global developments such as the crumbling of the Soviet Union, now Russia or the rise of China as a global superpower and the continually dramatic rise of the neoliberal and nationalistic right in the global west. 

In this, the Covid19 pandemic as it continues to change our lives also reshapes global relations and priorities.  With the most apparent element to this being the issue of what the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has referred to as ‘vaccine nationalism’ and the politicization of its distribution. 

Zimbabwe recently received a donated consignment of the SinoPharm vaccine from China. Even as it awaits another paid for consignment from the same. Social media went slightly apoplectic at the fact that the government had decided to source the vaccine from China. Some opposition politicians remained highly suspicious of the fact that the vaccine came from China and therefore cannot be considered viable without clear scientific justification. And probably just demonstrating abstract preference for sourcing the vaccine from the west or at least western pharmaceutical companies.

At the same time government has insisted that it made the correct decision and has emphasized its longstanding relationship with China as a key reason for trust in the latter’s science.

In either case what is important is our application of our minds to our own context. Within the framework of a pandemic.  We know we need all the help we can get.  But as is wont with everything that we do, we tend to politicize things that are essentially about the lives and livelihoods of our people.   

In this we may sometimes find ourselves thinking on behalf of those with whom to seek to curry favour.  Or choosing to argue on behalf of one or the other global hegemonic side as of old. In most instances this will relate to the given global narratives around what/who China or Russia are perceived or known to be. Especially as captured by global mainstream media narratives. 

It however remains imperative that we avoid falling into the trap of these narratives as easily as we would have before Covid19 struck us.  Instead we must, in a Cabralist sense, begin to apply our minds more assiduously to our local context in order to find sustainable solutions as to how we deal with the pandemic.  While at the same time remembering that in international relations and where we seek help from others, it is our own agency that matters the most.

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

A Zimbabwean Contextual Critique of Trump’s 2nd Impeachment Trial

 By Takura Zhangazha*

For a second time former president of the United States of America (USA) Donald Trump is currently facing charges that could lead to his impeachment in the US Congress.

These charges relate to the 06 January 2021 storming/breaching of the Capitol hill by his supporters.  In this, USA Democratic party legislators are arguing that the former president failed to fulfill his constitutionally given role as commander in chief.  They argue that Trump failed to not only protect another branch of government (Congress) but also actively incited the attack not only on the day but over a prolonged period of time after the November 2020 elections. 

The impeachment trial has been relatively fascinating to watch as it is shown live on US media channels.  Especially the case of the prosecution which has featured video footage that had previously no been seen.  While the defence may not have as either dramatic footage or more elaborate arguments beyond referring to Trump’s right to free expression and issues of due process. Or even making the argument which however appears to be lost by the fact of the impeachment trial itself that Congress cannot impeach a person who is no longer a sitting president. 

Either way, the impact of the fact of his impeachment has had a far reaching impact of how the USA handles its politics at the highest levels internally.  Or how it presents itself to world as of old as a ‘beacon’ of democracy. 

This side of the world, particularly in Zimbabwe, we are wont to view this almost as though it were a movie or dramatic documentary of sorts. Because that’s how Trump tended to present himself anyway in the late 90s  through to reality shows in the 2000s. Even to us here in the global south to the extent that he surprisingly has many admirers in the most unlikely of places within Zimbabwean civil society. Those that would claim to be more enlightened among us may have an opinion or two but largely based on historical and cultural admiration of what we have been sold as the ‘American dream’. 

Fewer among us would want to examine this impeachment trial with the comparative criticality to our own context it deserves.

I would propose that we do the latter in at least three ways.

Firstly we need to understand that as with a lot of our own elections here in Zimbabwe and in some of our sister African countries, the current impeachment trial of Trump has its root cause in an electoral dispute.  While it has been previously unimaginable that this would happen in the USA, the reality of the violent march on the Capitol hill that we saw on 06 January cannot be wished away.  Losing candidates can whip up the emotions of their supporters, fail to provide legally required evidence of electoral rigging but still insist that they won. Now the most obvious argument is that the electoral system of the USA is more credible and historically tested than for example Zimbabwe’s.  Fair enough.  But that does not make their politics or politicians always cognizant of this fact.  Hence we can easily compare political celebrity and populist cultures in the contemporary between for example these two countries.

