Decolonizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Africa

Technology Ownership, Cultural Mimicry and a Necessary Renewed Progressive African Consciousness.     

A  Brief Presentation to Shoko Festival Hub Un-Conference, Wednesday 24 September 2025 , Harare, Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

I would like to thank the Shoko Festival, Hub-UnConference team and their stakeholders for inviting me to give this brief presentation on ‘Decolonising Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Africa’.  A topic which is very important not only in the contemporary but also for a future in which Africa gets more connected via electricity, mobile telephony and the multiple nodes of what we now refer to as the internet (social media, streaming, email and Wi-Fi or more recently Starlink.)     

To begin with I am certain that most of you in this particular physical and also virtual audience watching are likely basically aware of what AI is.  Technically and culturally.  

On the simplistic technical front it is a system in which computing systems essentially use data and algorithms to replace what would be otherwise scientific human behavior.  That is such processes that would otherwise have been done by medical doctors, engineers, nurses, motor mechanics, airline pilots, taxi drivers and medical laboratory experts among many others.  

Culturally, AI, is also the computing of cultural traits and the modification of human behavior.  It is beginning to paly an much larger role in how we perceive or learn of ourselves, our music, drama, television and most significantly in our languages.

Ask any teacher or college/university lecturer how they now have to cautiously guard against receiving assignments written by ChatGP or DeepSeek even at secondary school level. Let alone university and PhD levels.  This is before we even start discussing music, drama, television and movies that are now increasingly run by algorithms that are designed to re-align  your cultural preferences.  Not only to ignore the repressive nature of African colonial history but to create new revisionist meaning to it.

Because I don’t have much time, I will make a relatively controversial point.

AI is the new cultural and economic ‘maxim gun’ in Africa.  For those that may not have studied their African history, we were, as Africans, based on our numerical numbers against the colonialists in the wars of the late 19^th century, going to win those initial struggles against colonialism. 

Until the arrival of the maxim gun which proved pivotal in protecting the colonial larger across Southern and Eastern Africa.  

Mainly because we did not see it coming.  And could only learn both within the ambit of tragic circumstances and after how that machine worked.  To only mount more modern liberation struggles at least 50 years later after the second World War and the formation of the United Nations. 

With AI we are quite literally not only seeing it but using it now. Even if by default.

 But not understanding its ‘maxim gun’ cultural and economic effect.  It is not killing us physically but with its current trends, it is modifying African human behavior into falling in line with global north or western values.

Ad this is in three main respects.

The first being the technological.  We do not as Africans own an iota of AI.  It is owned by what academics and global north progressive activists have referred to as ‘techno-feudalists’.  These are those that are for example around the current acerbic American president Donald Trump who own AI related platforms that have the public form of social media platforms but are essentially also working on machine generated learning and algorithms.  This also includes China ’s Xi Jinping and its own AI companies that intend to have a hand over the global wests ones. 

To put it simply, you do not own your Facebook, Tick-tock, Whatsapp or X account.  You are given the impression of owning it.  The algorithm is not yours.  At all.   More so if you post matters that are  against a given global north narrative. 

Essentially always bear in mind, every time you log into a social media account or decide to use ChatGPT or any other forms of technology to construct  something you do not own it.  Its copyrighted at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). 

In the second instance and as I have alluded to with my metaphoric reference to the ‘maxim gun’, AI is intended to be a mixed bag of technology and its awe with its cultural indefatigability (sorry for the big word). 

Depending on the size of the population/market, you are from, AI has its cultural preferences.  Hence our colleagues in Swahili speaking East Africa are a step of us in trying to counter AI and its emergent roles in languages and cultural productions.   But more significantly our fellow and equal human beings retain a cultural (and in some cases quasi racist) supremacy over AI.  In a very hegemonic sense. That is where culture meets economic realities and manufacture materialistic desires.  

Hence our local influencers are getting cars and cash handouts based on what the algorithm accepts and what those with power find palatable to their stay in political and economic power. 

In the final and third instance, as Africans, we need to establish a new way forward.  One that focuses beyond mimicry of global north AI.  Even if we don’t own it.   We need to understand that there is more to the technology, its sources of origin and our own context. In this, it is necessary to reclaim cultural identities and Pan African mindsets as a priority.  Nationally, continentally and globally (with an emphasis on the Diaspora.) 

While at the same time remembering it is not always about the money or mimicry for the same.

