Whose Gold? Cementing Oligarchy in Zimbabwe.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

The government of Zimbabwe has decided to privatize its gold refinery, Fidelity Printers and Refineries.  In a report carried by NewZwire it turns out the parastatal is now going to be majority (60%) owned by at least ten unnamed gold mining companies that paid a total of $US49 million to the Zimbabwean government.

For many a Zimbabwean this may be a run of the mill business transaction.  Or they wouldn’t even bother with any follow up questions on either the necessity let alone accountability of this specific development.  Let alone its far reaching impact on not only gold mining but also the broader political economy of the country. 

What has however been in the public domain about gold has been stories and allegations of gold smuggling.  Even most astoundingly at our own international airports.  So the narrative is one of cartels and shady operations about gold.  Including the more tragic ones concerning gold-panners and so called ‘illegal miners’ commonly referred to as ‘makorokoza’. With the latter always being in the media for either violent incidents or tragic deaths in collapsed disused mine shafts. 

What gets lost in translation is the fact that the mineral that is gold is a key component of our national wealth.  Initially by way of historical symbolism.  It is recognized on our national flag and it is also recognized as having been key to not only the establishment of our revered ancient civilisations but also what racist colonial settler capitalists initially envied and sought to conquer us for.  So the given national assumption via historical consciousness is that we, as Zimbabweans, own our gold.  It represents a key component of our national wealth and therefore must be utilized for the general public good and not the aggrandizement of individuals let alone corporate profiteering. 

That the government can, with relative ease,  privatize not only its mining but now its actual refining and end process global marketing should give us pause to reflect on a number of issues.

With the initial emerging question being, “To whom does our gold now belong?”  Given recent developments it now evidently belongs to a select private sector.  With probable links to our ruling political elites in one form or the other.  With an assumption, probably from state officials, that there shall be some trickle down benefit to the masses with the passage of time.  And we have been here before as a country via what was then the Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes (ESAPs) of the late 1980s through to the year 2000.  Large scale privatization of the national wealth meant the loss of jobs due to following the arbitrary dictates of a global market.  All of which came to undermine our national social well being while protecting global capital’s interests. 

The second element that emerges with this new move by the government is where and when it is juxtaposed against the whole idea of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) of 2000 going forward.  

So assuming we took the land from our previous oppressors for revolutionary ownership purposes, how do we then privatize a key mineral asset such as gold?   It comes from underneath the very soil we claim to have fought for but our government is of the view that it cannot be nationalized for the public good? Never mind the fact that we were accusing former white commercial farmers of illegal gold and diamond mining during the FTLRP.  And even now we are compensating them at competitive global market prices for the same land we popularly argue we reclaimed.  It is as contradictory as it is an incremental reversal and sacrifice of nationalist ideological causes at the altar of neoliberalism.

In the third instance, the privatization of gold does not appear to have a bigger plan that the people of Zimbabwe can appreciate as impacting any improvement in their everyday lives.   Sure enough Mnangagwa’s government has embarked on infrastructural rehabilitation projects. But in the majority of the examples that can be given for these projects it is in order to enable what he has referred to as the ‘ease of doing business.’  There is limited room to doubt the priority of private capital’s interests with this government.  Whereas in Venezuela or Bolivia major mineral extraction plans focused on large scale national welfarist programmes, despite global capital’s hostilities and sanctions, it was evident that the national wealth was to be spent on the majority poor in those countries.  Here in Zimbabwe we appear to be keen on assuming that if we satisfy private capital, we satisfy the people.  This has been historically proven to be a false assumption and one that can only lead to a  result which I outline as a final point in this write up.

Lastly, when political elites find common ground with owners of local and global private capital, it is a recipe for the establishment of national oligarchies. It is as American a model as it can be Chinese.  In the former they create revolving doors between business/private capital and politics.  In the latter they expand a one party state into a global corporation that resists challenges to its overall hegemony.  We are probably in the early stages of either of the same in Zimbabwe.  That’s is a combination or alliance of the political and corporate/private capital elite in order to establish a permanency to their new found potential hegemony.  Hence the latest scramble after the scramble for the control of gold production and profits.  We would still however, as Zimbabweans, need to answer this question, "Whose gold is it anyway?"  

