The Movement for Democratic Change’s Upcoming Congress: Mwonzora’s Moment of Truth?

The Pith

The MDC Alliance finally called for a congress to be held in May 2019 and this has already heated the country’s political temperatures. As the jostling for positions is already heating up, there are two names  already appearing as front runners despite that no official nomination has yet taken place. The incumbent, Nelson Chamisa and Secretary General, Douglass Mwonzora will likely lock horns for  the Premiership of the opposition party which rekindles the 2014 rivalry, when Chamisa lost the Secretary General’s position to Mwonzora. 

Secretary General Douglass Mwonzora

Beyond the rivalry of these two protagonists, the May 2019 Congress has to be seen as an unresolved succession question and a battle for the soul of the party. I say so mainly for three reasons: Firstly, the defeat of the Thokozani Khupe Faction towards the July 2018 elections, did not result in total surrender but a tactical retreat as some of the sympathisers remained in the party to fight another day. Secondly, It revives the failed succession plot, Project 2016 and a close read of characters in the MDC Alliance says it all. Thirdly, these two historical facts highlighted above are very important in understanding the current ructions within the opposition as they also morph into a generational transition happening within the national body politic.

Could it be Generational?

On my recent trip from Zambia, I overhead the bus crew discussing MDC Alliance politics. “These guys aren't in the structures and they are in their late 30s and early 40s. They reasoned: MDC should leave Chamisa at the presidency. We want someone young like us and Mwonzora should know it's not his generation.” I asked them what if Chamisa loses? They argued back and passionately saying “we will tell Chamisa to go and form another party and vote for him.” To my shock was the whole bus joining the debate in support of the bus crew. Most of the passengers were cross-border traders, mainly young women and men in the ages between 20s and 40s. If this is representative of the nation, which I am tempted to believe so, then it seems some candidates are misreading history. Beyond this anecdotal observation one has to read the 2018 elections results, ‘warts and all’; it is crystal clear that the MDC Alliance amassed more votes in the Presidential than Parliamentary contest. For the first time the MDC breached the 2 million mark. On the Presidential ballot the MDC Alliance had a youthful and more appealing candidate. Also, when one reads the profile of the rallies, it was the young who dominated. On the Parliamentary ballot, the MDC Alliance underperformed and interesting to note is that most of its candidates were more older. ZANU PF had a much more youthful candidacy on the Parliamentary ballot among many other factors, it outperformed its Presidential ballot which was geriatric. What in interesting to note here, is that the Youth are demanding their seat on the governance table. Love or hate him, with 70% of the population being 45yrs and below, Chamisa has no contest in the MDC or the country. It seems we have a new reality and the Ruling Party, ZANU PF will have to renew its party, a debate for another day. The Congress is going to be generational. It appears, the Morgan generation time is over.

Remembering History: Project 2016

After the defeat of the MDC in the 2013 elections, there was intense debate on the utility of continuing with Morgan Tsvangirai as the leader of the party. Overtures were made to him to retire and create a new role as an ambassador of democracy in Africa. When those diplomatic manoeuvres failed and Morgan’s kitchen cabinet prevailed, a lot of young Turks in the opposition were disgruntled. The thinking that dominated then was that, Tendai Biti would take over from Morgan and Nelson would follow in line. This group of young Turks were code named project 2016 and later mutated into ‘MDC Renewal’. It had to take the Vanguard to extinguish Project 2016, after an alleged Judas Iscariot moment within its ranks. Some would question about the 2014 split, but it is my contention that argument is moot as it focusses on the after effects of a collapsed project. This history is important to take note as it explains what appears a ‘newfound’ love relationship, yet it is one with deep historical roots.

Come the 2018 elections, Project 2016 is back in the fold, although with variations in the leadership hierarchy to accommodate for the new realities. Project 2016 was largely an initiative of former student leaders, civil society activists and middle class youth. This group was very instrumental in the formation of the opposition but felt to have been left out of the processes in the party. It is not surprising that Generational Consensus emerged and became one of the vociferous groups in support of Nelson Chamisa’s ascendancy and as well reunion of the MDC. The noisy and rag-tag fit character of Generational Consensus betrayed its student politics nature, but also proved effective in shaping a new narrative of ‘nothing for the young without the young’. But one cannot escape from the fact that convenience, opportunity and history also played a key role in the formation of the MDC Alliance. 

MDC A Rising Hornets

The coming back together of Tendai Biti, Jacob Mafume, Job Sikhala, Nelson Chamisa, Charlton Hwende, Settlement Chikwinya, Prosper Mutseyami, Lovemore Chinoputsa, Clifford Hlatshwayo, plus the new graduands Joanna Mamombe, Maureen Kademaunga, Gladys Hlatshwayo among many others cannot be read outside history, convenience and opportunity. This group has expanded beyond its student character to incorporate the middle class and ghetto youth, thus morphing into a potent political force that cannot be ignored. This is the challenge that “Mukoma Dougie” faces and the national demographics have made it worse.