In the second instance what can be inferred from the ongoing impeachment trial is an attempt at a return to democratic normalcy.  Almost as though to present Trump as an aberration and restore dignity and gravitas to not only the US Congress but try to ensure that there is never again another president or presidential candidate like Trump.  In this, there has been direct reference on both sides of the trial to not only the constitution but also legal reference points such as the ‘Federalist Papers’.  All in an attempt to show the depth of American democracy that requires that where it is violated as it was on 06 January, the perpetrators, including Trump, cannot go unpunished. Or else they become the norm and the constitutional values became the aberration. 

A quick comparison with our own Zimbabwean context would quickly identify this as a key difference with electoral disputations. While we did not have a sitting president dispute an election, the discourse around the 2018 election results was rarely about values, history or the intentions of our own country’s founding fathers/mothers. Let alone the significant expected role of mainstream media to be credible announcers of same said electoral results.  Our constitution is therefore more technical than it would be historical where and when it comes to the meaning of not only elections but also the finality of the electoral process. And our media does not have a similar credibility from the public.   While we cannot mimic the history of American constitutionalism and its values, we can still critically compare given the fact that both of our countries are republics. 

In the third instance where we continue to watch the ongoing second impeachment trial of Trump there is the troubling issue of assumptions of elections and electoral processes as almost evangelical ruptures.  The clear mixture of God and politics and the charismatic candidate is partly what got not only Trump to where he now finds himself.  But also his supporters who now face multiple criminal charges.  This absolutist perspective and angle where elections come to mean more than what they actually are.  That is periodic competitions for the levers of state power, is a troubling development across the globe.  Indeed they can be transformative depending on the elected leaders intentions. But only after the fact of the election.  Not because of it. Trumps supporters held placards extolling Jesus and assuming they had come back with finality to take back their country as they stormed the Capitol. Their absolutist understanding of their mission in part eventually failed them. They have to wait for next time, as even Trump himself now appears intent on. A possibility which the prosecutors in his trial are hoping to prevent. 

We also have been mixing religion, celebrity approaches and materialism with our own politics either side of the political divide. A political culture which is not only unsustainable but does not help foster a long duree organic democratic culture that transcend the elections as periodic events.

In conclusion, it is important that as Zimbabweans observing political developments in the USA  over the Trump impeachment we also learn key lessons that apply to our own context.  Lessons that may also allow us to not seek a shallow mimicry of a politics that may have trends that we may need to avoid as opposed to accept. And that we must seek solidarities that remain more organic than populist. 

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

Dystopia, Mortality and Zimbabwe’s Covid19.

Dystopia, Mortality and the Political Economy of Zimbabwe’s Covid19.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe is currently in its second national lockdown as caused by a rapid expansion of the #Covid19 pandemic. Many Zimbabweans have lost loved ones or are at least trying their best to ensure the latter survive this pandemic in this moment.  It is as depressing as it is dystopian.  Or even unbelievable that this is possibly our new reality in the immediate.  

One in which we cannot mourn our lost loved ones normally or in most cases cannot afford support for further treatment measures for them when they fall ill from Covid19 complications.  While having to function on a wing and a prayer that they will hopefully get well soon. 

The pain of the latter experience has numbed some of us.  I know of comrades who no longer check their social media accounts/feeds for fear of receiving the terrible news of losing a loved one.  Or for fear of even further trauma via some people assuming ‘main actor tendencies’ about the death of others as though they will never be directly affected by the pandemic. 

In most cases however I reflect on the frontline workers in this pandemic.  The nurses, doctors, support staff and even those that are in the funeral services business. Not only in relation to their safety and health but also the fact that they have to deal with the potential and reality of mortality on a regular basis.  Hence it is important, always to salute their sterling work which they do at great risk to themselves and their families. All for our betterment.

