Electricity Cuts, Lifestyles and Modified Behaviour in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Electricity and access to it is a big issue in Zimbabwe at the moment.  Not least by admission of our own government but more importantly by the lived realities of many urban based Zimbabweans, civil service workers, social service providers, informal traders and formal or informal private business owners. I have mentioned ‘urban’ Zimbabweans because that is where the medium and commodity that is electricity is most used, most craved and because of low connectivity to the national power grid in rural areas, most needed.

So understandably emotive urban conversations about power cuts are focused on determining (as with every other problem the country has) what the cause of the heavy load shedding is.   The reasons range from allegations of corruption about alternative energy supply tenders (Wicknell Chivayo and cohorts), connected politicians and actors’ inability to pay humongous energy bills, the shortage of water in Kariba, inefficiency at the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) and most significantly, the inability or refusal of consumers to pay for electricity. 

The cabinet minister responsible for the supply of electricity, Fortune Chasi,  has already indicated that he is of the firm persuasion that people must pay their debts toZESA. 

In other relatively privileged conversations, not so influential persons have strongly recommended in tandem with the intentions of government that electricity tariffs will eventually have to increase for domestic household and commercial users.

Some informal elitist opinion would immediately point to the possibility that those who can pay should be able to do so as long the commodity is available.  In fact, one of the elitist jokes doing the rounds is that ‘it is no longer pragmatic to pay a Multi Choice digital satellite television monthly subscription if there’s no electricity?’ Or alternatively, it is better to pay in order to get the commodity that is electricity to be available to you personally. Never mind those that cannot afford because for our elites, it would be assumed to be better if they were off the grid altogether!

With an ever expanding urban population, electricity supply was always going to be a major problem for Zimbabwe.  And not only just because of the demographics but also the changing use and need for electricity.  New(ish) gadgets such as the ubiquitous (smart) mobile phone, laptop, smart television, digital decoders, wireless network routers, the need for internet access and rechargeable audio speakers, everyday electricity use was always going to rise spectacularly.

These examples of electric gadgets are not just for the sake of tech-savvy perceptions of the same.  They are reflective of a changing Zimbabwean (urban and peri-urban) lifestyles.  Even if one cannot really afford some of the gadgets, the intention is to own or share one laptop, mobile money phone and (bar-stool) football match motivated satellite TV decoder.  

For mobile telecommunications companies (MTCs)  power cuts as evidenced by a recent glitch in connectivity for Zimbabwe’s largest one, Econet,  the electricity shutdowns also have  as serious dent on profit and reputation. Even though the most affected by the latter is the small to medium enterprise that relies heavily for example, on mobile phone money transactions.  So where there’s no readily accessible electric power, there is basically no individual happiness of access to social media but more importantly limitations to accessing private profit (with some sort of state tax) on the basis of a keen desire by many Zimbabweans to be ‘online’. 

Or in the case of political activists of any hue, there is potentially no capacity to mobilise via social media for assumedly urgent political causes.  A development that would no doubt be welcome to either the ministry of home affairs, the police and domestic or other ‘intelligence’ agencies.  The key issue in this instance is that whereas in the last year we have had internet shutdowns, we now have electricity shutdowns. A situation in which the primary source of the medium (electricity) being the message is not just its content (social media) but its mechanism (again, electricity). 

What the last month of these severe power shortages in Zimbabwe also indicate is that electricity is not just an anticipated ‘medium’ or ‘commodity’ that enables a ‘normal’ literally powered (urban) existence but that it is now highly personal.  Almost to be popularly considered a private right more important than a number of others that would be less immediate or linked to technological or ‘modern’ aspects of our everyday lives.  Hence the scramble for options such as domestic solar energy, electric invertors and gas stoves, if you can afford any or all of the above.   Or alternatively to ask the ‘urbane’ question, if you don’t have electricity and what it allows you to access, what else can you have?

And there’s the rub.  The Zimbabwean government has embarked on a default privatization of access to electricity that most of us do not see out of desperation for the commodity.  By the same default, they have come to control what we can access on social media and mobilise for when our mobile phone batteries are flat or the MTCs have run out of petroleum gas or solar power fuel to keep their base stations operational.

Even if we are sometimes in the right loop about solar energy and mitigating climate change, which factually we, in the global south and in Zimbabwe have contributed an almost negligible amount to be accused of having significantly caused by way of our economic or social activities.   

So our electricity crisis puts us as Zimbabweans at a difficult standpoint.  None of us in urban or rural areas want to miss out on the ‘bright lights’ but we may miss out on how the same was used to help determine our expectations of what it is to live among the ‘enlightened’. With a fully charged mobile phone battery, a private hospital that’s got a backup system for electric power and a landlord with an inverter. We will suffer and we will hopefully continue.

By the time our local minister of energy gets to a relative comfort zone of declaring a normalcy of supply of domestic and industrial electrical energy, we will still have to first ask ourselves the questions of how do we charge our mobile phones, exchange mobile money or watch television and have lighting in our domestic functions if we do not have money.  Hence in some circles the debate is ‘if you cannot pay, you do not get.’ The latter being a casual turn of phrase that is for the few, not the many, despite our expanding urban demographic.