Die Another Day, Dougie Bond 007?

In run up to 2018 elections the Khupe Faction won the battle for the name of the party but this became a symbolic or moot victory. One of the key backers of Thokozani Khupe then was said to be Douglass Mwonzora, although he later preferred to stay put and move on with his allies. It appears then, it was tactical retreat to fight another day by the Khupe Faction. The  Chamisa Faction (read Project 2016) won the structures, the soul of the party. The 2018 elections results also proved further who won the heart and soul of the party and an almost repeat scenario of the year 2014 after the split. Two interesting things arise here: On, Mukoma Dougie was instrumental in the removal of the ‘Renewal Boys and Girls’ (read Project 2016) from parliament. Two, the remnants of Project 2016 remained in the mainstream MDC and consequently, Nelson Chamisa was viewed suspiciously by Morgan’s Kitchen Cabinet. Going towards the 2014 Congress, Nelson Chamisa was poised for a landslide sweep and it had to take Morgan’s intervention to save Douglass Mwonzora’s  political fortunes. Morgan felt threatened by Nelson’s meteoric rise  and thus sought to trim his ambitions and keep him at bay. Morgan needed a checkmate for Nelson and he found it in Mukoma Dougie. After Mwonzora’s failure to get nomination from any province, Morgan had to overrule Manicaland and declare Mwonzora the winner despite him losing repeated votes. The election at the 2014 Congress was run by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), which was Morgan’s fort and it played significant role in tilting the fortunes towards Mwonzora. This is not to say Mwonzora had no agency of his own, but what cannot be ignored is the Morgan factor in the 2014 congress. Going into the 2018 May congress, the circumstances have largely changed. In the 2014 congress history, convenience and opportunity struck but in the favour of Mukoma Dougie. The question that begs: can Mukoma Dougie play a James Bond 007 and live to fight the May 2018 congress after initially losing the succession race? It seems this time, history, convenience and opportunity are stacked against him.

It’s the Time for New Sprouts?

The reconfiguration of the MDC Alliance cannot be read outside the notion of time. There are those who have toyed with the idea that the structures are not in unison with the Tsar. That’s a figment of imagination from those not wanting to acknowledge the reality. The horse has already bolted out and it is the time for new sprouts. The political active population has become very youthful, and by their nature don’t subscribe to Old Edmund Burke’s ideas of order and rationality used by those opposed to Chamisa. The youth by nature are abrasive and daring, and will continue to demand a position at the high table. It is important for one to note that even the ZCTU that was Morgan’s power base has become a pale shadow of itself after the decimation of the working class by decades of economic decline. It is now the informal and unemployed classes that are on the ascendancy and also happens to be youthful. For this group, the lack of hope for a better Zimbabwe, educated or uneducated, unites them more as they toil together in Zimbabwe’s informal economy. This is the base that has taken over the MDC Alliance, hence the rise of Nelson cannot be read outside this group. The sprouts are green and new political season has come. Once again, it is history, convenience and opportunity at play.

‘Soft’ Mandela and ‘Tough’ Mugabe: Amnestic Politics and Liberation in Southern Africa

The recent characterisation of former South African President Nelson Mandela as ‘soft’ and ‘too saintly’ by President Mugabe that led to some internet and media turf with Gwede Mantashe, the African National Congress Secretary General is not new, but indicates the nonagenarian’s hidden disdain for South Africa’s Anti-Apartheid Icon. Off course, one needs no rockets scientist to prove that Mugabe’s rantings are attempts at historical revisionism that seeks to create a legendary and revolutionary ‘Self’. 

President Nelson Mandela

In May 2013, Mugabe in Dali Tambo’s programme, People of the South, rubbished Mandela as ‘soft’ and someone who sold out to ‘White’ people. Such claims have the potential effect of misrepresenting and bastardising history particularly given the increasingly contested nature of policy direction and national priorities in post-colonial African societies. The wrong characterisation of Mandela is full of historical factual flaws and amnesia. It represents an elisionistic interpretation of history that seeks to create ‘sell outs’ and ‘revolutionaries’ or in Professor Terrence Ranger’s words, ‘a patriotic history’ full of false consciousness. This opine will argue that, failing to question such historical misrepresentations may undermine people’s voices in charting policy direction and national priorities in the post colony as former liberation movement leaders plunder and pillage public resources under the guise of a revolution. Furthermore, it will be argued that in the current episode that invited SG Mantashe to defend Mandela’s legacy and Dali Tambo’s interview; Mugabe disingenuously seeks to re-invent his image as a Robin Hood of Africans, while ignoring the reality of the politics of decolonisation. 

It is undeniable that colonialism and apartheid dehumanised and disempowered Black Africans. This op-ed will therefore not engage with that discourse, as there is no need for re-emphasis. However, by labelling Mandela as too good and saintly to non-black people (whites in particular),is flawed in two ways. The first assumption is to reduce the African National Congress (ANC) and all its members into ‘political yoyos’ of Mandela. This reasoning insinuates that Mandela ran the ANC as a personal fiefdom just as President Mobutu of Zaire (now DRC) or Kamuzu Banda of Malawi did, to an extend that all that mattered in post-apartheid South African politics was Mandela. 