To conclude, AI, is not going to go away. It may change format as did the television, the fixed telephone line, but it will be with us for not only the lifetimes of those here among us an online, but for the long term future.  The question is the extent to which we can harness it to our contexts.  We will neve own it technically.  But we can challenge its hegemonic intent culturally.   Just like what you choose to watch, create on or for Netflix, Meta (Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram) has to be made to overwhelmingly challenge the numbers and language challenges of AI.  Before we, in Africa can even begin to talk about the machines that we do not own. 

Takura Zhangazha spoke here in his personal capacity.  

 

 

 

 

Remembering James Jemwa: An Holistic Journalist and Visionary of the Media's Future: By Practice.

Sunday, 21 September 2025

By Takura Zhangazha*

This is not an obituary. Journalistically others will do so. They will give you date of birth and date of death, background, education and achievements. As are their jobs. 

I will just start from this premise in remembering our late media cde James Jemwa. 

Many of us never remember the camera man. Or the photographer nor the producer. 

We tend to remember the verbal journalist in front of us. As important as the latter are. 

And we tend to easily forget the wholesome or even holistic nature of what journalism is and has always been. 

It is the sum total of multiple important parts. From production/ownership, to written words (print), static visuals (pictures), audios (radio) and audio-visuals (television/videos). Through to free expression. 

It also includes, as is now globally the case, cultural audio-visual productions as conveyed via the Internet on music, drama and podcasts in their various thematic forms. 

In fact all of these media forms even before Wi-Fi and the Internet expanded it's reach there was always a central player. Whether you were going to write about it (again print), broadcast it electronically (via radio or television) or put it on social media platforms (Facebook, X, Tiktock).

You were always going to need that brave, creative and in some parts arrogant camera-technician-journalist. 

And in Zimbabwe one of the foremost go to persons for this difficult role was always going to be the now late James Jemwa. 

When colleagues in Zimbabwe's media profession shared the sad news that he recently passed after a reported road traffic accident that occurred on Friday 19 September 2025 and that he succumbed to his injuries on early Saturday the next day many of us were shocked and emotionally devastating.

Many of us who had worked with him in direct journalism especially with international and local media electronic broadcasting houses, knew his professional mettle. His commitment to the 'story' if you agreed on its parameters and the necessary camera-work. (Including equipment issues). 

Others who worked with him on documentary, drama, music related cultural productions will attest to his easy progressive (he was not for sale even when broke) commitment (again) to the themes that they sought to convey to not only the Zimbabwean public but also globally. 

I know for a fact that he worked in all of these issues with multiple media stakeholders such as Al Jazeera, civil society organisations, nascent young activist organisations such as #ThisFlag , theater companies and incidentally also covering personal social events such as marriages and funerals. Be they political or deeply personal. And he also had disputes with some producers and celebrity journalists that he always preferred I should not mention. He would say "haisi hondo yako cde Zheng, regai tipedzerane" -It's not your war cde Zheng, we will finish it off without you"

His speciality was his digital camera. And how to manage angles, emphasis on visual points and how the optics were going to make sense to a person who was going to view the same much later. In his absence as a 'behind the scenes' person. And sometimes without accreditation or payment. 

He was what I personally considered the 'composite' journalist. He could do the filming, the editing and partly script writing across various audio visual media formats.

The only one thing he personally told me over a couple of beers at the now closed Quill Club at the Ambassador Hotel in central Harare was that he was terrible at print media. 

He said, "We leave that to you ana cde Zheng. Isu tiri vemafirimu nema camera. Imi nyorai" -(we are for filming and cameras, you should just write). 

And for that, following the audio visual media story emphasis of his journalism, he and cde Paidamoyo Muzulu as journalists they once got arrested and sent to remand prison for covering the demonstrations as led by the Dzamara brothers (in succession) at Africa Unity Square. 

It was the advocacy and legal work of organisations such as Misa-Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and many others that got them bail and eventually acquitted. 

I am sure those that they were with him during the arrest and detention such as Promise Mkwananzi can better attest to that repressive experience and their liberatory role in it. 

When I last met him earlier this year in the company of our shared cde Paidamoyo Muzulu he, as is the case now with many journalists,formally employed or freelancing, was lamenting the poverty stricken state of the profession.

And tasked us all in that conversation with seeking a holistically progressive way forward. One that not only remembers the importance of  journalism as a profession with fair wages but more importantly it's important role in a democratic Zimbabwe. 