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

Considerations on Zimbabwe’s Future

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s future is rarely discussed in holistic terms in everyday conversations.  This is because the future is always in the immediate.  This may appear contradictory or even complex but it is reflected in the everyday struggles of Zimbabweans to make the proverbial dollar out of fifteen (15) cents. It is almost as though our national mindset is now auto-tuned to what I will call ‘short-termism’.  That is, an approach to our political and economic existence that emphasizes the immediate as opposed to the future. 

In this, an immediate follow up question would be, what has caused this ‘short-termism’.  The answers are varied and in most cases highly politicized.  They range from blaming the ruling Zanu Pf party’s fast track land reform programme (FTLRP) for ruining the national economy and good governance.  Through to sanctions, corruption, hyperinflation and of late the decision by the government to abandon the use of multiple currencies in favour of the return of the Zimbabwe dollar. 

Whatever reason one chooses, it is also apparent that there is a lot of public anger/angst at the present political-economic situation.  And where there’s anger, there is also a search for some sort of catharsis or a moment of immediate relief. Hence in some cases anger is shown via public demonstrations or strident, rhetorical and in some cases violent language on the streets of social media. 

What is however more complex is a systematic and ideological understanding of how Zimbabwe got here in the first place.  Even after the departure of Mugabe and the introduction of what has come to be dubbed the ‘new dispensation’ of his successor Emmerson Mnangagwa.

The arguable reality of the matter is that the country has come full circle from radical nationalism (under Mugabe) to moderate neoliberalism (under the inclusive government) to full scale neoliberalism (under Mnangagwa. 

It is the latter’s policies and ideological model that matters the most in any discussions about Zimbabwe’s short and long term future.  Mnangagwa’s tight embrace of the free market and cosying up to global capital through his promotion of the ‘ease of doing business’ is the base that helps us outline what is in store for Zimbabwe’s political economy.

In relation to the political and most times politicized future, the economic ideological base that is neoliberalism will require Zimbabwe’s political institutions and practices to pass the test of ‘international standards.’  Basically our electoral processes and systems together with the functions of the three main arms of government- the executive, the judiciary and the legislature will be more regularly subject to measurement by regional, continental and global institutions and treaties.  

This does not mean they will strictly adhere to these standards but Mnangagwa’s government will most certainly do some serious public relations on that front.  Hence even after the ‘coup-not-a-coup’ the ruling Zanu Pf party went ahead with calling for elections with the primary objective of ‘international legitimacy’ which with the benefit of hindsight, they appear to have acquired.  

This however means that the art and meaning of politics in Zimbabwe will be highly ‘performative’ and populist, especially in the run up to constitutionally anticipated elections.  Politics will be undertaken in order to satisfy the basic expectations of a hegemonic neoliberal audience and global capital. Not necessarily the people.  The latter, it is hoped by Mnangagwa and his supporters will benefit by way of an anticipated ‘trickle-down’ effect of a ‘free market’ political economy.

Where we examine what possibilities lie ahead with the national economy, it is much clearer to explain.  The Zimbabwe government has declared itself as pro-private capital and the free market.  Its economic policies increasingly also indicate so as outlined in its Transitional Stabilisation Programme (TSP). 

This essentially means the future holds a host of realities that range from eventual privatization of state assets/entities, the expansion of the private sector into social service delivery also known as public-private partnerships and the reduction of the regulatory role of government in the economy/market.  So those that will bear the brunt of ‘austerity’ are ordinary working people of Zimbabwe.  Costs of goods and services will definitely become unaffordable to many.  The priority will remain private capital in servitude to what many an economic pundit and the World Bank or IMF will approve as global best practices of ‘emerging economies’.   Economic benevolence will however be shown during electoral periods in order to curry favour with voters. 

This brings us to the third consideration on the future of Zimbabwe, namely its social environment.  Over the years and as a direct result of attendant political-economic hardships endured by a majority of people, Zimbabwe has become a highly individualistic society.  For students of global political economy this is arguably a result of neoliberal economic policies that deliberately focus on the individual and the market.  

In Zimbabwe’s case, the breakdown of social services and abandonment of the welfare system under Robert Mugabe’s tutelage and now being followed through by his successor has meant that socially Zimbabweans focus on their individual and immediate needs for everyday social services.  This tendency toward individualism has also been strengthened by a global consumerist culture for goods and services that again, focus on the individual. Hence many young Zimbabweans are always seeking out ways and means to emigrate to countries that can make their individual lives ‘better’.

This is a trend that is least likely to dissipate in the near or distant future.  For collective perceptions of reality, citizens will continue to turn to religion for a sense of self-worth and belonging.  Especially those religions that emphasize wealth individual wealth accumulation. 

