Zimbabwe’s Financial Stand-Off: Who's Holding Whom to Ransom?

By Takura Zhangazha*

Following the recent abrupt changes to Zimbabwe’s financial system as announced by the government and the Reserve Bank, I was asked if I was going to write an opinion on the matter.  I initially responded by saying as an irregular blogger I tend to stick to my lane.  Mainly because I am not a finance, economics or banking expert and therefore I am least likely to put together around 700 words on the matter. Neither am I emotional about it.   

Then I changed my mind.  As a typically highly opinionated Zimbabwean. This was mainly because of the fact that the nature of the discourse around this matter appears to be linear.  Ideologically and in relation to assumptions of received ‘best practice’ business, financial and economic policy knowledge.  

Where it concerns ideology it should be self-evident the discourse around what the government and the central bank can do is couched in what ‘free market’ finance, business and economics require.  And how assumedly the state is ‘ridiculously’ going against the grain.  In this are included arguments such as ‘let the market decide' or the ‘state has no business in business’ or ‘just dollarize!’  Arguments that are the equivalent of a relatively blind ‘praise and worship’ session for capitalism.  Particularly a capitalism we do not own.  But instead want to demonstrate an 'other based ' knowledge of it for reasons I will come back to later.

The astounding issue is that it is those that are most disadvantaged by the 'free market' that are appearing to defend it. Especially on social media platforms, in mainstream media, some trade unions, civil society organisations and political parties, inclusive of the ruling one.  Yet they are not ones who have been at the foreign currency auction system.  Nor are they the ones who are complaining about in- country or offshore shareholder profit margins that must be maintained while ensuring there is no minimum wage for workers.  It is not only ironic but reflective of a tragic national economic consciousness that misses the point that supporters of the ‘free market’ misunderstand its direct inequality effects to the majority of our people.   

It is a reality that one can argue is an inverted ‘class’ issue.  With the traditional 'comprador bourgeoisie' (the property/money/production owners as inherited from colonialism) forming an alliance with the middle class, workers and peasantry against a state which believes in exactly the same thing. Except using a different methodology called ‘state capitalism’.  With the anticipated end result being the same.  That is the enrichment of the already rich and the continued impoverishment of the already poor in our society.   Even with the anticipation of trickle-down economics and misunderstanding the fact that inflation affects all currencies.  Particularly in their countries of origin, as is the case with the United States economy and dollar at the moment.  Or in the wake of the now economically globalised Russia-Ukraine outright war.

Let me return to the issue of ‘demonstrating’ free market, business and economic knowledge in everyday political conversations in Zimbabwe. Bearing in mind that even as Shimmer Chnodya wrote in his epic novel 'Harvest of Thorns' on how his book's main character's father should have been the minister of finance based on how he juggled his salary, every Zimbabwean in times of economic crisis becomes a finance and business expert. 

In a majority of cases this stems from formal education and/or experience.  Historically as it relates to the Economic Structural Adjustment (ESAP) years between 1989-1999.   In this somewhat dismissed historical period we were taught to assume that private capital and 'free market' trickle-down economics were the panacea to our social and economic challenges as a country.  By way of consumer culture and formally by way of what was then the equivalent of what we now refer to as Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)  education models. In the 1990s through to the first decade of the new millennium we had a cultural and education discourse that reflected free market and ease of doing business as again the total solution to our problems. We were all encouraged to do business related degrees or diplomas. Even at postgraduate level. Also at the height of the most contradictory 'free market'  government policy that was the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (one that I know global private capital considers Zimbabwe's original modern day sin). 

This has directly impacted our national consciousness. More so during the economic crisis that was the 2008-2010 period until the dollarization period that was introduced before the inclusive government was formed.

Our reaction to the latter has not and will not easily be changed.  We welcomed the ‘free market’ knowledge system that it expanded.  Not only in relation to Chicago School type of economics but also how to manipulate it individually (with or without formal financial education).  Especially where it was about foreign currency exchange as enabled by the then and now current Reserve Bank leaders as well as private companies.