As with any national health crises wrought by Covid19, we are wont however to try and behave in what we consider our ‘normal ways’.  Even when we should not. Either based on contradicting the science or refusing to accept the basic understanding that mortality in the time of a pandemic is not selective.  No matter how rich or how poor you may be. 

But we tend to miss this key point because of our desires to live beyond the pandemic.  To assume that we, either individually or collectively, cannot fall victim to it.  Until we arrive at a Saul on the road to Damascus moment.  Except that it always comes with terrible news about a loved one. 

But again we must begin to ask ourselves important questions about our Covid19 realities.  Particularly as they reflect on our Zimbabwean national political economy.

In these reflections we must understand at least two key points.

The first being that #Covid19 has no political affiliation.  It does not remember history nor does it function for a progressive future.  It is us, the humans, that can do so.  But that doing so involves us re-thinking about dismantling not only colonial or neoliberal approaches to public health and safety but also getting over our own inferiority complexes where it comes to not only to anticipating solutions from the global north but also within or own midst.  Wherein we assume that religion will pull us through this and not our own concerted, conscious and organic national agency.

Secondly we must come to terms with the reality that Covid19 will disrupt our relationships with our families.  Both within the immediate and long duree.  It will challenge previous cultural practices that we have been used to and create a more concentrated individualism that this time last year we would never have anticipated.

But we have to challenge these developments as they have emerged. And in doing so we must revert to the centrality of the state in looking after its inhabitants.  In this, we must understand that the state is fundamental to tackling the Covid19 pandemic.  Even in we prefer public private partnerships.  It is the state that remains the guarantor of human life.  Not those that are functioning for private profit.

For many Zimbabweans on social media our approach would be simply one of stemming corruption in the public service tender provision system.  The reality of the matter is that this is not what it is only about.  We need a holistic structural re-alignment of what we mean when we say public health is a human right in Zimbabwe.

To explain further, the right to public health is not an emotional feel good issue. It is more ideological than it is about who recognizes your social media write ups and/or persecution.

Those in the ruling Zanu Pf party or the mainstream MDC opposition need to realise this with the urgency it deserves.  While we may not claim to have a solution to the actual affliction of Covid19, we can act to make our preparedness for its societal impact much more organic and therefore better. 

Every life matters regardless of class, material wealth or geographical location.  Sally Mugabe Hospital is as important as the private ward at a Parirenyatwa referral hospital or the Avenues Clinic. 

Where we understand our basic humanity in this pandemic, we will be better for our own Zimbabwean humanity. While keeping in mind that we need to nationalize the entirety of our public health delivery system. For the many. Not the few.  

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

 

 

 

Emerging Meaning/Effect of Disputed Elections- “Main Actoring the Electoral Moment”

By Takura Zhangazha*

It is now a universally accepted norm and preference that all countries hold regular elections as legitimating mechanisms for the acquisition or transfer of political power.  Even in countries that are generally not considered democratic. 

At their onset and as motivated by the United Nations, elections and electoral processes have been considered democratically meaningful.  But not necessarily revolutionary.  Though in some cases, such as those when African liberation movements won inaugural pre-independence elections, they may have been considered so.  Or if we go to the global north and recall the election of the United States of America’s (USA) first black president in 2008. 

But we also know that apartheid South Africa and closer to home, Southern Rhodesia also held elections.  On the latter Masipula Sithole wrote a very interesting analysis on what he referred to as ‘intra-white settler democracy’ wherein in the settler state there was the regularity of elections for the white minority. And how these were also regularly recognized by the ‘global international community’. 

In our contemporary times however elections have begun to take on a new meaning. Mainly because there are now international standards expected of how they are conducted, including their regularity.  But more significantly because of the fact that they are now viewed, in most cases, as representing  a ‘winner takes all’ approach to political power.  As well as to a direct control of state capital as it relates to a global neo-liberal economy. 

Because of the latter point, which I am sure a number of academics are avidly working on expanding, elections and electoral processes while requiring minimal democratic standards are no longer as of traditional democratic old. 

