A Zimbabwean View of Black History Month.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

A presentation to Litfest Zimbabwe’s Black History Month Commemorations

Thursday 27 February 2020

Cde Chairperson,

Let me begin by thanking the organisers for extending an invitation for me to be here at this important event.  And also for continuing a spirit of engagement with ideas that relate to the historical linkages of Africans beyond their geographical location.

In discussing Black History Month (BHM) from a Zimbabwean perspective one would still have to make reference to its historical linkages to Pan African consciousness.  This is because a great number of ideas and organizing around the liberation of the African continent initially began with the work of African American leaders such W. E DuBois and Marcus Garvey.  It was DuBois that was to lead in organizing various Pan African congresses such as the ones held in Paris in 1919 or London and Brussels in 1921 where DuBois is quoted as having said

 “The beginning of wisdom in inter-racial contact is the establishment of political institutions among suppressed peoples.  The habit of democracy must be made to encircle the world.” (See Legum C. 1962. Pan Africanism. A Short Political Guide )

Again DuBois was to be present at the famous sixth Pan African Congress held in Manchester the United Kingdom in 1945 where eventual luminaries such as Kwame Nkrumah, George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta, Peter Abrahams among others were present.

All of these conferences were clear in their call for Africa’s freedom from colonialism and the democratic urgency of ending racial discrimination.  And they indeed sowed the mustard seed for bigger organisations such as the Organization of African Unity (OAU) now known as the African Union. 

I deliberately mention this because often times on social media it would appear that BHM is entirely an African American affair. Or sometimes made to appear like a symbolic show as opposed one that is grounded in an organic history and shared solidarity between people in the, initially forced by the salve trade, African Diaspora and those that remained on the continent.

Even after the slave trade and while African Americans were still fighting for their own domestic civil liberties it was never lost on them that there is the mother continent of Africa that they could and should always show acts of solidarity to.  Or even seek to return to such as the Marcus Garvey led back to Africa movement. 

Where we fast forward to the more exciting civil rights movements as invariably led by Martin Luther King, Malcom X and the (real) Black Panthers in varying respects the umbilical cord between African Americans and us in Africa was never lost.  Reference to anti-colonial struggles was a regular theme and again, the struggle against racial discrimination was shared. 

While a lot of us now have engaged with this history through movies of the era’s black leaders, there were African leaders who also remembered the shared history such as Nkrumah, Nyerere and Cabral. 

But where we now look at the contemporary understanding of this shared history is increasingly being lost.  In an age of rapid globalization and a patent fear of African emigration to the global north, the solidarity has been suffering strenuous pressure. 

This is probably due to at least three reasons.  The first being that the urgency of African liberation from colonialism as linked to racial equality in the USA is no longer apparent.  African countries (barring one, The Saharawi Republic) are now independent and also have to now work with the formal American government as opposed to the likes of WE DuBois.

The second reason is that solidarity between African Americans and Africans while previously having a ‘return to the motherland’ significance is saddled with a ‘leave the motherland’ surge. A desire to emigrate to the United States, possibly via a green card or any other legal means by young Africans means that while race relations progressively got better, American society became more attractive than home.  And there’s the general change of attitude toward Africa by many African Americans who would probably not romantically refer to it as home after seeing and reading the news about African conflicts or disease outbreaks either on social and mainstream media. 

The third is that of a dying pan African consciousness among African American and African leaders.  This is attributable to either a dying intellectualism on the same topic or else a stronger desire to be recognized as universal beings than to claim a uniqueness of Pan African history or Africanness. The previous historic and organic intellectual link has been lost out in the age of globalization and consumerism.  Indeed while we have the globally acclaimed Black Panther move for its portrayal of African Americans, its mythical value can always be turned to confirm stereotypes of the continent (animals, forests, kings and magic). Or alternatively as a momentary and cathartic desire for recognition. 

But as always Black History Month always serves to inspire us here in Africa.  Even if its officially a celebration of African American History.  The latter being a history that would never have existed without reference to Africa and its struggles for liberation.  Not only from the mercantile capitalism that was the Atlantic Slave Trade, but also colonialism, racial discrimination and now neoliberalism. We would do well to build new organic linkages based on democratic values and with an understanding of the need for a revived Pan African consciousness that fully embraces our historical African Diaspora.  Not just via the entertainment industry but also on the difficult political and economic issues of the day.