So the dominant and populist national consciousness narrative is highly materialistic and also pro-global (not local) private capital. As aided by the current government despite its claims of nationalism.  And amazingly finds common ground between the business and labour sectors of our society.  Especially based on neoliberal assumptions of what is best practice about currency and exchange rates.  Inclusive of listings on international stock exchanges and transferring financial capital to them without reinvesting in the country. 

In the final analysis we need to rethink the relationship between government and private capital (global and local).  Including requesting an answer to four questions as to, “Who holds whom to ransom? And Why? For Whom? For What?”

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

 

 

 

 

Rising Above Religion in Zimbabwe’s Politics.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Religion has always been integral to Zimbabwe’s national consciousness.  Historically and in the contemporary.  From what is widely accepted as fact, the majority of Zimbabwe’s liberation heroes and leaders had religious backgrounds.  From Mbuya Nehanda, Lobengula, Chaminuka through to our modern nationalists the prospect of a better Zimbabwe had a narrative embedded in religious parlance. Initially based on African traditional perceptions of what links everyday existence and the afterlife through to the missionary Christian education as linked to colonialist hegemony, the ideal society appears to have been based on one or the other religious philosophy.  Based either on identity or assumptions of modern colonial modern progress. Especially via missionary education 

It is as contradictory as it can be considered an oxymoron.  More so when in our liberation struggle we mixed the two to good successful effect.  The missionary educated liberation leaders, the spirit mediums and the socialist trained comrades combined in order to win the country from minority settler government. 

The ideological result was almost a combination of everything.  History met with modern nationalism and both met with African Traditional Values and Christianity.  A general interaction that is still playing out today.  With African traditional religion ironically playing an abstract limited role even after independence. Particularly in relation to Christianity in its three major forms, at least as defined by historical developments in the global north.  These formats being, Orthodox (established churches such as the Catholic, Anglican or Methodist church institutions), Pentecostal (as imported from the United States of America) and with reference to our context, African Pentecostalism (as hybrid versions of the latter but led by Black Africans).

But this is not a write up on the history of religion in Zimbabwe. What is more significant is the reality of its occurrence among us.  And how it has had a fundamental impact on our assumptions of a national consciousness. Particularly one we would want to consider progressive. 

Our national politicians have fallen over themselves seeking endorsements from religious organisations.  Not only for electoral purposes but also as validation for their national political leadership. Both technically and spiritually. 

What they inadvertently do in their search either for votes or validation is that they promote a continuing ambiguity between religion and secular politics.  And this is understandable for comrades that are not visionary about the future of the country.  It remains the easier option to harness religious sentiment to a specific electoral campaign.

Yet it misses the key point of the historical importance of religion in a national consciousness that should not remain static.  We must always recognize the ideological and value laden role of both African traditional religion and Christianity in the historical fact of our liberation.  Our challenge is however the fact that we should stop instrumentalising/using desires for faith for political purposes.  Especially for ephemeral political purposes such as elections. 

But it’s a reality that we know we have to live with because churches/religions, whatever their denominations are essentially a reflection of corporate entities and have historically always been embedded with the state and private capital in creating a specific version of a reality that we eventually, even if we wanted to resist, we cannot.  All because it is what Gramsci referred to as a hegemony.  We can only resist it individually.  Or in collectives that still have limited impact on the state of affairs in our national political economy. 

What is important however is the fact of the need for us to begin to question the toxic mix of politics and religion that appears to be gaining credence in our national consciousness.  Whereas religion provided an ideological base for our liberation struggle, it is no longer enough that we fail to expand it to a newer critical national consciousness.  Based on the same said history.

And there are three key points that I would like to conclude by.  The first being that religion helps in forming an ‘other regarding’ consciousness. And in most religions, the ‘family is considered the ‘basic unit of society’. This means while we consider family as fundamental to our existence, it remains important that we understand that we all have families and therefore we need to be a holistic national family.  And therefore look after each other. 