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

Desire and Popular Commodification of Life in Southern Africa

 By Takura Zhangazha*

A young comrade recently sent me a message about my views on the recent rioting in South Africa.  Poignantly he asked what I meant in assuming that there are many similarities between South Africa and the rest of the Southern African region?   I briefly explained that these similarities in my view are all about the regional political economy.  He responded without any further questions by saying he understood what I meant.  I can only hope he was being honest.

It however occurred to me that the debate around the violent events in South Africa, despite its own assumptions of its own ‘exceptionalism’ on the African continent, has not come full circle.  It is a debate that has presented itself regrettably, in the age of social media, as events that are as entertaining as they are populist in relation to the African National Congress (ANC) factionalism. With or without debate around the full import of the South African Constitutional Court’s imprisonment of former president Jacob Zuma. 

What is however more interesting is the format that the riots and counter-protests stemming from the above have taken.  And this is as would occur anywhere else in Southern Africa.  The target of the disruption of society is the emblematic shopping mall. This is where desire, anger, exclusion and formality all come together into a political-economic powder keg.  

Expressions of anger about the political economy in Southern Africa tends to focus its energies on what is regularly seen but considered off limits for the poor in these respective societies.  Or to put it alternatively, it is what during normal times is behind the display window of the shop or supermarket that can only be acquired by material/money privilege that anarchy for whatever reason permits the poor to desire and forcibly acquire. 

It becomes a situation in which we are forced to ask the question in the case of South Africa, is this really about Jacob Zuma?  Or even ask another one that if it is about poverty, what sort of deprivation are we looking at when one loots/steals a 58 inch smart television?  Only to either take it to a shack without electricity or try to sell it onward to an individual with the same existential circumstance.

There is no singular answer to these questions.  But there is a holistic view that can be assumed.  This being that we are, in Southern Africa to be specific, living in an age of a populist/popular deification of commodities as emblematic of desired lifestyles.  Even if they are in no way realistic to our context or circumstance. 

Where we return to assumptions of South African exceptionalism which some cdes here in Zimbabwe are celebrating, we will see that whether we are in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi or Angola among others we are always at risk of instability based on the same desires for what is seen through the display window but inaccessible. Except to those that have the material means. 

I always enquire with a friend whenever we leave supermarkets and young people, mainly women, are trying to sell us carrier sacks outside of the same, what he thinks they are feeling about the fact that they themselves cannot afford to do the same?  His answer is generally ambivalent and centres on the realities of the Zimbabwean trickle down political economy as it obtains. 

I remind him that again the reality of the matter is that we live in societies in which the commodification of human progress and where the individual and his/her material desires are increasingly supreme.  And because of this, the collective envy, again based on individual desires, is equally extremely high. 

Hence we are quick in the midst of an assumed breakdown in governance or law and order quick to make beelines for shopping malls or mass production factories much to the chagrin of private capital. In pursuit of a false ownership of stagnant commodities that represent mor lifestyle aspirations than what would be utilitarian. 

This also brings into vogue the fact that in all of this, there are more powerful vested interests that can also counter react.  As in the case of the riots in South Africa, the establishment (government and private capital) quickly mobilizes to protect their interests. Both technically as it concerns the security services but also by deploying a counter populist narrative concerning the right to private property and the 'inevetibilism' of the loss of jobs.  And because of the ephemeral, impulsive nature of the struggles of the poor these latter narratives gain more traction post the violence.  And in this, we come full circle back to the restoration of the system that ensures the inequitable distribution of wealth in our societies.

This means that going forward those that claim to be struggling for more economically equitable societies need to define their struggles much better.  Not only ideologically but also for posterity and in the long duree.  They should neither be stuck in the ephemeral moment nor in a stagnant past.  That a great number of our people look through the shopping mall window with unfulfilled desire of ownership of a commodity let alone hopes of individual escape from poverty is something that should worry us non-end.  Whether we are in South Africa or the rest of Southern Africa.