After that we laughed about how he was the first to make me have a YouTube video and how he had generally tried to encourage others to do the same. 

He argued that this was the future of sustainable journalism. Where print could not do without audio-visuals and the latter could not do without professionalism. 

Then we had a couple of beers and he had to catch a kombi to Mfombi (Mufakose). It was getting late, zvikanzi 'regai ndirove pasi macde'

May his soul rest in peace and may his family be comforted in these difficult times. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity

Racism is No Longer Whispering in the UK

By Takura Zhangazha*

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) recently witnessed at least 100 000 anti-immigration demonstrators in central London. This was at a rally titled “Unite the Kingdom.”

Having lived briefly in Edinburgh, Scotland (which is still part of the UK) I had sometimes witnessed such events around anti-immigration sentiment.  But being back home in Africa, I had never witnessed the same at such a ridiculous scale. 

The numbers alone were astounding.  Never mind the messages about what the protest leaders were referring to among other things as “re-emigration”.   Or simply put their desire to have immigrants to their country deported back to where they originally came from. En masse. 

Obviously this is not going to happen in the short term.  But as a Zimbabwean and knowing a great deal about our own Diaspora (Diaspimbi) there, I was not only worried but shocked at the levels of racist hate that was spewed at the march.  And in empathy, I felt that this is now a different UK. 

This was also something I had some private social media conversations with colleagues that are based there.  They assured me that it was a ‘once-off’ demonstration and that they are relatively safe.  Mainly because of where they stay and that in general its not really expected to be that far reaching. 

In responding to this perception, my guiding principle was that one cannot cry more than the bereaved.   They know their circumstances and understand the racial nuances of the march much better than I can.  Not only because they live there but also because there is no black Zimbabwean in the Diaspimbi in the global north who has not experienced racism.  Be it at work or in their social lives.

But to have it so loud and so brazen in a multi-cultural city such as London was a bit of a shock. Even in the aftermath of the reprehensive shooting of a conservative influencer in the United States of America (USA) Charles Kirk.  And while that country’s president, Donald Trump, has been busy accusing the ideological left of fermenting political violence.  While doing so himself. 

What is apparent is that we need to discuss more seriously the emerging nodes of racism that are happening in the global north against people of colour.  And in particular against people that are considered black. 

This must be done in at least three parts. 

The first being that we have to acknowledge our own geo-political-economic and social complicity in the re-emergence of this racism in European and North American capitals. And I hate to say this. 

Historically, after the advent of colonialism we have, as Africans, been in awe of the lure of the global north and its colonial capitals (London included). We have been drawn to these like moths to the candle light.   Both as part of the legacy of colonialism and its political economy as well as part of our own inferiority complexes that for example Franz Fanon and Steve Biko aptly described in their works over and about anti-colonialism/racism.

In the second instance, as Africans we are now faced with a cultural struggle to liberate our minds in the contemporary.  I am making this point on the basis of the fact that in that anti-immigration rally in the UK, there were people of colour that were clearly for the racist narratives.  I am not sure for what reasons but their presence merely reflected not only a desire to belong and escape their realities but also their cultural naivety.  Or even their fealty to the hegemonic narratives of being ‘othered’ and therefore wanting to belong more than the owners of the narratives and the countries in which they want to be found in. 

In this we need to realize, as Africans that unless we discuss the lure of the global north and internally deal with our own challenges of poverty and unemployment for young people this will be a perennial reality. Moreso if we do not deal with the evident desire of many young Africans to leave the continent for Europe or the Americas via either the Sahel, the Mediterranean sea or the Atlantic ocean.  

We are in a very difficult situation in which our own people do not have confidence in their own countries offering them better lives.  Even without understanding the colonial legacies of capitalism and how it still relies on migration and its bright lights syndrome that we learnt of in geography classes.

We need to ‘look deep in our hearts’ as the great Lesotho band “Sankomota” once sang, and realize that racism as it is occurring against black and brown colleagues in the global north, is also a result of our desires to want to be there.  

With a false assumption that there is a ‘universal equality’ of all human beings. That myth has been debunked by this age of Trumpism wherein we are now being made aware of our African status in world affairs after South African president Cyril Ramaphosa’s visit to the White House. 