The second key point is that religion is not static.  Churches have split and prophets have been accused of varying criminal acts.  Religious philosophies have changed over time.  But it is important to continue to separate religion and politics.  And retain the value of a secular state as beneficial to everyone.  Mixing religion and politics has added political expediency but it generally does not end well. 

Finally, we need to stop being abstract about our political economic realities.  There is no religious book that will solve our problems.  No matter how much we pray.  In whatever faith. Or with whatever leader who shares our specific faith. 

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

 

 

 

Africa and Russia/Ukraine Conflict: Forgetfulness of Our Global Placement.

By Takura Zhangazha*

The war between Ukraine and the Russian Federation is a very international one.  At least where we look at its impact on global diplomacy, allegiances and its global economic impact. With echoes of the Cold War and its global polarisation effect. 

Africa, and its general placement in international relations has had limited little say in this growing international conflict.  Except where it has found itself being cornered (at least diplomatically) to demonstrate where its loyalties lie via United Nations (UN) General Assembly votes. Some of which have been glaringly apparent either via abstentions, affirmations and rejection of specific resolutions against mainly the Russian Federation. 

A process that has definitively divided Africa and the African Union (AU) member states based on specific loyalties, assumed political values and economic interests. Although this is yet to reach a crescendo. 

What has however been more interesting are the African conversations of this most recent ‘global’ conflict.  And these are conversations that have had what can be considered a three pronged process. 

The first was the realisation of the racism that is retainable during a war and about black immigrants.  Social media in Africa at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was awash with narratives of the racism experienced by African students studying there.  Even as they were fleeing the conflict, narratives by these students indicated gross racial discrimination as they were enroute to safer countries and awaiting their repatriation home.  The discourse was also however complicated in relation to the surprising number of African students who were actually in Ukraine and how in some instances some embassies were saying that even though they had painstakingly managed to leave Ukraine for neighbouring countries, some of the students were not keen on returning home.  What was however quite apparent was the fact that even in conflict, the latent racism still reared its ugly head.  Even if it did not cause the conflict.  Something that we appear to have quickly forgotten. 

The second strand of conversations about this particular conflict by us here in Africa was more of dramatization.  Almost as though we have been commenting on an ongoing movie.  Conversations around the final winner of this war between Russia, Ukraine, the USA or Europe are abounding.  And as they are also mixed up with sporting team bans (Chelsea football club anyone?) Or extended economic sanctions wither way between the East or the West.  These are narratives that reflect how we may probably be viewing ‘war’ as a spectacle.  Even though we have experienced enough of it ourselves and know full well that war is never the answer.  This is partly how before the advent of social media we viewed the global media’s coverage of the West’s ‘War on Terror’ in Afghanistan, Iraq.  And even the more recent wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen and aborted coups in Venezuela and defeated ones in Bolivia. With the one in Libya leaving us smarting slightly because South Africa which was a member of the UN Security Council at that time allowed the imposition of a no fly zone over the country, a development that enabled what obtains today. 

The third element of the conversations that we are having as Africans on the Ukraine/Russia conflict is that of what I will refer to as ‘preference and admiration’.  Every time there was an announcement of a UN General Assembly vote or UN Security Council resolution on this conflict I would wince slightly.  In a majority of cases we knew which sides our governments were going to take and have taken. Including the reasons why they would do so.  For example, in Zimbabwe’s case it was almost a conversational given that our government would vote on the side of the Russian Federation at the UN.  Based on the history of the liberation struggle, our acerbic relations with the USA after the year 2000 to present and also the fact that Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on imposing international sanctions on Zimbabwe in 2008. But the point that remains clear is that there are preferences of winners and losers to a conflict that essentially we have no key say in.   Even as it impacts on us economically and politically, as geographically far away from it as we assume we are. 

What is however most important in our ongoing and future conversations on this particular conflict is the recognition of the importance of the United Nations in seeking solutions to prevent escalation of wars.  Inclusive of our continental and regional inter-governmental bodies such as the African Union and SADC.  While these bodies, particularly our own are generally derided, they help to keep the peace. Based on mutual solidarity and contextual historical grounding.  What is happening in Ukraine cannot and should never be wished, visited on any country or its people.  But it provides us with a learning point as Africans that we must take our placement in the global world/ international relations much more seriously and understand that even that in the contemporary is not as equitable as it would appear.