To conclude, I will revert back to my opening line on how for many Zimbabweans, the future is in the immediate and not in the long term.  And as I have argued in later paragraphs, this future is perceived in highly individualistic ways.  In order to get out of such a future we will have to learn to always think about the bigger ideological future as a whole and seek pragmatic ways to try and ensure it is people centered, welfarist and fully considers those that will come after us.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity. This article first appeared on Zimbabwe's factchecking website zimfact.org  More of his writings can be found @ takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com

Magaya Abuse Allegations and Evils of Commodifying the Female Body

 *By Takura Zhangazha

A local weekly, the Sunday Mail newspaper recently carried a very disturbing story on allegations of sexual abuse of female worshippers by well-known clergyman Walter Magaya.   Titled, ‘Magaya Bombshell’ the story gave accounts of some of the worshippers and how they were either victims or witness to the alleged sexual abuse.  One of the victims also claimed that ‘…the police were compromised and so were most of the journalists…’  so recourse to the law or the court of public opinion was by implication, difficult. 

After the story had been published, social media also had its say on the allegations.  And one of the alleged victims cited in the Sunday Mail’s story took to Facebook to accuse the paper and journalist who broke the story of ‘using her’ to fix the clergyman.  The newspaper and its journalists in turn released video snippets of the alleged victim’s interview and promised a follow up story in its next print edition. 

In one of the videos shared by the paper, the victim makes reference to Magaya having given her US$1500 in fifty dollar notes and how she had knelt down in gratitude, a point I will come back to later. 

This particular story has caused a lot of debate on social media probably because of the popularity/populism of the celebrity religious pastor involved.  And with all matters religious the debate has focused more on the (im)morality of the figure in question. Together with the societal behavior influence he yields as a result of his ministry and his wealth.

Across the Atlantic, a billionaire financier and friend of a former and a serving American president, Jeffrey Epstein was recently arrested and faces charges of sex trafficking. For more than ten years Epstein had been accused of sexually abusing minor girls. He had even managed to strike a deal with prosecutors that stopped a federal investigation into the allegations.  Using money and probably political connections he had been almost immune from indictment.  At least as reported in American media, he will be put to his defence in that country’s judicial system. 

I have cited the allegations against Magaya and Epstein in tandem because they have a number of things in coomon.  Even if one is a clergyman and the other a billionaire financier.  The first common factor in the allegations is the alleged use of money to either pay off the abused or to lure them into abuse.  Epstein reportedly paid his victims ‘hundreds of dollars’.  Magaya reportedly offered US$1500 prior to the abuse.  It would almost be as though the fact that they have money would justify their actions. 

This is where the evil (I use this word deliberately) of the commodification of the female body comes into the picture. 

One of Magaya’s alleged victims describes the scene in which she received money as having knelt before him crying with gratitude.  It’s not difficult to picture the power dynamics at play here: standing ‘prophet’+ money and a kneeling vulnerable woman.  The assumption of power and the right of exchange is entirely with the money giver.  And the female body here is the designated/arbitrarily valued commodity. 

The same with Epstein who not only allegedly paid his victims but also recruited them to recruit others, that is to become commodities that lure other commodities. 

While we have to defer to due legal process the allegations are therefore a reflection of the tragic circumstances in which many young and economically vulnerable young women find themselves.  

But these two cases are the direct result of a neo-liberal global political-economic system that creates powerful men who live as though they are above the law and can purchase anything they want because they have money. And making this appear to be as normal as it can be.  In most cases such individuals function with an impunity garnered either from political protection, instilling fear in alleged victims and ensuring they avoid the glare of the media using either, again, money or influencing media owners. 

On the latter point of avoiding the public glare, it is also significant that they also seek to influence public opinion.  In the case of Magaya and judging by some social media responses, it is clear that members of his church are keen on defending him. In doing so they cast aspersions on the alleged victim’s credibility or morality.  Or they may get the alleged victims to retract previous statements published or given to the mainstream media. And because for many Zimbabweans, money, particularly, the $US, is a fetish in and of itself, the transaction between the alleged abuser and the abused makes the story one of morality than it would be of a crime. 

Again we must ask ourselves what causes such vulnerability of young women to predators.  It is largely the political, economic and cultural system as a whole.  Economic in the sense of high levels of poverty and exclusion from mainstream opportunity for young women and men that come from lower but quantitatively larger economic classes. Political in the sense that this system is nurtured by a neo-liberal, highly individualistic consensus between holders of political power and those that own capital (money). None wants to bring the other to account because of what appears to be a mutually beneficial relationship. 

Cultural in relation to how it mixes religion with monetary, lifestyle and even sexual desire.  Neo-liberalism has created a very strong culture of individualism in Zimbabwe and beyond.  And these individuals have aspirations of ownership and lifestyles that they may never be in a position to acquire in reality.  Even if they try the  route of the promises of prophets and their hedonistic churches.  Or even via access to the wealthy elite (normally politicians and connected owners of big business or state tenders) who equally wield such power over young Zimbabweans. All they see is what they envy, the power of it. Hence the limited public outcry or the satirical social media banter over such allegations. 

But more regrettably, as a final point, there are some (young and old) who would envy such power or are assiduously working to acquire it. 