In the third instance we need to remember that progressive global solidarity remains important.  Beyond race and racism.   I know a great many number of progressive comrades and colleagues from the global north.  They are in what can be deemed an existential crisis where they are also struggling to understand this emerging racism in their societies of origin. Almost like asking themselves, "How did we get here?" With their stronger rightwing governments (apart from Spain).

Be they religious or secular ideologues.  But they have to deal with their emergent forms of domestic/nationalist populism based on either race or re-affirmations of national belonging.  Which include racist notions of ‘othering’.

What is apparent from the UK’s “Unite the Kingdom” rally and its thousands of supporters is that the internal racial dynamics of our former colonial power have significantly changed. Even if we assume these are temporary but they are increasingly real in the media, social media and everyday lived experiences.

Race and racism are regrettably back in the fore of global consciousness.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chinese are Not Going Away Anytime Soon in Zimbabwe. They Do Not Have To.

By Takura Zhangazha*

A cde recently argued about how China is taking all of Zimbabwe’s mineral wealth from the country.  Inter alia mentioning the major mining projects that China and its private companies have invested in Zimbabwe.  These include the Manhize iron mining and steel production company which is now referred to as the Dinson Iron and Steel Company (DISCO).  The cde went further and cited other mining initiatives such as the Bikita Lithium mining company (Sinomone Bikita) and others in Penhalonga or Shurugwi.

These conversations occurred against the backdrop of an invitation to Zimbabwe’s current president Emmerson Mnangagwa for an 80^th anniversary commemoration of the Chinese defeat of the Japanese at the height of the second world war. 

And it is fair to argue around the fact of the closeness of the Zimbabwean government to China.  

In the contemporary, it’s a relationship that is frowned upon because of specific global narratives against China and its economic rise.  Let alone assumption of its 'communism' and attempt at what it refers to as a ‘multi-polar’ world order.  

But when you put this into perspective, Zimbabwe’s relationship with China is much deeper than the mainstream media puts out. Both state media or private media.

China is historically a revolutionary society.  Internally and globally.   From their long drawn wars against the Kuomintang, the Japanese and eventual victory of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) there are elements of revolutionary praxis that can be drawn from them.  Even if you did not ideologically want to.   As Zimbabweans we are in debt to them for the lessons they taught us about ‘guerilla warfare’ in tandem with what then appeared as convoluted 5 year national development programmes.

In the late 1980s we were also beholden to the fact of how phenomenal national development can take place in a neo-liberal global economic context. Inclusive of the re-drawing of the lines between the role of the state and private capital in national and global economic development. 

In this, and between the lines, it is not so easy to see a new narrative about the role of a centrist state in tandem with global and financialised capital.  As it is linked mainly to China or by relative default the very profit motivated global north financialised private capital.  

That’s the catch for the ruling Zanu Pf party.  They have a relatively clear (though factionalised) ideological assumption that they can mimic the Chinese economic development model.  They even have both the financial and political investment to match it.  Hence we are there at the 80^th anniversary celebrations in China this week. 

But it is a mimicry that comes with political and economic costs.

Politically it means that the ruling Zanu Pf party cannot lose power in the long term.  The heavy investments that the Chinese have made in mining, energy and infrastructural development need to be politically protected.  This can only be done if the primary political partner (Zanu PF) retains political power.   This also indicates that our politics while purporting to be about democratic elections every five years are beholden to Chinese economic interests in Zimbabwe.  

As was the case in the early 1980s with British private capital and its London-Rhodesia (LONRHO) interests when it directly affected the Lancaster House conference resolutions on private property (land) and also ensured we had neoliberal finance minsters during the times of Economic structural Adjustment Programmes (ESAPs) in the late 80s and through the 1990s. 

Now most of us are wont to accuse the Chiense of a new form of imperialism.  Akin to the global Western superpowers. 

At the risk of appearing as though I am doing some public relations for Chinese foreign policy, I would quickly argue that this is patently untrue.  Chinese foreign policy functions on a clearly different terrain. 

And it is also embedded in a majority of African countries’ liberation history.  Like with the West, it is now increasingly business and profit motivated.  But less financially and materially extractive unless you will it to do so as a sovereign country.  But it listens more than it extracts.  Except that it listens to governments and analyses their global placement in a global political economy. 

Hence China (and Russia) stuck by Zimbabwe when we were supposed to be placed under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions in July 2008.  Something that I will always repeat that we quite literally dodged a bullet because of them during an age of a Blair-Bush led era of global liberal-military interventionism in the affairs of UN member states.