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

 

Diplomas, Social Science, History, Art as the Base of Zimbabwe’s National Consciousness.

By Takura Zhangazha*

When we went to university in the late 1990s, it was a clear societal status symbol. In at least two respects.  Firstly, what you were studying and its implications for your professional/material future. Secondly, the unique recognition it accorded you, not only because it gave you some sort of ‘payout/student grant income’.  But also accorded you a specific societal status of being a chosen one because of your hard-won/studious or natural intelligence.

It was also a bottle-neck education system that was based on high school academic merit. Via an internationalized examination system as run by the colonial Cambridge education system.  Whereas in the 1980s it was easier to get into the only university, the University of Zimbabwe, with minimal Advanced Level (A level) qualifications and in order to do a particular degree of your choice, in the 1990s it had become much harder to qualify. 

Our tertiary education qualification system had become highly competitive particularly for university degrees.  And it had become increasingly hierarchical.  The more points at A Level one had, the more likely they would acquire a more ‘lucrative’ degree programme at the University of Zimbabwe.   And these were considered to be in Medicine, Engineering, Law, Accounting and Business Studies. In some instances, Economics or Psychology degrees would feature due to anticipation of the expansion the private sector in the age of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) as a narrative that was more popular at the time. 

The frowned upon degree programmes, even after qualifying were those that were in the fields of Political Science/Public Administration, the Arts, Sociology, Anthropology and Religious studies/Theology.  These degree programmes were considered the ‘no material future’ sort of academic pursuits.  They were neither fashionable in relation to the pro-private capital narratives of the time neither were they considered to be nationally important.  A point that I will return to later as being an ongoing national mistake. 

The preferred degrees were ones that fitted the economic system in relation to not only prestige but also material income.  It was always assumed within the post-settler economy that if one became or example a medical doctor, engineer, lawyer they were destined to be part of a particular elite section of society. By way of class and lifestyle. 

What was not noticed by the state/government at that time (1990s) was that such a class system was failing due to increased rural-urban migration based on desires for recognition of urbanized material progress via education. 

And this did not end at university level.  The multiple polytechnic and teacher training colleges remained harbingers of this same stated link between academic progress and recognition of material success.  From journalism, marketing, teacher training, journeyman, fitter/turner through to nursing, motor mechanics or agricultural diplomas. 

The particular catch became the fact that in our national tertiary education policies, assumptions of superiority of the university degree did not understand numerical realities for the future..  The assumed top notch degree programmes were always going to be overwhelmed by those that were considered inferior. Be they degrees or national diplomas. 

And this is where the key issue re-emerges.  Our bottle neck education system of the 1990s through to the early 2000s until after Mugabe expanded our childrens’ access to university education created a compounded national consciousness that appears to have run away from us. 

As at the height of ESAP, we scrambled for degrees that suited the economic times.  And even post graduate ones for that matter.  Except that the economic times were not defined by us.  But the global political economy.  The more degree and other programmes that we had access to, the more we have frowned upon the social science ones in the vain hope of creating a Silicon genius.  

What we have however recognized is effort and continually so.  The one that started with a diploma, now has a PhD or a Master’s degree as it is linked to polarized political recognition. We even had a former first lady that made it appear as though political power and education reflected that trajectory of individual success.  Materially and politically. 

What is however important in the contemporary is the fact that tertiary or as we refer to it, higher education, remains important for every young Zimbabwean.  No matter the course, diploma or the degree. Though it now comes at greater cost to parents or guardians.

Whereas before we would assume specific degrees were a one way course to material success, we now need to recognize the fact that every degree or diploma establishes a base for a specific individual or in rare cases, collective consciousness.  And that in a majority of cases it is the diploma that matters more than the degree.  An issue that we failed in our state post-colonial elitism to understand in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Even if cdes that initially acquired the diploma now have the degree(s).   