I will conclude by stating that we still need to ask ourselves, what is the meaning of the shopping mall in our African contexts?  What has it come to represent? I will also hazard an answer in that I see it as being emblematic of economic exclusion.  Not only of small businesses but an embodiment of a capitalism that runs on false assumptions of lifestyles embedded in again false commodified desires of lifestyles that are designed to be economically exclusionary. 

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

 

 

Causes, Campaigns, Memory and Futures in Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

A decent number of us of adult age at least have had some sort of experience of at least one cause, a campaign, or significant memory of either.  Or even a shared perception of what the future should look like in experiencing both.  Some of these considerations are highly personal.  These four elements (causes, campaigns, memory and future) can be individualistic, which they now largely are, a point I will come back to later, or they can be part of a collective and organisational grouping. 

It is important that we look at each one of these fundamentally from the organisational and collective angle as likely defined or experienced by many in our Zimbabwean context. 

If we begin with what we know to be ‘causes’ they are alternatively referred to as ‘long term struggles’ for overarching/holistic progressive values, principles and ideologies.  While at the same time being ‘do or die’ matters at great personal and collective cost to those waging them.  They also tend to be long term with an almost undefined timeline and they tend to also end by default.   Either through negotiation or assumptions of a total victory against those that opposed them.  The easiest example of this in our Zimbabwean context would be our liberation struggle for independence.

Other causes and struggles do emerge in our post-independence history but these are shorter and more legal than they are essentially or directly counter-hegemonic.  In most cases they talk about the betrayal of the initial fundamental cause/struggle that was the one for national independence.  In doing so they borrow from the contested values and past of the first and retain many similarities with it.   And they are more fixated on peaceful transfers of power through the electoral cycle than they would be with fundamentally changing society.     

Where one analyses campaigns, there are more of these in assuming/desiring shorter term specific changes to various sectors of society.  Campaigns generally accept the fundamentals of the political and social environment in which they occur.  Be it perhaps issues to do with constitutional reform, fair labour and gender equality practices.   They come in the form of what we have now come to refer to as lobby and advocacy of central and local government policy makers.  They are occasionally radical (demonstrations, highly personalized, religious or even populist) but their time-span is almost always shorter depending on the manner in which policy makers and the public respond to them.  Which in most cases is to nip them in the bud by incrementally acceding to some of their demands or co-opting their leaderships. They however tend to have greater universal characteristics that relate to events and expectations as they occur globally in countries of preferred comparative choice. 

Now let me turn to why I have also alluded to memory.  All activism learns from a chosen past.  Be it local, national or global.  And it all chooses what pasts to admire the most. Be it in the political, economic or social/religious dimensions.  In fact it depends on it.  That is why the ruling Zanu PF party is quite stubborn about its historical record, while the opposition makes reference to its former great leaders.  Or other activists remember what they did in either pursuing constitutional reform or labour equality in order to justify their contemporary actions. 

Even neo-liberal activists in their historical amnesia make the ridiculous argument that the Rhodesian settler state had a better political economy.   All the while missing the point of its fundamental fault of being a repressive and racist state.  

Memory to me therefore connotes the passage of time in struggles/causes and campaigns.  Together with the assumption that we learn from what the past teaches us in order to arrive at a better future. 

So where I make reference to the future(s), it is again in direct relation to causes/struggles and campaigns as they define what is to come.  And this is based on the contemporary form either have taken.  In the immediate Zimbabwean context we have a mixture of assumptions of causes or campaigns that almost interchange based on the political convenience they bring to the table for interested parties.  Some disappear as quickly as they emerge for many reasons which also however reflect their ephemeral nature as much as the character of their most important newfound medium of social media.  With some campaigns waiting for the next electoral cycle in order again to repeat similar characteristics of the initial campaign mixed with cause elements. 