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

Zim Political Opinion: Source, Recipient and a Return to Class.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Acquaintances of mine are in the regular habit of asking me a broad but utterly unanswerable (emotive) question.  Every other time we meet up they may ruefully and after a couple of potshots at the current government ask, ‘What is the future of this country?’  I have an answer that I now also routinely reply with, but I will give it at the end of this write up. 

The more significant point about my acquaintance’s question is that they ask it because they already have answers to it.  Hence in conversation, they already gives their generally cathartic take on the country’s economic state of affairs, offer one or two pro-business and pro-$US solutions that should, in their view, also protect their interests.  Both by way of the ability to make enough money to meet the requirements of increasingly consumerist lifestyles. 

And it is is all fair enough.  The political economy of Zimbabwe is such that opinions and perceptions of opinions really matter.  The key question is whose perceptions are these that appear to have a fairly strong grip on the urban and rural political psyche?

I mention urban and rural opinion as distinct because they indeed are somewhat different perception spaces.  Not least because of communications’ infrastructure but also the historical (and colonial) view of the urban as the more sophisticated and knowledgeable about what goes on in the (post-colonial) nation-state. A situation that still obtains in our contemporary times due to the urban centric reach and geographical preference of information communication technologies (ICTs), inclusive of mobile telephony and social media. 

Despite the geographical dimension to political opinion in Zimbabwe, that is to say, the urban citizen perceived as more enlightened due to its historical proximity to technology and the (former) colonial center than the rural, we will still need to answer key questions of current/contemporary motivations of the same.

Public and popular opinion in Zimbabwe is largely driven from a perception of what would be ‘knowledge’ or ‘education’.  Those that shape it in the immediate are publicly expected to be the most educated.  This is as historical a point as it applies to the contemporary. 

In the immediate post-independence era (the 1980s to be specific), it was the most educated, coming from the hearts of the global superpowers who were to determine what popular/populist public opinion would be.  Those educated in the global north and east at the height of the cold war would return home to become cabinet ministers or high level civil servants at the expense of those that were coming from the direct experience of the liberation struggle.  Marechera would write about this in his little known novella, The Black Insider. 

Hence we eventually had to contend with the relatively convoluted idea of the ‘one party state’ as well as economic structural adjustment as a battle of our public intellectuals come political leaders as they demonstrated their ideological loyalties.

The key point here was that there was an intellectual source for assumptions of progress as perceived by the public.  By the time we were into full-fledged economic liberalization via ESAP, again the public opinion followed that of the educated in the 1990s.  Until times became politically desperate and organized labor began to talk back to the received wisdom of the free market.  

Counter narratives to the latter emerged based on the fact that ESAP was not working and these came again from the intelligentsia.  Except that it was in two respects.  Labour had built its own intellectuals who were left leaning and who had begun to influence working people’s perceptions of what should be national progress.  Mainstream intellectuals from business, the clergy and academia realized this growing influence and worked closely with labour to help form the intellectual framework for the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as an alternative to the free market oriented ruling Zanu Pf party.  

This alliance was however a short lived one of equals.  Business and the clergy with the passage of time became the primary drivers of public opinion output for the mainstream opposition, particularly during the years of the inclusive government. 

Zanu Pf was however to counter the progressive direction of the new opposition by reverting to the populist intellectual recess of nationalism and historical injustice.  But at the same time attempting a Chinese version of state capitalism tallied with radical indigenization of the economy.  This however required instruments of propaganda and the threat of force for it to be reluctantly accepted as ‘progressive’. 

Therefore between 1999 through to 2017 the two dominant strands of how to influence public opinion were pre-dominantly motivated by the mainstream political parties and their apparatchiks.  And as the years toward the coup-not-a-coup got closer, both influencers were increasingly similar in their ideological tone, reserving their most acerbic attacks on each other to personalities as opposed to ideas. 

And this is where it becomes important in relation to our contemporary circumstances.  While in the past public opinion was influenced by a clear political partisanship (the party you belonged to or voted for determined many opinions) . 

In the period after the 2018 ‘harmonised’ election, public opinion has been largely motivated by considerations on the state of the national economy.  In populist terms this has also had the personalized dimension of considerations on who is best placed to solve what we consider to be the national economy’s fundamental problems. 

The solutions proffered by a majority of public opinion leaders (clergy, academics, columnists, political leaders) have invariably had one model as a solution.  This being a neo-liberal framework where whatever the government does, it must return to the global political economy by opening up the Zimbabwe to economic market forces. 

I know that this already sounds sophisticated beyond measure. But so do those that push this as the one size fits all solution to Zimbabwe’s socio-economic woes.  So it comes in cultural packages.  That is, it comes with relative sophistry and an assumption at a sense of belonging to the best thinkers, best systems in the world.  For example, talking about monetary policy would immediately necessitate a comparison with how the American Federal Reserve Bank works.  Or the touting of joining of the Rand Monetary Union immediately evokes images of a Zimbabwe that is similar to South Africa. Or even just a sense of belonging to our southern neighbour.  Basically it couches its language in that of a promised land (hence to this day we are faced with the tragedy of multitudes of young Zimbabweans and Africans migrating to the global north)and also fundamentally of envy of other countries' economic policy.  All without historical suppositions as to how those countries that appear to be the best have poverty and violence riddled underbellies. Or how historically they may have arrived where they are on the backdrop of historical injustices motivated by colonial conquest. 