Thank you.

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

Reality vs Preference: Expectations of Change in Zimbabwe

By Takura Zhangazha*

I have a number of politically partisan friends.  Some of them are borderline 'rabid' in their political opinions. Even if one attempts to invoke some sort of rationality to the matter or the issue under debate in invariably animated conversation. Or if one wants to know the facts of the matter under discussion.  Things, issues tend to be viewed with Manichean lenses.  So you will for example get a statement, mid animated conversation like, "Okay, I don't really care for the facts.  I just dont like these guys.  They have (either) destroyed the country (or) they have brought sanctions on the country."

This is exacerbated by social media and its now well known but still existent echo chambers. That is, how the medium (social media) to the greater extent is manipulating our behaviour and emotions over issues that we would hold emotionally hold dear.  Or alternatively telling us exactly what we would like to hear. On repeat.  Mainly based on individual experiences (upbringing, loss of jobs/income or even historical connections to the ruling establishment or the opposition.)

In all of this, some of my friends on either side of Zimbabwe's political divide anticipate  revolutionary change only in its populist form. That is a change that is predicated on the assumed charisma of the people that they would follow.  Not in any ideological sense.  Let alone, if they are sympathetic to the ruling party, in an historical sense.  What would motivate their anticipation of change would be considerations of their ability to live the 'good life' via the benevolence or proximity to those that would yield highly personalised political power. Or those that are feeding directly from the trough.

If there would be anything that could be considered revolutionary about their opinions it is the anticipation of personal livelihood 'revolutions'. Getting a new car, sending the kids to the more expensive and status symbol schools while earning income that sustains, even if temporarily, a lifestyle reflective of arrival at success that is recognized by family, friends and others.  As emanating from either what is said at church or in the movies or social media.

And this is across classes, an interesting phenomenon if ever there was one when analysing Zimbabwean society.  The rural farmer now shares the same aspiration as the urban informal worker who in turn wants to live the life of the middle class.  With the latter also wanting to live the life of the noveau rich, never mind how they get their income or sustain their lifestyles.

There would appear to be no middle road about national change expectations.  We all know we are different.  But we all almost aspire to the same things as measurements of individual success.  As judged by peers.

So there are no fundamentally national standards of what should be progressive change in Zimbabwe. Just individualistic ones.  So instead of public transport, we all want a car.  Instead of a public heath system which is affordable and efficient for all, we would invariably want to have medical aid that takes us to private medical care. Or instead of improved public education we would individually prefer to send our children to profiteering schools that chase more foreign currency than they focus on creating a better future.

We may not be able to see it, but we are losing a common value thread to our national fabric. And that is the first reality that we have to contend with vis-a-vis our desire for change.  Or at least our perceptions of it.  Our nasty version of individualism does not portend any considerations of posterity and even in its materialistic occurrence, is patently unsustainable.

The second reality is that those who are in the ruling establishment now all of this only too well.  they have been riding relatively dangerous waves of public anger at their performance and are not flinching in their neo-liberal intentions.  Because for them, the public anger is exactly that. Anger that is ephemeral and dissipates on the basis of  a national individualism they are very comfortable with and one that they know has no patience for a collective and organic national consciousness. If it becomes a tad too high in relation to emotions, they shut down what they perceive to be its main purveyor, urban social media.

The Zimbabwe government's change template is relatively clear now. It is to manage change expectations to the minimalist standards possible.  Within a legalistic framework that would make Edmund Burke smile in his grave.  It is an incrementalism that tallies with individual egos than it does a national and organic consciousnesses.   For example, the ruling party will within its rights as it has a two thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, tinker withe the constitution.  Legally so.

It will also permit critical expression in so far as it gives pretense at democracy for a global audience (after all the 2018 elections were about international re-engagement.)  It will also allow relatively convoluted anti-corruption crusades again to play to an international private capital gallery. Above all else, it will be seen to be doing something, mixing a neo-liberal political-economic outlook with phases of state benevolence such as providing ZUPCO buses, distributing food aid and occasionally giving the impression of caring about public health institutions while at the same pursuing their privatisation. 