Their periodic occurrence, which remains an important and democratically good thing, has come to mean so much more than their mere occurrence. Vested interests on either side of the global capital divide are avidly competing for what they would consider to be the 'peoples' will' and the more significant attendant exploitation of national wealth that is perennially at stake. 

All characterized by disputes over final electoral results.  Wherein the majority of cases disputes on results are about who has won the post of the seeming 'winner takes all' executive presidency.  As opposed to who has won anything else such as the legislative or local government vote counts.  The key challenge and desire is attaining or retaining ultimate executive political power. And its all fair enough but we would have to look at a few recent examples to expand my argumentation further. 

In the USA, the incumbent president, Donald Trump, went down to the wire in disputing the results of the November 2020 presidential plebiscite.  Including being accused of being directly involved in a siege of that nations parliamentary buildings in Washington DC in early January 2021.  A development that has led to unprecedented impeachment proceedings on a sitting USA president by the American Congress.  Despite this, it is still reported that Trump intends to give the presidency another go in 2024.

The second example is that of the even more recent Ugandan elections in which long serving ruler Yoweri Museveni was declared the winner against a younger Bobi Wine.  The latter is vehemently refuting the results and has been reported in the media as seeking to challenge the validity of the results in court.

The third and final example is that of the Tanzanian presidential elections where again the incumbent John Magufuli was declared an overwhelming victor over his strongest rival Tundu Lissu.  The latter has since gone into exile. 

In these examples cited above, there are certain common characteristics that come into vogue.  The first being that there are arguments about urban versus rural votes.  Or in the case of the USA, the conservative hinterland versus the liberal coast cities. 

There is also the case of arguing about the youth vote and how again it relates largely to the rural/urban dichotomy.  Including the same’s populist trends, intentions and ephemerality.  Amid allegations fo rigging, the youth vote has become the holy grail of contemporary electoral politics.  Based on population demographics and assumptions that images of relatively mature people running for office can never sit well with the same population demographic.  A point that remains as arguable as it is based on the emotive but privately owned social media company platforms’ clicks, likes via their algorithms. 

Thirdly, there is the argumentation around methodology and technicalities of voting.  This is always a long running ‘reform’ argument that seeks to make more transparent how votes are counted, tallied and relayed to some electoral center or the other.  From postal ballots induced by Covid19 in the USA or polling station tallies in remote areas of Uganda or Tanzania, the trend is clear about the technicalities as they eventually arrive to be argued at one electoral court or the other.  And in most cases with the same courts deciding against the challenger.

But we still have to ask the question about what it is that is making elections, electoral processes and their results such highly contested occurrences in the now.  At the risk of sounding over philosophical, I would argue that it is the retention of a consciousness that is pre-occupied by the reality and possibility of the passage of time.  In order to live to fight another day and ensure that same struggle is retained in the consciousness of those that would be quasi-cultist supporters of an electoral candidate.  Ones' who remember more the past than they would envision a better future for all.  On either side of existent political divides.  A pre-disposition that I personally refer to as ‘main-actoring’.

We need to ask ourselves the key question of what we advise political leaders at the emotional heights of claiming electoral victories. Its not too complicated. They need to think beyond themselves and their egos.  Both in victory or in contested defeat.  But expanding on this is for another write up.

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

 

Zimbabwe in 2021: The Necessity of Optimum Equality for All

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The passage of the year 2020 in our memories is something that will be with us for a long while yet.  Mainly because it brought with it a global pandemic that we all have now come to know as the corona virus (Covid19) and its devastating impact on our common/shared global existence.   The abrupt changes that the pandemic has brought to what we considered ‘normal existence’, even here in the  Global South,  has led many of us into the trap of not thinking about short or long term futures. Instead we have understandably become focused on the immediate.  Even via asking ourselves apocalyptic questions such as,  "Will I/we (family) survive this?” Or, “Where will my income emanate from in a lock-down situation for me to pay for the general upkeep of my family?”  