And in doing so, seeking more a proximity to the already globally wealthy minus an understanding of their or more importantly our own local context by trying to see 'cause and effect' beyond political personalities in power or in opposition. 

This is why when the Mnangagwa government seeks a ‘return to normalcy’ via the ‘ease of doing business’ the language is essentially bereft of contextual meaning.  Instead it is lauded in the capitals of the globally powerful because it means we are an open sesame to global capital. 

So if you ask the question who is now shaping political public opinion in Zimbabwe, the answer is that it is hardly us as a majority of Zimbabweans. Far from it.  We are complicit in singing the tune of an already established system, neoliberalism, which though we are in deep envy of, we regrettably do not fully understand.  Hence sometimes a majority of us will insist on privatization of public services such as health, education, transport or water provision largely because we admire the system too much or we choose to be ignorant of it. Or we revert to our materialistic and hedonistic individualism mode ( so long we still have the capacity to cater for our personal as opposed to collective needs).   In most cases, the former is true.

We know there are alternatives, but we choose to ignore them.  Even when critical comrades in the global north are not only giving examples of these alternatives but also starkly warning us of the inherent dangers of neoliberalism, austerity and racism.

But back to my acquaintance’s rhetorical question about where is this country going?  I always answer it with a quote from Thomas Mapfumo’s song (and album by the same title), ‘Varombo kuVarombo, Vapfumi kuVapfumi’ –direct translation- ‘the poor to the poor- the rich to the rich’.  If probed further I state that Mnangagwa’s government is on a determined path of ‘reclassifying’ or a return to class society proper in Zimbabwe. 

First by way of lifestyle (your income should be reflected in your lifestyle- under the guise of fighting corruption).  Secondly and more importantly by rewarding capital and the rich with societal exclusivity as in capitalist societies.  Even if austerity affects the poorest, they shall remain in their place in the long term.  And not only is it probably government's hope that not only will they remain there but that they will come to accept it.  All in the vain hope that they too shall eventually make the ‘middle class’ by 2030. And the most paradoxical statement/joke of the year may just be 'it will work, it will not work.'

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

The United States Dollar as a Deity in Zimbabwe

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The Zimbabwean government recently did the unfathomable, at least according to social media pundits, some civil society organisations, unions and influential urbanites.  It arbitrarily and abruptly re-introduced a local currency for all domestic financial transactions.  At least at law. 

As expected there was an immediate outburst of anger on social media, in press conferences, statements and I am pretty sure in the near future in anticipated or provisionally announced forms of physical protest.  

All of which can be easily pointed out to be as a result of the general mistrust of the government’s monetary policy and as awkward as it sounds, the lack of trust in any form of a national currency.  The origins of which appear with the massive inflation that coincided with the global financial crisis in 2007/8 and lasted in Zimbabwe at least until the introduction of a multi-currency regime just before the formation of a unity government in 2009.  In this we had relatively liberal use of the United States dollar (USD), the South African Rand and a host of other not so readily available currencies. 

This led to the stabilization of inflation albeit at great cost to our ability to retain the global value of the USD in tandem with developments in the global financial markets. 

While I am not aware of any economic books that were written about this multi-currency monetary , by 2015 it became almost unsustainable to rely on these multi-currencies (we had begun purchasing them from their respective central banks).  So the government introduced the relatively unpopular but utilitarian ‘bond coin’ in order to deal with challenges of transactions by retailers.  It was pegged at 1:1 with the popular USD.  The then government went a step further and decided to introduce bond notes almost a year later and suspicion were heightened that it was about to re-introduce a full fledged currency.  Again the bond note like its predecessor, the coin, was pegged at the same value as the USD.  Suspicions were abound but both forms of currency were utilized widely, especially by poorer Zimbabweans who did not have regular access to the USD.

In between these ambiguities about currencies and suspicions about government, a ‘coup that was not a coup’ happened in 2017 and a disputed but legitimized election occurred in 2018. By the time we got through the heady disputes over presidential election results, in early 2019, the government introduced a third form of a version of a local currency called the Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) in early 2019.  This essentially meant we had a surrogate currency, one that would with time set the ground for the introduction of a somewhat formal one depending on our ability to meet the ‘fiscal requirements’ of global financialised capital (i.e IMF, World Bank, AfDB).

In no short while the government introduced a ‘rated’ multi-currency regime.  It began officially at least with the RTGS trading (somehow) at 2.5 to the USD.  This was to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Again, in no short time, we were at higher official ‘bank rates’ via the RTGS to the USD.  It did not work as politically planned.  Instead what we had was a quasi-free market currency trading system underpinned by state regulation. 

Arguments about the capacity of the state to respond to the ‘financial markets’ quickly abounded.  