This is a reality many of us would refuse to accept. Especially if we are based in the Diaspora.  But it is a reality that can no longer be wished away.  For now. There is no revolution on the  horizon.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)

CoronaVirus Outbreak and Africa, Fallacy of Othering Others Already Othered With You

By Takura Zhangazha*

How you think of yourself is always about personal standards, values and even assumptions.  Most often from the standpoint of comparison with someone else or the ‘other’.  This is probably the same when it comes to nationalities, ethnicity and/or racial identity. All probably backed up by extensive academic fields such as anthropology, social psychology, literature or post-colonial studies among others.  Together with their underpinning Hegelian philosophies.  For people in the global south this therefore is always something somewhat sensitive.  Both in its individual as well as collective sense.  And in the immediate factual historicity of colonialism. Be it as experienced in Asia, Africa, Australia and even more long duree in South America.  

In this, the considerations of the other, also points to ‘discovery’ of not only material wealth but new animal and plant species as well as diseases such as malaria.  All viewed from the perspective of the enlightened explorer who, if they survive, will eventually embellish the tale of what they encountered in the nether regions where the ‘others’ would exist.  Thus enabling further visits and discoveries together with their relatively fictional narratives.  As told from their own standpoint. (‘Heart of Darkness’ anyone?)

Of course the assumption is that all of this should have ended with the political and economic struggles that liberated not only 'the other' but also their physical territories. But regrettably reality and perception refused to meet. 

Unfortunately, while great efforts at a global understanding and practice of human equality has been done, there is always those that would define themselves as exceptional. Not only historically (which includes hanging on to the long lost grandeur of colonial empire) but with regards to newfound enthusiasm for nationalist gate-keeping in an age of not only economic globalization but ongoing global struggles to enhance human equality and eradicate racism.

Africans are all too familiar with what it means to be ‘othered’ where it comes to being the source of many a potential global health malady/ pandemic The most recent being that of the ‘Ebola’ virus.  Global media stories while telling the factual truth of the tragic loss of African lives are not immune from embellishment.  Or the usual bias in coverage of nationalities that die versus those from their own countries for not only profitable reasons but also a default othering.  Some deaths are always more important than others.  

So when the World Health Organisation (WHO) declares the Corona virus outbreak as a global health emergency as is now the case, some of us would have surprised at the fact that the virus has not been linked in its origin to the African continent.  But even then, that does not make it in any way a palatable fact because it happened elsewhere. This is a global crisis. Full-stop.   

But regrettably it was an opportunity for some people world over to make racist and dehumanizing statements on social media concerning where the Corona virus was first detected. This being in the Chinese city of Wuhan.  And the social media videos which are without doubt cast in racist stereotype went viral globally. 

And of course, some Africans not wanting to be left out, ironically joined in on these unpalatable racist tropes. I have referred to it as ‘ironic’ because it is exactly that.  The othered trying to other those already othered in similar historical fashion.  Almost like an Orientalist’s dream come true where the victim behaves like the perpetrator. 

While one can argue that this is caused by what would be a natural fear of death, that argument alone does not begin to justify racist commentary and attitudes toward the outbreak of a virus that affects all humans.

It all comes back full circle to who we as Africans may unwittingly most want to be identified with.  Even though we regularly face direct and indirect cultural rejection.  Or to subconsciously assume that while we may not be wholly accepted, we would at least be better than those that too would be othered anyway. Even if the corona virus outbreak had not happened.

Or to mix African geo-politics as played out by a scramble for its resources as a reason to want to politicize a clearly global health crisis. And again fall into the same trap of assuming a false proximity to the un-othered.

As advised by the WHO and emphasized by many progressive international organizations involved in global health, the gravity of the situation with the Corona virus outbreak cannot be understated.  What it definitely does not require are racist references that spread not only hate and fear but a return to a repressive past. 

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

‘Eat Quickly, We May Get Arrested’ Remembering ZCTU’s Lovemore Matombo.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Cde Lovemore Matombo, the former president of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) quietly passed on this week.  An organic intellectual and left leaning trade unionist for many years, he had an unassuming aura about his person that never betrayed the immense role he had played in keeping trade unionism afloat after the formation of the then worker’s party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). 

And also as a successor ZCTU president to the inimitable and regrettably also late, Gibson Sibanda.  Together with then secretary general, Wellington Chibebe, Matombo, ensured that the ZCTU would have a smooth leadership transition after the resignation of its then charismatic secretary general, again also late,  Morgan Tsvangirai. 