That means the future of causes/struggles in Zimbabwe’s context is precarious.  Not that one must always have a cause.  But if one should claim to do so, that claim is not necessarily based on an organic understanding of reality.  Including an uncomfortable likelihood that many cdes may also not be comfortable with.  This being the fact that some struggles quite literally reach their peak/end (such as independence). And that going forward need newer formats and more organic, approaches to cause and effect.  

What appears brighter for now is the future of campaigns.  Based on not only the general electoral cycle motivation attitude of activists across the board.  But also the fact that campaigns’ are easier and can always be abandoned midstream if newer more attractive ones emerge.  This means there are likely to be a lot more campaigns’ going forward toward the next general or any other election or as issues emerge around either the role of the state or the national political economy. 

Let me in conclusion return to the point I had made about individual struggles/causes, campaigns as they relate to material well-being.  This is the one that appears to be the most prevalent. Mainly because the state has left each and everyone to our own individual devices where we need to access health, education, transport, water, energy among many other livelihoods related activities.  If we want to return to a more equitable society, we have to undertake what Cabral refers as the struggles against our own weaknesses and I will quote him at length as borrowed from his speech from the Tri-Continental Conference in Havana, Cuba, 1966

“We refer here to the struggle against our own weaknesses. Obviously, other cases differ from that of Guinea; but our experience has shown us that in the general framework of daily struggle this battle against ourselves — no matter what difficulties the enemy may create — is the most difficult of all, whether for the present or the future of our peoples. This battle is the expression of the internal contradictions in the economic, social, cultural (and therefore historical) reality of each of our countries.”

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

 

Celebrating #Juneteenth Commemorations from Africa With Global Meaning

By Takura Zhangazha*

Experiencing African-American culture and history from the viewpoint of being geographically located on the mother continent of Africa has largely been almost to desire it.  Not just from the vantage point of how the same has strongly influenced contemporary young Africans’ cultural, political and economic perceptions of who they are or who they may in one way or the other desire to be.  Collectively and individually.  

Even as we also know that these perceptions are also influenced significantly by the organic historical struggles against the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and the repressive inhumane long-duree enslavement of black Americans.  

As well as in the now by the contemporary #BlackLivesMatter movement which is almost global except not so much on the African continent. 

This to me means that no matter which African American film, sports or music stars we in the Diaspora or at home on the continent admire the most, we cannot wish our shared history away.  Both its global anti-colonial struggles and more specifically for this short write up the Emancipation Proclamation that Juneteenth 2021 commemorations are essentially about. 

These are held on 19 June every year mainly in the USA and essentially mark the national remembrance of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 that legally freed all African American slaves.  It however only became federally effective with the defeat of the southern slave owning state of Texas on 19 June 1865.  But until recently it had not been universally recognized as a public holiday across all of the United States.  On the day there are however many state supported or independent events to mark its historical importance and ongoing relevance to the struggles against inequality by African Americans. Be it in the form of marches for example as was the case last year 2020 for #BlackLivesMatter.  Hence the commemorations are referred to as the Juneteenth celebrations.  

From a Pan African perspective these commemorative events are important in reclaiming the global placement, struggles and emancipation of all Africans across the world.  Be they in an historical or latter day African Diaspora in the ‘West, East, South America and Australasia.  And also where we on the motherland itself.  

Even as our various black emancipation struggle contexts differ either by way of geography or social contexts, it is the common thread of our shared historical struggles for revolutionary emancipation and equality that binds us all together.  As opposed to any assumptions of tokenism, black people all over the world have always stood more in solidarity with each other and other oppressed peoples’ of the world as our struggles for equality have had small and large victories.  

It may be time that we begin to expand a reclamation of emancipation to younger Africa’s consciousness.  And it begins by enabling them to recognize their own organic and historical struggles for emancipation. An emancipation that as evidenced by global struggles today, is one that remains incomplete. And it therefore continues, in many different forms. As it has to. And as handed from one generation to the next. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity. 