Acceptable as these were in a neoliberal sense, the key questions that emerged were around the sustainability of the same.  Either in relation to imports of goods or just even the ‘extractive political economy’ trying to lure foreign investors.

And now the Zimbabwean government has gone the whole hog with the introduction of a new currency. The end effect of which is more in keeping with neoliberal economic policy than it is intended at being populist.  It is a move designed to satisfy domestic and foreign capital’s requirements to do business at a much lower cost.  All in the now proven vain hope that there will be a trickle down effect for the creation of jobs as well as that the ‘free market’ will be able to resolve social and economic challenges faced by the majority poor.  All of this done under the mantra of a ‘return to normalcy’.

The knee-jerk and for now populist rejection of a local currency in favour of the USD is however intriguing in two specific respects.  The first being the political dimension of a general mistrust of government with a currency whose (commodity exchange) value is not, in the view of the public, guaranteed by global capital. This public mistrust is also being buttressed by the previous hyper inflationary period (2007-2009) and the ‘stability’ brought in by the introduction of a multicurrency system thereafter. This essentially means the general mindset of the (urban) Zimbabwean public is in sync with global capitalism’s expectation of an economy i.e one that follows its laisses faire rules and despises contextual protectionist economics.  

The only difference being that apart from a currency, global capital understands with great sophistry there are many other ways to bell the cat beyond a multi-currency system.  The latter point being rather ironic because it is also one that Finance minister Mthuli Ncube and his boss Mnangagwa understand too well, hence the general approval of their economic policy by the gatekeepers of global capital, namely the World Bank and the IMF. With the added approval of most Southern African governments that are implementing similar economic policies. 

The second astounding aspect is that of how Zimbabweans now view ‘money’ and in particular the USD as a commodity.   In classical Marxist terms, we have now come to view it more like a ‘fetish’ or even a ‘deity’.  It has come to mean more than it is in transactional terms.  Its value now transcends what it actually is in reality. We are quite literally under the spell of 'commodity fetishism'  because it has also become a commodity that has/had become a social arbiter of how we relate to each other without really acknowledging it.  All of this until now when talk of a local currency from government became louder and is now a reality.  And even if an economist of repute were to explain to an educated Zimbabwean that money is really imagined, they will find great resistance to that universally given notion.

To conclude, it is evident that the introduction of a local currency does not mean there will be economic abundance for all.  But neither did the retention of a multi-currency regime.  It is therefore imperative that we being to examine the system behind the monetary policies in whatever form they come.  And to do so at the point of ideology in order to counter it.  In our case, neoliberalism (as an ideology) and austerity (as a strategy) are informing the current and previous currency exchange systems and economic malaise we have had to endure.  But then again, where money or the USD becomes a fetish in and of itself, it is a hard ask to call on cdes to understand the system more than the deity.

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

Africa in Global Cold War 2.0: A Return to Struggle Consciousness

By Takura Zhangazha*

The British daily, the Guardian recently published a story on how Russia has new plans to exert its influence across the African content.  All in return for the usual imperial desires such as natural resources, geo-political military strategic positioning and of course loyal allies. 

I do not think the story made any headlines in African newspapers.  Not least because it had a tone of the ‘Russians are coming’ or as of old, the ‘red peril is coming’.  For many Africans, the Russians have always been here.  So it’s nothing particularly new or scary.  We are used to imperial interests on our continent.  We also fought against colonialism, with the aid, wait for it, of the Russians! But at that that time they preferred to be called the Soviets. 

But now they (Russians) have changed.  They are no longer Soviets or socialists.  Like their historical rival, the United States of America (USA), they are cut throat capitalist.  Not only domestically but also in their foreign policy objectives and intentions.  The only difference is that they are not too hung up on ‘human rights’ in their relations with Africa (or any other continent for that matter). 

While they repeatedly argue that they do not interfere in the domestic affairs of African countries, and in particular their allies, the report by the Guardian indicates otherwise.  And the same is true for all global superpowers.

As academics have already noted, there is a new scramble for Africa under the ideological ambit of neoliberalism and global capitalism- one academic, Slavok Zizek has gone so far as to call it a new ‘global apartheid’. 

This revival of neo-colonial interest in Africa by global superpowers is playing out increasingly as of the historical Cold War.  There is the West and there is the East.  All wanting essentially the same things from the African continent and its divided states. It’s a combination of the ‘usual suspects’ or objects of desire-  mineral wealth/natural resources, markets for their many businesses, land (yes quite literally, one German cabinet minister recently suggested that African states should allow developed countries to own land and develop it for African economies to improve!)

It should be relatively easy to assume that Africans know the global superpowers are here and have ratcheted up their interests on the continent.  Especially post Gaddafi in the disaster that is Libya and its mineral wealth and geo-strategic positioning. 

Knowing and thinking about it at the same time are however not the same thing.  In the relatively recent anti-colonial past as Africans, we were much more discerning of the interests of the then two global superpowers, USA and USSR. We were also very good at understanding the major colonial states’ (France, United Kingdom, Portugal) interests and countering them in order to become free of the yoke of repression by racism and economic exploitation.