Matombo was to ably steer the ZCTU through the difficult years of being accused of being an affiliate of the opposition MDC, the hyperinflation years of 2008-2010, the informalisation of the economy and the general crackdown on human rights by the Mugabe government. This also included phases in which he, together with his colleagues in the trade union movement would be arrested and tortured for irgansiing either national stay-aways’ or demonstrations against either unfair labour practices, the high cost of living or the dire state of human rights in the country.   

Matombo also sought to maintain the ZCTU’s critical historical role in challenging the hegemony of the ruling Zanu Pf party.  I specifically mention ‘hegemony’ because ideologically Matombo was as clea as daylight on his social democratic credentials.  He did not challenge Zanu PF merely because it was in power and ruling badly.  He challenged Zanu Pf primarily on the basis of how he directly disagreed with it’s ideological outlook.  One which was largely a radical neoliberal nationalism that relied more on the past than it sought solutions for the future.

In conversation with him he would also aver that in part the opposition MDC, as initially formed by the congress of trade unions, was also beginning to lose its ideological social democratic radar to neoliberalism.  In mentioning this he would however point out the difficulties he was facing in the labour movement trying to navigate various blind loyalties to either political parties or embassies by some of his colleagues and affiliate unions. And how in part he could not however risk any further division of the union in the difficult operating environment that was already increasingly hostile to unionism. 

A unique characteristic that Matombo demonstrated was his evident willingness to interact with civil society.  The ZCTU was still by far the largest organization outside of the state and churches, but he never had a high browed approach to meet with CSOs’.  I always fondly remember his hearty welcomes at the annual May Day/Workers Day rallies.  

He also never hesitated to participate in broader multi-stakeholder engagements such as that which would bring about the Zimbabwe People’s Charter.  Or to directly engage with the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) and challenge the Zanu-PF- MDC constitutional reform process of 2010-2013 on the basis of democratic principle.   

The latter was also to make him lose some allies in civil society, affiliate unions and the international community.  But he stuck to his principles.  I do not recall him expressing regret on the decisions he made about his ideological persuasions or strategic considerations on either constitutionalism or the national political economy. 

This was demonstrable via one particular example concerning the Zimbabwe National Students Union (ZINASU).  Matombo was a keen supporter of student and youth activism.  He however had a keen intent that it not be directly similar to the way it was done in Zanu Pf, that is be based on materialism and raw populism.  At a time when the MDC-T was fighting for control of ZINASU, Matombo chose to support an organic student leadership that was not influenced ether by populism, donors or mercenary politicians.  Together with the NCA, the ZCTU supported a progressive ZINASU and refused to succumb to undue pressure on the matter.   

On matters beyond unionism Matombo would always demonstrate organic and progressive knowledge. And always in its left leaning assessment of global events and how a better world is possible. 

And he also had an amazing sense of caustic humour.  At one time we had travelled to Chinhoyi for a Zinasu national congress in 2010 as solidarity delegates.  We were slightly late but had not had breakfast and so we headed to the dining hall.  Once there I noticed how quickly he was handling his breakfast.  He noticed my startled expression and looked up at me and said, “Cde Zhangazha, eat quickly.  We might get arrested. And we don’t want that on empty stomachs!”

Or the way he would specially mention the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) for its propaganda against the ZCTU by mockingly referring to it as ‘Zete Biii Ciii!’

Cde Matombo is a man that will be sorely missed by Zimbabwe’s left and its progressive civil society.  Even more significantly his brand of labour unionism that can only be admired and urgently learnt from. 

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

Zim's 2nd Constitutional Amendment: An Exercise in Symbolism and Power.

By Takura Zhangazha*

The Constitution of Zimbabwe is due to be amended this year.  The changes to be made according to the gazette constitutional amendment bill No 2 of 2019 include repealing clauses that allow for presidential running mates, the extension for two more parliaments of the women’s quota system and the new addition of ten parliamentary seats for the youth quota.  The latter point also interestingly being done with names of candidates that are interchanged by way of gender.  