We now also know that 2020 sort of put paid to a lot of  our personal short and long term 'normal' plans. And depending on your class status these would be either at a subsistence or highly materialist level (car, urban house/ travel). 

What appears to have mattered the most in all of these now hindered aspirations is what was and probably still is our individual desire not only for the material but also recognition at, again, individual success.  Be it in the form of individual material success such as the purchase of urban property, modern technological equipment or sending the children to privileged private schools or universities (and their colonial recognition baggage). 

The year 2021 should have a new significance for Zimbabwean society. And I write this not as a revolutionary thesis.  But more out of a personal desire to establish a balance between individual material desire and what would be considered in the global north as the common good of a society.

Before Covid19 changed our lives fundamentally we all seemed set on certain chosen paths. Some which we still stubbornly hold onto. Be it politically, economically or socially.  In these as argued above we sought 'individual' progress. Never mind the system we were operating under.  One could wake up and talk of nationalism one day while fronting ‘land barons’and their attendant urban land theft. Or alternatively arguing about how bad the national economy is while  pursuing highly individuated material interests in the name of the 'people'. 

In either case we found ourselves in what can be considered to be 'contradictory' value systems.  That is value propositions that while arguing for a ‘collective national well-being’ are comfortably ensconced in quasi hedonistic individualism, consumerism and materialism. 

The year 2020 and Covid19 should have made us pause to reflect on such approaches to our national existence and consciousness.  But they did not.  

But in order to be clearer about the immediate and long term future that we anticipate particularly for the year 2021, we have to be as realistic as we are honest with ourselves.  And where we desire a specific type of future, then we have to be both optimistic and idealistic. 

In being realistic about 2021 in Zimbabwe there are two key considerations we must take into account.  The first being that our national political economy has been set on a trajectory of pandering to the interests of those that already have money.  

Even in the context of Covid19 the government has made it clear that it will prioritize private capital’s needs with a vainglorious hope that there will be a ‘trickle-down effect’ from the latter’s ‘investments’ that we are still being exhorted to ‘patiently’ wait for. Hence already even in the access to treatment for Covid19 symptoms, it remains easier for those that have wealth to get first preference. And in some ridiculous instances for some of those with wealth to advise everyone else to buy personal ventilators.  Add o this the loss of livelihoods for many urban and rural poor due o rising unemployment caused by closure of small o medium enterprises and the limitations of the informal trading sectors.   

In the second instance our 2021 realism has to take into account the fact that we are faced with significant changes to our social relationships and lifestyles.  Mainly because of Covid19 and the tragic loss of lives.  But also more significantly because of lock-downs and the associational restrictions that they bring.  This means that the regularity of given interactions with family, school, work or other association colleagues will remain not only rare but in their occurrence, less convivial. This means our society faces a fundamental change from being one in which we were used to general association to being one in which we will be increasingly isolated.  Either as individuals or in our immediate family.  It is almost like a tragic involuntary societal rapture as necessitated by Covid19.   

Where we choose to be optimistic about 2021 we need to harness our deepest thought processes for big ideas that focus on how to deal with Covid19 as a collective society.  With a candidness that seeks above all else the pursuit of optimum equality and social and economic justice for all Zimbabweans.   

By optimum equality here I mean that within the context of the Covid19 pandemic we should be ensuring that there are basic social and economic rights that are available to all Zimbabweans and as provided for by the state. These rights in our current context should fundamentally be about access to healthcare (including food), education, water, shelter and free expression for all of us regardless of whether we are in the urban or the rural. Where we seek to politicize the pandemic, as we are naturally wont to do, it would still be imperative that we establish this baseline approach to how we seek to ease the effects of Covid19. As opposed to adopting a socialism for the already rich or those that mimic them.

The mantra that is often used by those in power is that of ‘no one is left behind.’ They are not being honest.  The agenda we must set in 2021 is that no one should ever have been left behind.  And that we must ensure hat we are in 2021 living on soicio-economic level playing field.  Not just based on salaried income but economic structural equitable distribution for all.  With the priority being optimum equality of access to social and economic rights for all Zimbabweans. Especially in the context of Covid19.

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