Regrettably this consciousness has all ebbed now.  Not just because liberation and anti-colonial struggles ended but also because the rapacious nature of global capitalism in the aftermath of the Cold War left us, as Africans, more vulnerable to our own weaknesses than we anticipated.  We lost our bearings in wanting to be similar in lifestyle to the global north that our leaders became not only willing appendages for global superpowers, but also chose the path of corruption and long dree stays in power to the detriment of contextual, people centered and democratic African political economies. 

Even in the contemporary we remain faced with the serious challenge of an African leadership that sees limited value in itself without recognition from the leaders of global superpowers and global capital.  Hence from southern, eastern, western and northern Africa the mantra of free trade, markets and the ‘ease of doing business’ is the same.  All, in most cases, to impress again, global political superpowers (Russia, China, USA, Europe) and their attendant global capitalism. 

It is easy to argue that we are between a rock and a hard place.  But that might only be as a result of a lack of concerted trying and the false assumption that our contemporary African leaders hold that global capitalism is the panacea for each and every problem that we have.  When in reality it is the fundamental ideological cause for a majority of problems that we encounter regularly. 

Structuring a way forward out of our conundrum is no doubt difficult.  We initially tried it with the changing of the OAU to being the African Union. It was a brave attempt at modernising a liberation struggle organization.  The complexity however remains that it is now viewed largely as less organic and still steeped in divisions that are orchestrated again by global superpowers.

Where the Leninist question what is to be done is asked it can only be answered with historical nuance. We need to learn that there is indeed a re-emerging regressive view of Africa (and Africans) by some of the leaders of the global superpowers.  One that is shared by an increasing number of their citizens. 

Hence the antipathy toward African migrants and strict visa regimes for would be African visitors.   We probably need to work on our own African consciousness to believe more in the fact that being African does not require affirmation by global superpowers and their citizens. 

We will need to be more assertive of our own being as Africans.  All the while embracing progressive values that contest racism, neoliberalism and its attendant global capitalism.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

On Trying to Be Better at Being Zimbabwean: Eight (8) Brief Points

By Takura Zhangazha*

I always try and do my best to avoid any accusations of being self-righteous.  I do however also  always try to learn, in part, from how I grew up.  The formal and informal education I received to try and construct a better understanding of my own specific personal settings as well as those shared in the communities and schools and country I was fortunate to have grown up in.   

The lessons learnt from these experiences have been important in my own specific political, economic and social consciousness.  But what is more significant is the fact that I and others in my own migratory peculiar circumstances  need to perpetually understand the fact that we all live(d) in a collective polity called Zimbabwe and take into account the lessons that we were taught by our parents (particularly our mothers), brothers, sisters, community members and teachers.   Our lived lives were not rumours but realities that still inform our national consciousness (for) now. 

Depending on the period in which you grew up in country, Zimbabwe,  post 2000s ,  the lessons learnt may not always have been the same.  Especially because of contextual and time bound experiences.  But there are some common value threads that will run through them to help with a collective national progressive consciousness despite the different struggles (personal and collective)  a majority of us have had to endure. 

But even beyond that, is the fact that we are here and in the now.  And there are now emerging newer traumatic and/or enlightening experiences.  The greater number of which relate to a lack of individual as well as (separately) collective, rural and urban economic well-being in a globalized age of  the global north's highly unpopular austerity.

Our perspectives as are now widely shared on the internet are also increasingly about (hedonistic) individualism and its now compulsive commodity consumerism/fetishism that sometimes put us in a place where we think more in the short than in the long term or deliberately choose to not see whats coming. 

Or in tragic circumstances, we seek to escape by any means, materially, from situations in which we cannot have similar lifestyles to what we would have liked on the internet/social media and our mobile phones.  Even if this may not be via direct experience but as told or shared by family, friends, online acquaintances/celebrities in the global or national cities and/or the greater part of the Diaspora.   

And because we should be free to experience what we prefer, this, all in in some sort of order.  Especially where we can do so in a political and economic framework in which we are guaranteed basic human rights.  Or where we do so with an organic understanding that whatever slights occurred in the past, we must be able to, while seeking justice, think more of the future than the past. 

Taking all of the above into account there are specific key points that I am deliberately choosing to share with colleagues and comrades online about what it would possibly and 'in the secular/non-religious' it would  mean to attempt at being a better Zimbabwean. All in the hope that younger Zimbabwean cdes may understand that we are always the progressive sum total of our past experiences, our organic understanding of the present and our equally organic envisioning of a better future for Zimbabwe.  Even if we are not always the ones that literally and physically inherit the same said future.   