Other proposed constitutional amendments include the extension of the tenure of office of judges who have reached retirement age and the constitutional establishment of the office of a public protector and deputy. Further proposed constitutional amendments relate to provincial and metropolitan councils wherein members of the same are to be elected by proportional representation.  Also add to these the proposed changes the greater role the president would be expected to play with respect to the disciplinary procedures of the office of the prosecutor general.

These proposed constitutional amendments are a handful.  And somewhat varied in their import.  Arguments put out by either civil society organisations or opposition parties relate to at least three issues.  The first being that the amendments are too soon after the constitution was passed and therefore fly against the spirit and letter of democratic constitutionalism.  A point that is relatively moot if anything else. 

The second being that the proposed amendments give the president considerably more power via changing the running mate clause and allow him/her to appoint deputies as well as with the greater role the president plays in the dismissal or retention of the prosecutor general or the appointment of judges.  A fair point in so far as it relates to the dynamics that were present during the COPAC led constitutional reform exercise.  As determined by the larger than life political figure that was Robert Mugabe.

Thirdly, the argument is why change a constitution that has not even been fully aligned with the existent subservient laws?  For them the issue to is first fulfill the alignment requirements before seeking to change it.  The only problem with this is that Mnangagwa’s government has no legal obligation to do that. It can always argue that it is all ‘work in progress’.

The ruling Zanu Pf party has also given some reasons why it wants to change the constitution.  On the issue of presidential running mates it has argued that it does not require two centers of power.  On devolution it is arguing that it is fulfilling its electoral campaign promises.  Same with the extension of the women’s quota and the introduction of the youth quota in Parliament.

Beyond these arguments against  or for amending the constitution as proposed by Constitutional Amendment Bill No 2 of 2019, there are some stark political realities that may be lost in translation.  The first and what should be the most obvious one is that the government wants to change the constitution because it can.  The ruling Zanu Pf party has a two thirds majority in both houses of Parliament (Section 328 (5) and can therefore constitutionally do so.  Except for Chapter 4 (Bill of Rights) and Chapter 16 (Agricultural Land) where it will require a constitutional referendum.  So on the face of it, it is within Zanu Pf’s legal right to do so. Unless someone takes them to the Constitutional court on some technicality or the other.

The next hidden element to these proposed amendments is a desultory political public.  Amending the constitution is not high on the Zimbabwean public’s priority or concern list.  Instead it’s the  political economy (with an emphasis on economy and economic survival) that is top of the list.  This does not mean there will be no entertainment of the subject in general or in its parliamentary specificity and televised antics when it is read for the first and second times.  

The general lack of populism around the matter indicates a continued public ignorance of the provisions of the constitution but more significantly a continued lack of desire at public ownership of the same.  In other words, the constitution of Zimbabwe is not an organic but entirely functional one. Especially for the political elite that wrote it and got their supporters to vote for it. 

A final hidden element to the constitutional amendments as proposed is the fact of their symbolism in the exercise of political power.  First of all the recognizable source of the changes is the ruling party which in doing so is asserting not only its authority for public recognition but also for its own party structures.  That is giving meaning via this sort of action to its own exercise of power.  In the second instance is the benevolent attitude toward women and the youth via extending, for the former, the quota system and for the latter, introducing it.  Add to this, the new Chinese facilitated massive new Parliament building made in the image of Great Zimbabwe and you have a sum total of the exercise of power and symbolism.  Even if the majority of us don’t see it.

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

. 

Anticipating Zimbabwe’s 2020: Four Reasonable Considerations.

By Takura Zhangazha*

Happy new year, 2020 Comrades. Hope everything that you have individually or collectively planned works out as approximately close to what you intend in the next 12 months. This blog, being my first of the year will be comparatively shorter than most that I put up.   

Because I am not a prophet, neither do I harbor ambitions to be one (unless I get really broke and use my limited intellect to cram the Bible and have a go at the few dollars of the most gullible and vulnerable in our society), this write up is about what to reasonably expect in Zimbabwe’s political economy in 2020.  Note that I used the turn of phrase ‘reasonably’.  Not ‘emotionally’ nor ‘religiously’. 

And because we are generally supposed to plan ahead, we must do so in realistic context.  So here are 4 things you/we must anticipate to occur in Zimbabwe’s year 2020. 