Predicting Zimbabwe’s Future(s)

By Takura Zhangazha*

In Zimbabwe we rarely talk about the future.  Our focus is at best on the present.  Or even more callously the immediate.  Almost as though our lives are defined by shrugging our shoulders each day as it passes and helplessly waiting for the next one. 

There are many reasons for this.  Not least among them the fact that our political economy is highly individualistic.  And that individuals rarely think beyond themselves. Or at best beyond their immediate families. All aided by the fact that our present day economic system is designed in the same way with not only individualism as a preferred way of living but also its accompanying materialism and consumerism. 

We however do have a penchant to discuss the past as far as it affects the immediate.  And again at very personal levels.  For example a lot of cdes are wont to discuss what occurred in the past as it relates to their immediate material well-being.  And often times this is done on the basis of religion and assumptions of not being successful or facing individual challenges because of a lack of one faith or the other.  And basing any assumptions of individual futures on the same.  

We rarely think of our collective national future in an organic manner.  Its either based on our individual political preferences or even more stubborn assumptions or our individual ‘feelings’ as mediated by social media to 'algorithmically' point us to its owned preferred future.

However this is not unique to Zimbabwe.  ‘Ephemeralism’ is now almost a universal given.   As are assumptions of the significance of the individual as being most superior in society.  

What is important however is that we need to always consider Zimbabwean futures beyond our individual concerns, material desires and ambitions.  Mainly because where we think of the future with our own personal children in mind we can never run away from the reality that they too will live in one society or the other.  Be it in Zimbabwe or other countries where a decent number of parents continually, and wrongly in my view, continue to encourage young Zimbabweans to depart to. 

In discussing Zimbabwean futures we need to remind ourselves of that key word, ‘posterity’. In whatever leadership positions we hold. Wherever we hold them, we must understand that we never lead for ourselves but for others.  And particularly others that are already and will inevitably come after us. 

It is therefore on this initial 'posterity' principle that we can then understand that because the past informs the present as the latter does the future, we can still imagine and try to predict our collective futures.

Whereas our own individual circumstances of existence may have made us particularly sensitive to certain things such as political repression, individual health, education, jobs, intellectualism and even gender inequality, we are always obliged to think beyond our own experiences. And to think for others and their betterment. 

So what are Zimbabwe’s futures given our past and our contemporary context?

In the political it is relatively apparent that we are caught in a whirlwind of a lack of organic national consciousness. One in which we are almost schizophrenic because of our divisions and our own lack of national self confidence.  It is a dilemma that we run the risk of passing on to the next generation because in many instances we cannot confront our collective historical realities. But be that as it may our collective political future looks like it will most likely be typically nationalist in identity but not necessarily in economics. Like a number of other countries we will be captured by global political events and discourse because of our penchant for mimicry/admiration of the global north societies. We will likely move further away from Pan African discourse to a universalism in which we will not recognize our inequality.  And sadly we will still pander to philosophies of life that are not intended to make us universally equal. 

On the economic front we are likely headed to neo-liberal global integration and subservience to private capital.   All based once again on our own individualist materialism that suits the same said neoliberal economic frameworks.  It may however suit us now to pursue this path but it will most certainly not suit those that come after us because it essentially creates a narcissistic value system that is unsustainable. Mainly because we refuse to learn from history that existence is not singularly about our consumption and enjoyment but also for future generations. But as the adage goes, ‘the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history.’

On the social front Zimbabwean society is likely to evolve, based on our economics into even more individualism.  Where almost everything including water, education, health will eventually be pre-paid.  Not necessarily via a pre-paid meter but all the same via our own convoluted sense of individual self-importance.   The signs are already there.  And the sings will remain with us for a while.  And we will rapidly urbanise our society so the rural folk are quite literally living on borrowed time. 

To conclude, writing this short blog was about my own personal fear about Zimbabwe’s future. For my children and those of all of us. It wasn’t intended as an intellectual exercise but just an abstract stream of consciousness.  Either way, we still need to think about Zimbabwe’s future(s) in realistic ways.

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

Zanu PF’s Newfound Comfort Zone: Hegemony Beyond Elections?