So here are some basic thought points on how you or your friend or anyone else can consider as to how to try and be better at being Zimbabwean:

1.       It is Not Always About You as an Individual:  Whatever happens in your life in Zimbabwe it is not always that you must make it a completely personal experience.  It is always a shared one even if you do not know with immediacy anyone else in the same tragic or happy circumstance.  Even if you do not want it to be a shared one.  We must always have empathy for the next Zimbabwean. With or without the money or access to political or economic privilege.  We need to always think about what happens next door in our rural and urban living spaces.  Not in a competitive sense but in more a collaborative and solidarity sense.  Or to put it even more simply, even if you eventually decide to have, for example, a pre-paid water meter, I will still give you not just glass of water if you and your children are  not only thirsty, but require gallons of the same for uses that keep you and your family healthy.  While at the same time being part of the push-back at the inhumane privatization of as natural a resource such as H-2-0.  Basically, solidarity always matters. Same goes with public health, transport, education, energy and welfare. 

2.       Ideas Really Do Matter:  Thinking is sort of hard now in Zimbabwe.  We tend to go with the flow, as given by some religious prophecies and proclamations from the mainstream media. Or even behavior modifying social media platforms.  Whatever is put out on global satellite broadcast media appears to be enough for this side of the world. Almost like an immediate validation in its negativity (the Russians are out to get us already!) Or as given by particular experts primed to persuade a specific type of politically important audience.  With the incorrect assumption that we, in Zimbabwe (and probably Africa) do not take time out to think, examine emerging trends, perspectives or intellectual ideas from a contextually informed perspective.  Almost like we have to play catch up in intellectual thought as in the period of our struggles against colonialism.  Always remember that universal and contextual ideas matter (go ahead, Google: Amilcar Cabral, Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere, Bessie Head - in no particular order).   As in the past, thinking through what ‘austerity’ and ‘neoliberalism’ means really matters. Including that all important question 'what is ideology?'  And also understanding what is the ‘ease of doing business’  from a non-partisan but fully regionally and global perspective.  Try and read more outside of whatever would be deemed your academic syllabus (Disclaimer: if you do, not my fault)

3.       Always Strive to Share Knowledge in the Public Interest.  Expertise and knowledge can always be copyrighted.  And in any event a lot of comrades hold on to try and ensure that for example a popular online perspective is patented (somewhere, somewhere while waiting for a vacuous intellectual property fight)’ the key issue is that even if you need the copyright, the personal attention, do so in the public interest of sharing knowledge to advance democratic ideas and values in Zimbabwean and other societies. (as idealistic as that sounds)

4.       Technology Now Matters but, Regrettably Technology is Not Enough: The mobile phone is the new medium of democratic consciousness.  Except that it desperately always, always, requires ‘content’.  In particular, content that leads to a questioning of what is seen as the ‘norm’ or the ‘unchallengeable’.  That is its own supremacy i.e Google, Facebook, Instagram and in our own national context Whatsapp.  Always query what the medium brings to you in the morning.  Is it another populist or false/fake message or is it of realistic and critical utilitarian value when it beeps on your phone to show ‘notifications’ before or in your bathroom chores. 

5.       Understand the Global Political Economy: To borrow from journalism’s lexicon, always know who owns what, when, how and why? It helps clear up the picture as to why certain things happen the way they do. For example, how is fuel distributed in Zimbabwe? Or alternatively wheat? Not in an intellectual way but in the pragmatic sense.  By the time you get to a pub conversation, the knowledge is shared not on the basis of populism but pragmatism. 

6.       Always Remember to  Struggle for Racial and Gender Equality: Zimbabwe’s struggles for national independence did not occur in an ‘equality vacuum’.  Books on the equality of women during the struggle have been written and historically captured in narratives of Mbuya Nehanda and Cde Freedom Nyamubaya’s collection of poems such as ‘On the Road Again’.  Including the racial ambiguities of Dambudzo Marechera’s ‘ The House of Hunger’ or  ‘The Black Insider’.  All pointing to a necessity to embrace racial and gender equality in the then struggle of liberation and human equality that occur every day across the globe.  It is not semantics.  We are all equal.  Even if in the global north now occasionally demonstrates ambiguity over migrants or the global south accepts offers of payments to stem the flow of migrants, we have to insist, in common struggle that we are all equal. 

7.       The Environment Matters : In University postgraduate school we had to read a book titled ‘ The Lie of the Land, Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment’ as a departure point to perceptions on how Africans are perceived to perpetually contribute to negatively affect the natural environment.  It turns out in 2019 we, as Africans, contribute less than 1% in damaging the environment as opposed to those in the global north.  In our national context, and to be a better Zimbabwean, always understand that judgment calls from the global north do not mean we are the worst. Nor would we prefer to be the ‘Frankensteins’ of the global environment. We may eventually end up being at the forefront of protecting it (the World), warts and all. 

8.       Democracy and Good Governance Remain Relevant:   We may have found ourselves in a position where we are ostracized for either being Western influenced or not understanding our own history but the fundamentals are increasingly in place.  To govern a state legitimately there is need for the observation of human rights and democratic governance.  Even if you claim to have fought a liberation struggle against colonialism.   The reality of the matter is that there is now a regional, continental and global understanding of the same.  We just need to make it a popularly understood knowledge of the same.  In our context.  In our regions. On our continent.  And as always, with the future in mind. It will work for organic progressives. It may not for others.  

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