Firstly, on the political front, the ruling Zanu Pf party will try to fully undertake policies that point to ‘performance legitimacy’.  This being to appear to be a government and party that listens to the most vulnerable in our society while at the same time having a holistic neo-liberal/free market economic framework.  It will also up the ante with its devolution drive not necessarily for democratic purposes but in order to shift political centers of activity from Harare and Bulawayo.   

Mnangagwa’s team however will be beholden to the international community and will be hoping to have the newly elected British Prime Minster Boris Johnson on their side in their re-engagement foreign policy strategy.  Domestically there will be limited political reforms, some of which are already in motion such as amendments to the constitution (running mates, devolution and extension of gender quotas among others). Issues such as political dialogue will remain largely domesticated with Mnangagwa being fully in charge of the process. All based largely on the political fact that he has an unassailable two thirds majority in Parliament. 

The largest official opposition, MDC Alliance, will remain actively popular in urban areas while at the same time struggling to gain new ground in the rural.  The latter area being not only unfairly closed out to them but also from them not having a sustained rural mobilization strategy.  The same party may also face challenges in countering the ‘performance legitimacy’ strategy of Zanu Pf in the local governments it controls.  Not only for lack of knowledge but also for lack of resources that will largely come from central government.  

Like Zanu Pf, the MDC Alliance will seek to court the eye of the international community.  With the difference being an intention to still call out the question of legitimacy while Zanu will focus on courting global capital, be it from the West or the East.

There will be no new major political parties that will be formed beyond the largest official two. Despite the Zanu Pf faction’s Generation 40’s  (G40) intentions.  But like in Uganda, there will be new celebrity politicians drawn from the entertainment industry who will make political ripples and eventually be co-opted into the major formations. 

 Secondly, with regard to the national economy, the most significant issue is that we have a drought on our hands.  And that will affect everything else mainly because agriculture remains the backbone of the economy, particularly peasant agriculture.  So the state will be forced to be benevolent.  It will have to subsidize those things that tis neo-liberal approach would not countenance.  This would be for services such as drought relief, rural health services and public transport.  In this Mnangagwa will have no choice if he wants to retain a modicum of popularity, despite what his finance guru Mthuli Ncube says/wants.  Foreign direct investment will largely remain bilateral i.e. Chinese support for infrastructure, Russian investment in mining or United Arab Emirates support in pharmaceuticals.  

Private global capital will remain hesitant despite changes to the indigenisation laws. The local currency will still be rammed down the throats of reluctant Zimbabweans with the United States Dollar still being the arbiter of value (Chicken Inn anyone?)  We will however remain a consumerist society focusing largely on individualist desires as opposed to collective well being.  Hence Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) will appear to initially work out, but eventually break down due to high costs of public services and also our running out of money. 

Thirdly on the human rights and social welfare front, central government will continue being benevolent in observing the rule of law, respecting human rights and ensuring overall good governance.  This as was the case in 2019 only because of fear of the gaze of the western international community (which probably won’t relent on the matter.) Bu the opposition will still put the state to the test, not always on what would be clear issues but also to gain the attention of the international gaze, by way of the media. 

Socially, urban poverty will increase based on a increasing rural-urban migration and the continuing expansion of urban settlements.  Rural poverty will be exacerbated by the evident drought and also again, an ageing population that is losing its young ones to the cities and the Diaspora. 

The influence of religion will remain exceedingly high, but not perhaps for as political reasons as in 2019.  Churches as major owners of fixed capital will seek to maximize the electoral vulnerabilities of political leaders for institutional and in some cases individual gain. 

Fourthly and finally, the role of social media in the national consciousness will be enhanced.  Even if there are electricity shortages and in the worst case, government internet shut downs.  It is a role that will however remain ephemeral, based on events as they occur.  Such as if the president makes a bad joke or a celebrity leaks some untoward video of themselves.  But all the same the mobile telephone and its connectivity to social media (not necessarily the internet) is now the new medium of consciousness.  It may not be the immediate motivator of direct political action but it will definitely define the meaning of the same.  It will most certainly modify our political, economic and social behavior especially in urban areas.

Once again here’s to an organic 2020 and thinking beyond. For posterity.

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

Uchena Report on Land: Losing State Capital for Political Expediency, Hedonism

By Takura Zhangazha*

The Commission of Inquiry into the Matter of the Sale of State Land in and Around Urban Areas Since 2005 headed by Justice Uchena recently submitted its full report and recommendations to President Mnangagwa. What was made publicly available was the executive summary of the report. 