As was the case in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Venezuela.

But we need to bring the debate to its local context.   Many Zimbabweans have a xenophobic tendency against the Chinese.  Almost as though they would prefer the British or Americans being the ones setting up major mining or infrastructural investments in the country. 

The reality of the matter is that the Chinese are more grounded in their investments.  Even if we accuse them of a multitude of environmental degradation issues or cross-check their human rights records, they have a standing policy of non interference.  In other words, they simply listen to what your current or serving government wants in return for their investments. 

So if you are Zimbabwean and have a problem with the Chinese in your country, you probably have to take it up with the ruling government and party, Zanu Pf.   Because the Chinese do no listen to popular and populist protests. They only deal with your government.

And while doing so, always remembering that global economics in the moment is also about ‘narratives’ that pit the 'global north’ versus the ‘global east'.  Moreso in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war and the ongoing genocide by Israel in Palestine. 

To conclude on a controversial point.  There is an assumption that many Zimbabweans hold that the Chinese are ‘bad’ investors in Zimbabwe due to their proximity to the ruling Zanu Pf party.  This is a mistaken view.  The Chinese are here to measure and get results for their primary economic and political interests.  They are not as imperialistic as their counterparts from the global west because of our limited but shared struggle against colonialism history.

So it matters that we understand more ourselves than we do the Chinese.  Or the Americans, British or the Europeans and what we want from them within our on cultural, economic and ideological ambits.  But for now, I do not fault the Chinese. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his own personal capacity.

 

 

  

 

 

Leading Via Organic, Progressive Values Not Educational Populism in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There has been a little bit of social media banter about the professions that populate our Zimbabwean and African politics at its most executive decision making levels.  With some of the same said banter arguing that we have too many legal professionals in our top executive government leadership.   While on the opposite side of the relatively populist debate is that if we had for example ‘engineers’ (of all types) in charge of our governments, we would easily see faster implementation of development projects and the betterment of the livelihood of the people.

Mainly because ‘engineers' are deemed to be more pragmatic, even mathematical in solving specific problems afflicting our societies. Be it in the form of infrastructural rehabilitation or even in some cases the militarization by army engineering corps of health or transport services. 

I must confess that I was alerted to this debate by an engineering cde who is based in the Diaspora and is very passionate about Zimbabwe and its progressive future.   It had already been doing the rounds, as it turns out, via a blog he also shared title ‘Zimbabwe’s Lawyer Heavy Politics Not Good for Development’.  

It is not clear who wrote this particular article.  

But the article as its title suggests its main argument is to pit the legal profession against what are perceivably more pragmatic professions where and when it comes to governance of countries.  Something that dovetails almost too nicely with the new educational emphasis of many African governments around Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) syllabi frameworks. Not only for educational purposes but also for preferred leadership purposes.

There are however at least two sides to political leadership.  There is the ideological or value based side. And then there is the administrative and technical or administrative side.  Both work in tandem. But with the ideological/values based element being in charge. 

Almost like we used to argue during our own liberation struggle about the politics leading the gun.  Because you cannot fire a gun without a cause.  You cannot fight for the sake of fighting without a justiciable or even popular cause. 

Nor can you establish a rules based system for legal professionals or lawyers without an underpinning value system. One that may recognize human rights as is legally but not pragmatically the case in Zimbabwe.  While expecting those read in the rules to be the only ones best at either implementing or interpreting the same said rules.  

For a clear example of this one just needs to just crosscheck the USA and Trump’s administration of justice and how it is disrupting long held democratic value systems.  To the extent that it is now a society now arguably ruled by fear of what the government will do next via executive order.  Even if their president is not even a lawyer.

So the argument about the background professional qualifications of a president or prime minster may be populist in nature but it does not really matter.   In fact it should not matter.  

But what I consider relatively abstract and populist social and other media conversations make it matter.  Including particular competitive economic interests for state power to enable self-enrichment at the expense of a majority poor. 

These interests include private capital, religious sectors, self regulating professional associations (lawyers, nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, labour unions and even makorokoza or others 4ED, women’s and youth groups that all want a specific narrative about ‘qualified’ leadership. One that suits their peculiar material and political interests.