All of this however raises an even more important question in the contemporary.  Should we repeat the mistakes of a past where we assumed it was the natural sciences that mattered more in a globalized political economy?  Should we once again relegate the social and artistic sciences in order to fit in?  From my personal perspective, the answer is a basic ‘no’.  Our social sciences remain integral to our being.  Be they in history, culture, journalism, marketing, teaching. political science, sociology, anthropology or religion. And across varying levels of qualification.  Be they certificates, diplomas, degrees, Masters degrees or PhDs’.  That is where we are most human and even equitably competitive and counter-hegemonic (Netflix and chill anyone?)

Now let me return to our national higher/tertiary education mistake.  We assume that our social sciences are of limited consequence in the global political economy scheme of things.  Yet those we envy insist on operas, music shows, museums (where some of our ancestors continue to be exhibited) and narratives that reinforce their dominant hegemonic narrative.  The only thing to be said in conclusion is that where we ignore our own local social sciences and arts, we become a very shallow people.

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

 

Salah and Mane: Symbols of Progressive Pan African Sporting Rivalry

By Takura Zhangazha*

There are two world class African players who since the beginning of this year have had to play for their countries in two major international competitions. They played against each other in the final of the delayed 2021 edition of the African Cup of Nations.  And only this week they have played in a final qualifying match for the Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup.  These players are Mohamad Salah of Egypt and Sadio Mane of Senegal.  They also incidentally both turn out for and are stars for English Premier league side, Liverpool FC. 

In both matches in which they turned up for their countries, Senegal defeated Egypt by way of winning close penalty shootouts.  And as many football fans will know, penalty shootouts, no matter how much you practice, are essentially about luck. 

Given both players’ global football stardom and also the fact that they are national icons in their countries of origin, the last three or so months have probably been an emotional rollercoaster for them individually but also most significantly for their fans.

On the broader African continent, the fact that Senegal and Egypt met twice in a row in a final and  final qualification rounds of major tournaments was both intriguing and entertaining.  Media stories and social media posts were all about the rivalry between Salah and Mane for country. Including assumptions that because of this they probably would not get along when turning out for Liverpool FC.  Such arguments while reflective of both players footballing global superstardom are yet to be proven true.  Either by word of mouth or by actions on the pitch. 

There are however conversations that also emerge in fan circles about regional footballing rivalry between West, South, East and North Africa.  And this is why I am using these two star players as examples.  Except that the perspectives in these conversations rarely end up being only about football.  They tend to get mixed up in convoluted conversations about political, cultural, economic differences which border on racism between regional oriented supporters.   Or at least assumptions of exceptionalism by way of geographical location and or claims at being more African than the other. 

In football, as any fan would know, racism and any other forms of discrimination are a big issue.  So much so that many leagues around the world are still taking the knee before the beginning of every match in having to remind fans of this. (Especially in global north leagues were racism remains  present and yet the majority of prominent leagues stars are black or people of colour.) 

And it is regrettable that "taking the knee" still needs to be done.  

But stories of enslavement of emigrating people in war torn Libya and human smuggling in the Mediterranean show us that away from the football stadiums there are some grim realities that we should never ignore.  And that the colour of one’s skin is still used to determine one’s eligibility to be considered human.  

Though less prevalent South of the Sahara, again notions of discrimination and hate speech are sometimes found in footballing conversations. All based on false accusations of ‘claims of superiority’ of the North of the Sahara. Such fan conversations ignore the simple fact of the historical ties that bind North, West, East, Southern African regions based on incredible acts of solidarity in struggles against colonialism and for human equality regardless of geographical location or proximity to the Middle East.  And how these acts in light of ongoing struggles for democracy, though not as prevalently reported in the media, still exist to present day.  

It is perhaps these narratives that Salah and Mane are challenging by default.  Not just because they are global superstars playing at the highest levels of the game.  But because they represent the fact that football is a game that can beautifully demonstrate our common humanity and talents. And in doing so it reaches out, based on its popularity, to younger generations to challenge disciminatory tendencies and enable each other to flourish regardless of race, colour, ethnicity, class or regional origins.  