In it, there were astounding but very expected findings. Some of them that were/are also being brazenly lived out.  They include the unlawful change of land use of agricultural farms adjacent to major cities, the lack of infrastructure for subsequent physical settlements on the same land, the prejudicing of the state of at least US$ 3 billion or the lack of interactive regulatory responsibility by at least two ministries and local government authorities.  Just to mention a few. 

The executive summary is scant on names of actual perpetrators but hints at land barons, housing cooperatives and political party operatives. 

What is most clear however is that fifteen years after the fast track land reform programme (FTLRP) began (in 2000) it has dramatically changed in its preferred import.  Whereas initially intended as a massive nationalization or re-possession of agricultural land for, again agricultural livelihood use by a black majority, it has morphed into a largely urban focused land (capital) utilisation reform exercise.  Across cities, peri-urban areas and even what has always been designated as growth points. 

It is reflective of not only of the urban aspirations of a lot of Zimbabweans. That is to want land for urban use. But also and tragically so, haphazard profiteering from the FTLRP by those that have been in charge of the country and local government since the latter's inception. 

The forgoing point is perhaps the most significant.  The Uchena commission report boldly states that the state was directly prejudiced of at least "USD 2 977 072 819 [two billion nine hundred and seventy seven million eight hundred and 19 thousand united states dollars]"  as it relates to 'intrinsic value.' 

This is no small change but may still not be reflective of the actual amountlost to the state.  

The key issue is that state capital was directly turned, without full legal and financial accountability, either in terms of following legal procedures or paying relevant taxes, into private capital. 

The FTLRP, it would appear, moved from being ‘revolutionary’ as regularly pronounced by proponents of a ‘third Chimurenga’.  Instead it became a smash and grab political feast on state capital.  As led by not only land barons, the politically powerful and housing cooperatives.  All within the other context of the fact that this originally state owned capital is still disputed in relation to ownership and control by the former white commercial farmers and global capital. 

So it’s a catch 22 situation.  The Uchena Commission exposes what is a Zimbabwean version of ‘enclosure’ of what the 3^rd Chimurenga had nationalized. To its re-privatisation for adjacent to urban areas rural agricultural land for direct individual private profit. 

This then leads us to the reality that by the time Uchena submits his report to the presidency, there are thousands of families that are now living and eking out some sort of livelihoods on the same land.  The heads of these families through various agents and means settled there because they were legally able to.  Or in the most political of the cases, they found opportunity to do so.  And as alluded to earlier, this is a direct result of aspirations to the urban or being irban by Zimbabweans.

The FTLRP may have been an enabler of a resurgence of a massive rural-urban migration based not only of the fact that the rural political economy had been immediately negatively affected.  But also the fact that opportunities to live closer and permanently to the ‘bright lights’ were availed by political parties, land barons and housing cooperatives.  Even those in the Diaspora took advantage for the same and have even acquired housing 'cooperatives' from as far away as Canada even though the likelihood of their permanent return for the same is next to none. 

Uchena however makes recommendations that ask central government to regularize existent residential use of acquired land, pursue criminal and civil charges against land barons, housing cooperatives and political actors who did not regularize their acquired land or duped desperate home seekers.  Uchena also recommends greater efficiency between relevant ministries and the expansion of water facilities in all urban areas as well as a cessation on new residential stand allocation across the country.

While it remains the prerogative of central government to decide what to do with these recommendations, we can only say that we know it has been complicit in creating the problems outlined as having occurred since 2015.  We also know that the Uchena reports points to the political expediency of the FTLRP.  Political actors created new urban spaces to gain electoral leverage and in tandem distribute patronage that also directly economically profiteered from.  Like having your cake and eating it too. 

What is however also subtly hinted at in the Uchena report is the inevitability of urbanization.  All via a vehicle they refer to as a proposed special purpose vehicle to be run by the Office of the President and Cabinet. 

The major risk of this is to fall into a narrative of the inevitability of urbanization in Zimbabwe or Africa.  My considered personal view is that we need to resist this false narrative.  The urban may have bright lights but it may not be as humanely progressive as is touted.  We may need to look at how we can improve the rural, to try and modernize it and make it more self-sufficient beyond subsistence agriculture.

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