So leadership is not as simple as is being made out on social media banter.  Be it between engineers and lawyers.  Or even as is the case in the current Zanu Pf party where its being regarded as ‘our generational turn’ to be at the top of the table between nationalist, militarily trained nationalists, pure guerillas and subsequently ex-detainees of the Zimbabwean liberation struggle. 

Or in the opposition political circles where religion and messianic tendencies gained un-politically believable ascendency.  Much to the destruction of the opposition where you had well known lawyers and engineers falling into a valueless trap of ‘cultism’ in order to either become a president, member of parliament or councilor. Something that still obtains today. 

But back to my Diaspora based engineering cde and I.  The issue of the professional background of a political leader is important in its own electability right.  Adding a prefix like Dr. or Engineer, Reverend or LLB to your electoral ballot and rally name helps you win votes.  It is however not the sum total of leadership.

What matters the most is the underlying value system of your politics and its relevant or organic historicity to the existence of the country.  Hence we talk of the now both historical and proverbial ‘struggle’.   For example while revered national heroes such as Chitepo were lawyers they knew the fundamentals of the struggle beyond the legal skills they had acquired.  They wanted the independence and freedom of all Zimbabweans from a very political angle that eventually ended up being a long drawn guerilla war.  With their say so.  As illegal in then Rhodesia as it was.

Even in post indepedence Zimbabwe, we had many technocrats trained in the global east running government departments including the late national hero Chidzero whose expertise regrettably missed the historicity of ‘gutsaruzhinji’ and introduced the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) that decimated local production and caused severe poverty among the people.  A development that led to the reawakening of Tsvangirai (a miner) led Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).   

For brevity I will not delve into the formation of the MDC against such a rich organic historical background in the labour movement of Zimbabwe since at least 1948.

It is however important to indicate that the issue of qualifications in political leadership is not a new phenomenon.  It is both colonial, anti-colonial and post-colonial. The more educated you were the more likely you were to end up in some political leadership role. 

The question that emerged was who were you leading for?  Were you going to be a Muzorewa (a bishop), a Chirau (a chief), or a Mugabe (teacher and lawyer).  

Or alternatively were you going to be like the agronomist Amilcar Cabral and lead for the people?  Or Samora Machel the nurse and again lead for the people?  

Or Julius Nyerere, a teacher, Mwalimu and lead the whole continent together with the lawyer Kwame Nkrumah? This is before I mention Mbeki the economist and his dream of an African Renaissance or Thomas Sankara, a soldier, and his brave Pan Africanism.

You see cdes, leadership is not about where you went to school.  Or how much you ‘engineered’ or ‘lawyered’ up. 

It is about your values, the values and fundamental ideology of the organization that you are leading and its progressive acceptance of those by the masses of Zimbabwe.   Always therefore, in political  leadership, ask yourself the questions, ‘Who are you leading for? Yourself? Acceptance by the global North and global Capital?  Or the people? ”

And most importantly, “Why?” In that way you establish an organic value system beyond your education certificate that you most likely acquired from a university or college run by your previous oppressors.

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

 

 

  

 

 

 

The Fluidity of Contemporary African Religion/Historical Spirituality, Class Division, Materialism in Zimbabwe

 By Takura Zhangazha*

 At one point in my activist life I was accused of ‘not being on the ground’.  

This was an accusation based on a perception that progressive political activism always required having a physical ear on the needs of the people by regularly attending community meetings/events and travelling the length and breadth of the country. Almost in a generic sense. 

I took up the challenge and travelled across many rural, urban and peri-urban areas across the country.  

Sometimes deliberately and in most cases by invitation by education and community health workers.

From Mudzi to Wedza, Bikita, Uzumba-Marangwa-Pfungwe through to Gwanda, Bikita, Chivi, Chipinge, Chiredzi, Bulawayo, Hwange, Victoria Falls, Mutoko, Wedza, Chikomba, Mashava, Zaka, Gutu,  Guruve, Mahuhwe, Mushumbi, Thsolotsho, Lupane, Gokwe and others that I cannot mention in this write up.  Though I must be honest that the only place in Zimbabwe I have never physically been to is Beitbridge. 

 So in taking up the challenge of ‘being on the ground’ as given by the populist comrades we had in our midst there are certain things that came to my personal realization. 

These included the fact that their populist predisposition was a myth.   It was unstructured and unrelated to their lived or desired political experiences.  And I am being very polite here.   It mixed as is the subject of this brief write up, religion, politics, materialism and a specific carryover of an emergent African spirituality as it related to the aforementioned three elements.  It however always forgot ‘class’ and the ‘class structure’ of postcolonial Zimbabwean society. 