It is a default combination of football, stardom and shared African identities and values that becomes progressive Pan Africanism.  One that sees the beautiful game for what it is despite competitive rivalry at the highest level. So even if they do not know it or acknowledge it directly, Salah and Mane are emerging symbols of this.

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

 

 

Neoliberalism as the Base of Zimbabwe’s Populist Politics.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Recently there has been a bit of chatter about ideology or lack thereof in Zimbabwean politics.   Accusations and counter accusations of the same have been historically perennial between the ruling party and our now evidently multiple opposition parties (in and out of Parliament). 

For all their political spats, all large (or those that claim to be large) political parties in Zimbabwe have as their primary ideological outlook, neoliberalism.  Some couch it in nationalism, others in argumentation about the international community and funding.  Others still give it a religious flavour or claim proximity to powerful people in Washington, London or all weather friends in Beijing.  But it is the base of their political intentions or desires organisationally and also individually. 

The most obvious reason why this is the case is because neoliberalism is the most dominant global ideology at the moment.   It is also the one that drives contemporary capitalism in its free market trickledown economics hegemony that prioritises private capital (property) and high levels of individualism, consumerism with great disdain for any state led people-centred development. 

So it is much easier to embrace by our local politicians for a number of reasons. The most obvious being a desire for (individual) recognition by global private capital and the other being that it already has a given template.  So one does not really have to be a ‘thinker’ to be an advocate of neoliberalism.  It’s a given that you simply follow the dictates of the market and allow those that already have the money to make more money as you prioritise listening to their preordained ideas and implement them. 

But in this write up I am not so much keen on exploring this exploitative ideology in and of itself.  But more its end effect(s).  Particularly where and when we look at how it affects our national political discourse and actions.  

Neoliberalism, this side of the world, has a fundamental impact of creating at least two things.  The first is immense economic inequality in the society in which it is implemented.  And secondly it creates because of these high levels of inequality, a new individualism motivated by envy, desire and consumerism.   Individualism because it foregoes the state’s responsibilities to create societal equality to the ‘free market’.  The primary role it values of the state is the protection of private property and of course individual rights of those that are particularly already “private propertied”.   

Envy and desire come into the picture because those the poor in our society desire that which they cannot have but will work assiduously and in some cases religiously/superstitiously to at least mimic the lifestyles of the propertied/rich.  It is a mimicry that comes with a great loss of a collective sense of being and many feelings of comparative but also competitive inadequacy.  And a desire to depart from either the rural or even urban poverty stricken backwater. Individually. Or at best with immediate family. 

The consumerism element is closely linked to that of desire and envy.  The best goods and services acquired by neoliberal elites create a desire for somewhat similar materialist recognition even among the poor.  Clothing brands, music taste, foodstuffs, schools’ children are sent to, movies watched, holidays done, cars driven, rich celebrities admired or houses bought/built or rented tend to demonstrate this.

The broader societal economic equality debate is lost in translation.  Instead of a progressive political discourse on equitable access to actual public heath, transport, education, water, energy, housing, pensions or entertainment we again get lost in our individual desires, envies and consumption. 

Where we now turn to the direct political effect of this, we will be able to discern that because of the celebrity culture that is created from our envy, desires and individualism the ideology that is neoliberalism then sets the ground for populism.  The latter being a blind desire for a recognition of your anger at your situation via a relatively popular collective feeling that is not based on any particular idea or clear understanding of lived collective societal realities.  While this is not unique to Zimbabwe or the global south, it has a unique framework in our context.  It has a double envy.  That of the global north lifestyle (hence we are dying trying to illegally cross for example the Mediterranean Sea) and also envying the lifestyles of our local rich elites.  Never mind how they got their wealth through either privatisation of states assets or whispered allegations of corruption (including during the fast track land reform programme). 