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s current ruling party Zanu Pf is noticeably beginning to exude a specific confidence about how it is running the country.  Not necessarily through its own members but those that are at its political and strategic helm. 

I would also hazard to call it a newfound comfort zone that is largely about reducing our long duree culture of relatively populist political contests for power.  They want to be seen and acknowledged as 'doers'.  Not quite in the tradition of typical performance legitimacy but somewhere close to it in relation to the hegemonic expectations of private capital.  And I will explain this particular point a little bit further.

One of the key challenges Mnangagwa’s predecessor faced after the fast track land reform programme had been that private capital in its local and global form was deliberately united in undermining any ‘revolutionary’ narratives that undermined ‘private property’.  While workers and trade unions were more overtly 'oppositional',  private capital was definitively in control of the same's counter narrative.  Hence by the time the mainstream opposition became stronger, it had changed its ideological framework from social democracy to neoliberalism. 

Where we come full circle to Mnagagwa’s current government it would appear they are in the process of successfully taking back the support of private capital.  Both local and global through either their infrastructure projects or their newfound direct relationship with owners of the same.  Hence their insistence on the ‘ease of doing business mantra’.  It is not just a slogan.  Its an attempt at a closer relationship between the state and private capital in order to change the political narrative in return for making the money. For either.  A development which on the face of it appears to be work in progress.  Almost like a case of a deliberate understanding that we have each other’s backs. 

And then on the regional and international engagement scene, Zanu Pf knows that SADC and the African Union are firmly behind them now.  It was a bit tentative at first but now with declarations and resolutions calling for the lifting of sanctions firmly under their belt it would take a drastic development for these two or other interstate African regional organizations’ to change perspectives on Zimbabwe.

Where it concerns the West the fact that private capital owners from the same region are working on investing locally is something that Mnangagwa and his team view as part of work in progress.  Though they are probably aware that the human rights narrative cannot be wished away from any engagement.  As for the East, nothing appears to have changed with those they call their all-weather friends.  In fact under Mnangagwa the relations with Russia , China, Belarus appear to have significantly improved.  But all with a universal understanding that the priority is the establishment of neoliberal hegemony in Zimbabwe.  Especially one with a calmer nationalism. 

There are other sources of this newfound Zanu Pf comfort zone.  These include but are not limited to the fact that for all the objections of the opposition and civil society, Zanu PF retains as based on the 2018 electoral results, a two thirds majority in Parliament.  And has used this to recently make significant changes to the constitution.  While many focused on changes that related to the appointment of judges it is worth serious political noting that there are other changes that have far reaching political comfort zone implications.  I will just cite that of the structural changes to parliament through the introduction of a youth quota, the extension of the women’s quota and the proportional election of provincial councils.  These amendments basically point to an intention to not just expand the demographic representation but more importantly to be able to field as many candidates possible for the party and reduce likelihood of too many internal party candidate disputes.  Simply put it helps assuage fears of key members being left behind for elected posts. 

And of course there is the matter of the state of the mainstream political opposition.  While the MDC factions retain a proven popularity mainly in urban and peri-urban areas, the ruling party appears to no longer be as worried about its impact.  Divisions, court cases and disputes over properties (whatever their alleged causes/reasons) mean that the opposition is weaker.  For now.  Add to this an apparent failure to have a comprehensive performance related policy framework for the local governments that opposition is still in charge of limits its ability to utilize ‘performance legitimacy’ to its full potential.  Or to generally have an aversion to internal party procedures that promote collective leadership and membership accountability. While always waiting for the next election as the foundational reason for leadership. 

What remains to be seen is how this new hegemonic project by Zanu Pf pans itself out. But it is clear that it is beyond being just about elections in 2023.  The active recognition of historical figures and monuments is telling in this regard.   Mnangagwa’s intention is to reduce again, contestations over history and establish a national understanding of its importance.  Even if by default this suits the ruling party’s own historical narratives well given the fact that it has in most cases always also referred to this same said history as its own.  But also beyond history, the continued courting of the religious sector leaders and their churches/believers is something that gives the ruling establishment continued confidence.   Add to this also the continuing but somewhat more elevated respect and retention of traditional leaders and customs also completes these clearer hegemonic intentions of Mnangagwa. 