It was essentially a reductionist argument.  Or to simplify it further, one that sought to make sure intellectual engagement was to worship at the altar of what was basically political populism. 

All within the ambit of a drawn out newer cross generational understanding of the meaning of post- independence democracy in Zimbabwe.  As it mixes together with liberation struggle historical recognition and global hegemonic counter-narratives to anti-colonialism that are now embodied in the new cold war between the USA as it pits itself against China and Russia in an expanded neoliberal and again global economic order. 

But over the last half year it is relatively clear to see where Zimbabwean politicians and political culture are blurring the lines between religion/spirituality, materialism and default economic class designations.  And I am making this argument in a Marxian and Fanonist sense. 

Our current politicians while touting both liberation and post-colonial struggle histories have by default (that is without organic strategy) decided to steer our national consciousness toward faith, money/ materialism (or desire for money) and by dint of the same, inferiority complexes that come with both.

This includes creating a false political culture around what it means to be a successful Zimbabwean while the majority others are suffering and blaming it on them for not being ‘tenderpreneurs’.  Or not being connected enough to the ruling establishment including not being opportunistic enough to ensure a political seat at the official opposition table where your material needs and gaps are covered. Individually.

But the fluidity of religion/spirituality , class and materialism is somewhat worrying in Zimbabwe. 

Whereas Fanon would have warned against a comprador bourgeoisie (middle class) or Marx warned against misunderstanding global capitalism. Or Nkrumah warning against what he referred to as ‘Neocolonialism, The Last stage of Imperialism”   With all of them warning us of its historical political, economic and social after effects, inclusive of what in our case are its apparent contradictions. 

I will give an anecdote for this point.  If you are Zimbabwean, have you ever asked yourself a question about why we have an ease to material cruelty?  As we link it with either a religious way of life or an assumption of economic success? 

The answer lies in the fact of the fluidity that we have come to accept between religion, politics and wrongly ignoring specific class differences as determined by global capitalism.  And refusing to overcome them.  

Instead we seek to mimic them. 

It is a post-colonial generational fault that I often discuss with comrades.  Something that I refer to as a ‘climbing the colonial mimicry ladder’ approach to our Zimbabwean society.  

As based on our own parents aspirations as they got mainstreamed into colonial/ postcolonial education and production political economies. On this one I hope we all remember the Native Labour Associations that formed our contemporary townships, even as they are now expanded in the same historical formats.

Let me also use a religious allegory for this. Have you ever noticed at least two things about religious services in Zimbabwe?  The first is that those that are well to do or politically ambitious/connected have the time of the preacher/priest/pastor/prophet/ mudzidzi?  And that in tandem they tend to give the impression that they completely agree with the religious dispositions of those that they are allowed to address? 

While at the same time giving out messages of economic and cross-class promises of wealth.

And this is my final point on the issue of the fluidity of religion, spirituality, class and materialism.   There is a false assumption that we are all equal in a patently unequal society based on the four aforementioned points.

What has been happening in reality is the blurring of economic class lines by religion and politics.  Wherein our people are falsely motivated to assume they are in a religiously equitable society in order to hide the wealth of those that are at the economic top of the table.  Not in a Marxian sense (opium of the people).  Instead in a fluid methodology of mixing everything up in populist political culture that Fanon would have frowned upon.    

Go ahead, eat, pray, believe, vote as is your right. But you have to also learn to understand your own society better, more critically.  Nothing is at it seems.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity.

 

 

 

 

Zimbabwe’s Own Factionalized Mafia: A Symbiosis of Politics and Business as Profit.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

When the political slogan, “The ease of doing business” emerged from the ranks of a post 2017 coup-not-a coup Zanu Pf many progressive Zimbabwe activists assumed it was a wrong and unacceptable ideological neoliberal disposition.  One which we also regularly sought to argue against but with limited impact because of the euphoric tendencies of political change processes.  Especially after the fall of Robert Mugabe in November 2017. 

This essentially meant that the not so new political leaders of Zimbabwe could claim a new clean slate as to how to run the country post Mugabe.  Their argument being that we were now in what they referred to as the “Second Republic of Zimbabwe”.  A quasi revolutionary term that was meant to signify a new beginning. 