And this breeds what I refer to as unprincipled messianic politics.  The disadvantaged majority poor of our society then place their hopes in singular political parties or individuals that bring them closer to achieving their individual materialist desires.  As opposed to the collective equitable well-being of all of society. 

Naturally the question that emerges, particularly from those that deem themselves as either having ‘arrived’ at success or those that are prisoners of their envy and desires to neoliberalism is, “So what?”  Or for those that have learnt to cope with their existential circumstances and hoping to eventually arrive at least by way of mimicry the question is, “What’s the alternative?”

The alternatives are varied but rely largely on a value system that understands that all Zimbabweans, in the contemporary should live in an equitable society in which the state plays its primary role of ensuring our social welfare, safety, security and collective livelihood outside of the neoliberal ideological framework. 

Where we do this, we will not be burdened with the political populism embedded in and as a result of the neoliberalism that we see today. 

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

 

Stubborn Opinion, Conjecture and Feeling in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

I am not sure if there has been some sort of scientific study on this but I will hazard to argue that we Zimbabweans are a highly opinionated people.  This is for various reasons. Some of them similar to other countries in Africa such as assumptions of the superiority of our education system.  Meaning our ability to speak English or mimic the political economic knowledge and cultural systems of our former colonisers.  Including complex considerations of our generally unrequited desire for equal ‘recognition’ for these capabilities.  Hence for example we have inundated social media chat with convoluted explanations of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, something that fundamentally very few of us would easily understand. 

Another reason for our being highly opinionated is the fact that we are can probably be classified as an angry people due to our economic conditions.  Which we also blame largely on our ruling political establishment.  These economic conditions are those that have, to a greater majority of us, caused poverty and above all else stymied individual, not collective, material prosperity.  Including our angst at the refusal of having some sort of messianic political solution that brings us back into the favourable gaze of the ‘international’ community.  A process that has been as cyclical as it has been unsuccessful in calming down our emotional nerves. 

Because of this, in the majority of cases our political opinions are pre-determined by our experiences and their attendant biases.  Meaning that in most cases, they are essentially unchangeable. In this I would almost dare a reader of this blog to crosscheck with their friends and relatives their opinions of ten years ago and present day to see if any of them has significantly shifted their views. 

The third reason why we are this way is because of the medium through which we can convey opinion in the contemporary.  And this is mainly via social media platforms that help aggregate or accentuate our emotions via algorithms.  Because of a long standing limited media environment, these platforms are more for our own catharsis than democratic public interest journalistic content.  Even for professional journalists themselves. Or political, religious and other society leaders. 

The fourth element that reduces a more organic agency of opinion is a sad disdain for our own cultural productions.  And this is historically understandable due to the fact that the era of colonialism sought to limit our appreciation of them.  While the post-colonial period has inundated us with cultural products from the global north that essentially shape our understandings of what is preferable.  More so with the expansion of social media and cultural product streaming platforms such as Netflix.  By cultural products here I mean movies, music, literature, visual art, theatrical drama, fashion design and architecture.  But its mainly those things that entertain us in the form of the audio visual (films and western news channels) and our envy of what we see and hear.  As well as the biases it represents.  

For example, I remember a friend of mine who was an avid supporter of the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as though he was watching Rambo movies.  I sort of understood why he would have such an attitude at that time.  What I don’t understand is why he still holds on to it now even after the dramatic withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan. The only reason is probably because he has chosen to stubbornly stick to his argument not only out of pride but also because it is intrinsically the way he has been taught to view the world. 

And this is where things become complicated. As Africans generally and Zimbabweans in particular we are the subjects of a global hegemony that frames how we should perceive our own existence. Let alone how we should express it. 

In this we suffer from a debilitating inferiority complex.  And here I am just referring to how we form or shape our own opinions. Our primary challenge is a desire for a recognition that historically, even after all our liberations struggles, was always designed to elude us.

What we need to do is to recognize ourselves first and express ourselves in order to understand ourselves. And have fun while we are at it.  At the back of our minds however must remain the reality that we do not do so as a performance ritual for others.  But we do so for our own progress as a people. Ditto Fanon. 

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