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

In Solidarity with the People of Palestine. From Zimbabwe.

By Takura Zhangazha*

In many activist circles we are very familiar with the importance of acquiring regional and international solidarity for our struggle causes.  It is a solidarity that we generally anticipate will take many forms but above all else  recognizes the significance and importance of the struggles that we are waging by people who would otherwise not be concerned. 

In Southern Africa we grew up on a diet of struggle solidarity.  From a Zimbabwean perspective our own liberation struggle would not have been successful without this regional and international solidarity.  Particularly as led by the Frontline States (now incorporated into SADC).  As it is probably the same for South African and Namibian liberation struggles. 

We also had solidarity from geographically distant countries such as Cuba, China, the then USSR (now Russia), Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria and Guinea to name just a few. 

And this solidarity did not end there.  In our struggle there were other liberation movements that while waging their own fights against oppression stood by us.  And one of the most outstanding ones was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as led by the late revolutionary Yasser Arafat. 

After our national independence, we generally knew that there was the question of Palestinian freedom because it was always mentioned in various state events.  Or by seeing the local Palestinian ambassador to Zimbabwe on television explaining his people's struggles against repression and occupation. Also by way of news reports about what has now come to be generally referred to as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

In the late 1990s there was a shift in these assumptions of solidarity.  Largely motivated by a post cold-war global international relations system and a false assumption about the indefatigable nature of neoliberal ideology.

Moreover we also began to face our own internal political and economic challenges wrought by the same neoliberal ideological turn of events to the extent that we were no longer keen on giving solidarity to other people's struggles.  

Instead we sought more regional and international solidarity for ourselves in one respect or the other. Either in support of Mugabe’s then newfound radical nationalism or Tsvangirai’s then social democracy proposition. 

In this, we sought more and more to be a global centre of attention surpassing all other long standing struggles with what I now consider in hindsight as vainglorious vanity.  But it was understandable given the global interest in what was happening over here.  We just lost sight of the fact that our Zimbabwean struggles and challenges were and still are not the only ongoing ones in the world. 

And this is why I wrote this blog.  Recent events in the Gaza strip where there have been bombings carried out by Israel which have tragically led to the killing of hundreds of Palestinians including children made me pause and reflect on the meaning of solidarity.

While I am not an expert on the Middle East,  I know that Zimbabwe has always stood with the people of Palestine.  As much as they stood by us during our own liberation struggles.   And it is apparent that while our struggle for liberation ended. Theirs has not.

And comrades tend to mix issues up about this.  The Palestinian struggle for liberation is quite literally about their loss of land in 1948.  An historical process that they refer to as the Al Nakba (catastrophe).  And in the now they are still losing even the little land they have left as reported in the mainstream global and social media. Hence their latest resistance.

I however also know that the state of Israel in its existence means many things to many Africans this side of the Sahara.  And mainly for religious reasons.  I even have friends that may scream for solidarity on many matters but not on the matter of the liberation of the people of Palestine.  They are no doubt entitled to their view and also their religious persuasions. 

What is however important is the fact of the historical reality that the people of Palestine are a dispossessed and repressed people.  Whichever way you want to look at it.  As we once were.   And there’s the rub which can never be wished away with platitudes or political or religious correctness. 

In the tradition of the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union) we would do well to remember that we historically share the same struggles as the people of Palestine. And that we must stand by and with them.

In my personal reflections on solidarity across borders I asked myself  questions as to what does it mean to be human in the contemporary?  Is it to assume isolation? Is to gain proximity to power and privilege?  Is it to be politically or religiously correct? Is it to have money?  The answer I still came to is that to be human is to recognize the historical and organic equal humanity of others.  No matter their colour, creed, gender or religion.

That is why on Palestine I will never self-censor. Palestine and its people must be free. #FreePalestine

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