With the full knowledge of the popularity of any post Mugabe dispensation in its infancy. Mnangagwa’s new government made sure to court the international community by almost immediately cancelling the then national indigenization economic policy and promising a review of its relations with former white commercial farmers.  It also sought to assuage any fears from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) of any further political instability. 

With the promise that there would not be another ‘coup-not-a-coup’ if elections were held as scheduled in 2018. And if they were also recognized as legitimate by the same said regional body. 

With Zanu Pf’s contested but eventually internationally accepted 2018 electoral victory there was a revived pathway for a new reconfiguration of Zimbabwe’s political economy.  That is, a changing of the guard of our country’s national political economy.  Inclusive of a payback checklist as to who should be rewarded with portions of the national political-economic cake.

And this was initially done in elitist fashion and diligently  with large scale Chinese investment projects that were partly carry overs from the previous government but were immediately expedited. 

Or Russian and Eastern European mining, agricultural, transport and other concessions that would indicate to them that they were key priority countries’ in a different and less ideological  Zimbabwean foreign policy trajectory. 

Together with the urgency of courting our former colonial power the United Kingdom (UK) to take a softer economic stance toward Zimbabwe and its again not so new post Mugabe leaders over and about individual or state related enterprises and their sanctions. 

The intention of all of these actions was to create what I consider an optimum economic environment that would facilitate as they sloganeered the 'ease of doing business' in Zimbabwe.   

This meant assuring local white and its linked indigenous private capital that the new government was not going to interfere directly in their everyday profit motivated activities. 

An assurance that also went further with black private and state capital that they would not have any problems linking up with globalized financialized capital be it in mining, agriculture, education, tourism currency exchanges and property development.  Hence the overture of seeking to compensate former white commercial farmers and urgently meet the grievances of Bilateral  Investment and Protection Agreements (BIPPAs) that had been abandoned under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).

This also meant creating new opportunities for local, indigenous businesses that are linked to the ruling Zanu Pf party as a means of creating a nascent business motivated/ comprador bourgeoisie that would benefit from an open ended ‘free market’ economic environment.  As long as they can and could acquire mining permits, link up with palatable foreign investors from the global West or the East or even the global center (Middle East). 

With the firm understanding that so long you do not cross the current government’s hairs you are guaranteed safety and security of business tenure. Whether you are a local investor or an internationally based one.

The problem that is increasingly evident is that this ‘optimum’ environment for investment that I have referred to earlier requires politics.   And in particular  the politics of Zanu Pf as the ruling party.   As accompanied by ingratiation to its key power holders as well as brokers. 

Within an ambit of playing emergent succession factions against the other in Zanu Pf. Wherein proximity to power is most evidently a methodology of accessing wealth. Or at least protection of acquired wealth. Or even in some cases being able to transfer wealth to other international financial and economic hubs. Out of national sight and mind.  

I will explain this further.  

The factionalism within Zanu Pf, be it via the war veterans as led by Blessed Geza and his accusations of ‘zvigananda’.  

Or those that are serving in central government that are touting a term extension of Mnangagwa’s current term of office by two years from 2028 to 2030. 

And also those that are evidently part of supporting deputy president Chiwenga in seeking his eventual ascension to the presidential throne in Zanu Pf by the time they hold their 2027 elective congress.  

The central issue in all of these factional tendencies within Zanu Pf is the political economy and how to control it.  Together with private local and international capital.   So what we essentially have in Zimbabwe is a factionalised political and economic mafia.  

Where the state is split in two symbiotic ways.  Namely, the politicians accede to the demands of international financialised and local materialized private capital.  On the opposite side, where international financialised capital feeds the politicians their needs in order to retain their power via trickledown economics and personal aggrandizement.  Inclusive of assuming a political benevolence that we are witnessing today with either the donations of luxury vehicles, money and other forms of fixed property to celebrities and politicians.  

What I am certain we are seeing is the mustard seed of in Zimbabwe is a ‘symbiotic mafia state’   One in which politics meets business and agrees to work together. Be it in relation to factions (choosing sides) but more importantly profitability.  

Zanu PF’s succession battles as they are currently playing out reflect this.  There are those in charge of the politics. Then there are those in charge of the money.  They key question, if you are a Zanu Pf member/support, is on which side are you on. Not just for the elections but within the matrix that is the new mafia symbiosis of our national political economy.

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