“We are What We Are Not!” The Ironies of Zimbabwe’s Political Economy.

By Takura Zhangazha*

So back in my youthful days I used to read Wole Soyinka.  Particularly the biography that was titled ‘The Man Died’. 

Reading such a book was as fashionable as it did not get you girls.  I remember telling an amazing heart crush female cde that I had read such a book and she was completely blank.  With the benefit of hindsight I should never have mentioned it.  That was not how courtship was done.  Unless one wanted to do the impressionability of TK Tsodzo’s “Pafunge” satirical narrative on love and its meaning.   Or even Shimmer Chinodya’s ‘Harvest of Thorns’ character who wrote one of Zimbabwe’s most humorous love letters.  Almost as though to confirm how love between a man and a woman was arrived at in courtship. 

It appears to be as abstract as it remains a reality based question.  In post Covid 19, does ‘love’ mean the same?   In our African contexts? And no, this is not a self-righteousness individual question.  But one that asks of us “ Are we still the same people. Post Covid19?”

The easy answer is ‘yes’. Including a perspective that we can easily revert to what obtained.  With or without relatives that we lost due to the Covi19 pandemic.

This is something that would be fair and if only memories did not come back to haunt us.  We died and many of us almost died as Africans.  That it spoke of us who survived Corona does not mean we remember it as an integral part of our lives.  Instead we choose to forget.  Because of our own personal helplessness. And our continued admiration of the global north that reflects more an inferiority complex than it does an existential reality.

But essentially this is who we are.  We consider ourselves as lesser people in a desire for perpetually inferiority motivated recognition from elsewhere. 

With our current government, we know it has the challenge of confronting itself in the mirror.  A task that it ambiguously does and contradicts itself on social media.

One of Dambudzo Marechera’s most contradictory statements based on one of his underrated lines  his novella “Black Insider”is, “We are what we are not.  That is the paradox of Fiction.”

There are many ways to translate or view this. We either believe our own lies or we believe in ourselves. 

Its as simple as that.  Unfortunately a majority of us have chosen to believe in our own lies.  To ourselves.  In the images and expectation or the other.  It sort of works but it again unfortunately remains hollow. 

But I sort of get it.  A majority of urban Zimbabweans live almost as an urban performance gallery.  Its as tiring as it is abstract.  A recognition that means no more no less beyond the ghetto gate and street you grew up in.  Almost like an escapism that you have to prove eventually worked. Mainly because you left for the Diaspora or Diaspimbi. And there is no way you should allow anyone back home to consider you a failure.   If they would even consider it, it would remain better never to  return home altogether.     

 

But let us think about it. We live and we die.  We try to make the most of our existence as given by societal norms.  But we have no option but to believe in an organic progressive future. And to be stubborn about it. 

It does not matter that you were founder of one party or the other.  We can only ask you what do you believe in? And what does your belief mean for the rest of us.

Because we understand the passage of time. That things at some point will never be the same. And it is this passage of rime that makes remember who we are and who we can be.

That’s why I initially quoted from Soyinka’s “The Man Died”. Because African intellectualism died.  Wjhat happens next I do not know. But I am not tired. We suffer, we continue.

By Takura Zhangazha (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)*

 

 

Rising Above ‘Politicised’ Football in Zimbabwe: #DeMbare #Bosso

By Takura Zhangazha*

The recent football match between two Zimbabwe soccer giants, namely Highlander’s FC and Dynamos FC in Bulawayo this weekend reminded me of a book I once read.  It is titled ‘Bulawayo Burning: The History of a Southern African City, 1893-1960.” 

It was written by a British born historian who we historically respect as Professor Terrence Ranger. Mainly because it also turns out he was progressively involved in our national liberation struggle as both an intellectual as well as a close comrade to a number of our liberation war heroes either side of the Zanu Pf or PF Zapu divide.  Including being one of the first British intellectuals to interrogate the development of African nationalism(s) as they related to our First Chimurenga liberation struggle. 

In the book I cite above, Ranger has a chapter where he outlines the evolution of the football club that has now come to be known as Highlanders’ FC.  From it being initially being referred to as Lions FC through to its emblematic meaning as it reflected identity. Also as preferred and promoted by emergent settler colonialism. 

What is however apparent in his historical narrative, which he dedicates to the late amazing novelist Yvonne Vera, is the rich historical diversity of the city of Bulawayo.  Based on the fact that the white settler colonialists assumed it to be not only the key to conquering their newly established territory but also its economic proximity to divided Boer and English South Africa.

In the then Salisbury (now Harare) though with scant academic literature and knowledge, Dynamos FC also emerged based on its moniker ‘DeMbare’ from the African township that came to be initially known as Harare and then eventually Mbare district.   

The politics that happened in between are for some other academics to crosscheck.  What was important is the reality that Zanu Pf or PF Zapu had always instrumentalized football supporters for specific political causes.  But even then, this was also borrowed from the Rhodesian propaganda machinery where they would use one urban and historical ethnic group against the other.   

But back to contemporary local football.   

I now argue with some of my brothers and sisters including those based in rural areas about the English premier league.  I am a Liverpool FC supporter.  A majority of them support either Manchester United or Chelsea FC.  We laugh about all these teams also based on whether our fathers and mothers currently (if they are alive) or used to support.  We do not fight or invade pitches. We still call it the “beautiful game”.  And because we are in the global south, after the satellite broadcast matches it will be late and we have to go to sleep. 

Indeed if we are in social conversations we may fight over television remotes about what match to watch but in the final analysis we do not carry goal posts or tear goal nets.  Neither do we generally assume political connotations to football matches even if they are as far away as they are in the global north.  Particularly if it’s the UEFA Champions League or the World Cup. 

But I would understand why Ranger also wrote his brilliant archival narrative on what occurred in Bulawayo beyond the football.  Or why the amazing Japanese scholar Tsuneo Yoshikuni also wrote a brief but brilliant history of Mbare. It was probably in order that we do not repeat “bad history”.

Especially via that which should bring us together in the form of sport.  Even at the highest levels as ‘competitive sport’. 

But I know there are some cdes that prefer what I personally consider a regressive alternative.  One that insists on a sporting culture that puts politics above its sporting necessity.  I have problems with that. But I do not run sporting associations.  I just share my opinions to whoever wants to read/know them. 

We need to rise above political assumptions of the meaning of football.  If we insist on it, it does not help.

Some among us believe proximity to the state helps their causes.  Others believe whispering in the ears of international football authorities is better.  The key questions we have to ask are twofold.  Firstly, if it can be a beautiful game globally why can it not be one in Zimbabwe?

Secondly, why must we always wear our egos about sports administration on our sleeves yet we, in the majority of cases never played sport beyond high school.  In Zimbabwe. 

Those that run two of the most historically significant football clubs in Zimbabwe, Highlanders FC and Dynamos FC, need to get their act together and think beyond their personal tenures and a new progressive football culture that must be constructed.  Internally and externally with their fans. 

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

 

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

By Takura Zhangazha*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Rising Above Religion in Zimbabwe’s Politics.

By Takura Zhangazha*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

By Takura Zhangazha*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

By Takura Zhangazha*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Salah and Mane: Symbols of Progressive Pan African Sporting Rivalry

By Takura Zhangazha*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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