President Mobutu Sese Seko

Whilst Mandela managed to serve as a uniting figure and brand for the ANC in post-apartheid South Africa it would be wrong to claim that the new South Africa to which he agreed to, was as result of one man feat. It should be noted that during President Mandela’s time, Deputy President Thabo Mbeki was almost the defacto president of the Republic of South Africa as he almost literally ran the day to day affairs of government; an observation alluded to by Mark Gevisser in his book, “Thabo Mbeki The Dream Deferred” and William Mervin Gumede’s book, “Thabo Mbeki and The Battle For The Soul Of The ANC”. This was necessitated by the realisation within the ANC that while Mandela has been a fatherly symbol of perseverance, dignity and reconciliation, floating above the fray as a kind of patron saint of that grand compromise, there was need for a new broom to take over the reins of state power and chart the discourse of transformation. Therefore, the compromise by the ANC under the leadership of Mandela exhibited great visionary and maturity, for nations are never built on populism. Henceforth, Mandela was neither soft nor a sell-out but a pragmatic leader who was quite aware, that while the Blacks had the numbers, the Whites had the guns and the money. Thus, it was not desirable to threaten the no black community and there was need for compromise as failure to do so may have prolonged instability unnecessarily. 

Secondly, the argument of ‘Mandela the saint’ also disingenuously attempts to ignore the realities of the politics of decolonisation and nation building. One fundamental question that faced liberation movements in Africa especially those that were former settler colonies was the question of the architecture of new society in particular racial relations. Given this scenario the ANC and even Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF were faced with the same dilemma and had to agree to a settlement agreement that did not threaten the former colonisers. Thus in 1980 Mugabe had to say, “It must be realized however that a state of peace and security can only be achieved by our determination, all of us, to be bound by the explicit requirements of peace contained in the Lancaster House agreement, which express the general desire of the people of Zimbabwe. Surely this is now time to beat our swords into ploughshares, so we can attend to the problems of developing our economy and our society”. Therefore, Zimbabwe adopted a policy of reconciliation as one key determinant to ensure smooth transfer of power and as well build the foundations of a new state. The same happened in South Africa where the ANC agreed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a strategy of closing the chapter of apartheid and create a new society. It should be realised that without assuaging the minority Apartheid and Rhodesian governments, that would have meant protracted conflict. It was not just the barrel of the gun that brought independence, but negotiations as well played their role. In addition, Mozambique had also served as an example to other former liberation movements to tread carefully, as the expulsion of the Portuguese community soon after gaining its independence had negative consequences. 

Thirdly, Mugabe’s rants on Mandela suggests a linear history for Zimbabwe from 1980 to the present. In this history, Mugabe is painted as a blemish-less revolutionary fighter who has managed to give back Black people their Land and Natural Resources. Not does only Mugabe belittles Mandela, but also former ANC President, Oliver Reginald Tambo. It is reported in the Herald of 8^th of September that in an address to business leaders, Mugabe retorted; “I remember TG Silundika and myself talking to Oliver Tambo to say, aah (sic) you are just fighting for the removal of apartheid and not independence as we were doing and they said independence it was given to us by Britain in 1910 on the 31^st of May”. The import was to paint Tambo, Mandela and the ANC as not revolutionary enough like himself and ZANU PF, yet deliberately omitted in Mugabe’s story is the location of where they had the discussion and the agenda that had brought them together. In addition, Tambo spent time in exile (Zimbabwe included) organising the fight against apartheid and the question that begs is if they had been given independence in in 1910 why would the ANC’s ‘Umkhonto weSizwe’ make alliances with the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) to fight the Rhodesians, if they really believed they were independent. In the same meeting with Zimbabwe’s business people Mugabe further rubbishes Tambo and the ANC by claiming that “They went that way; it was an easy way”.

President Oliver Tambo

All this, is meant to create a heroic and super Mugabe and at the same time attempts to mask the plunder and mayhem that the Mugabes have caused within Zimbabwe and South Africa. The millions of Zimbabwean economic and political refugees in South Africa and the region, the bashing of Gabriella Engels by Grace and the Mugabe Boys’ profligacy that makes Kenny Kunene green with envy are some of the ills that president Mugabe seeks to mask. No wonder, Gwede Mantashe correctly observed that they don’t research about Zimbabwe’s crisis, but they meet it every day on South African streets. Interestingly Mugabe conveniently forgets his cajole to Dali Tambo in 2013 after disparaging Mandela; “If Tambo’s father was alive, the ANC would be different”. It is still the same Oliver Tambo whom he claims went the easy route when addressing Zimbabwean business leaders, four years earlier on, he claimed would have led a different ANC. There are fundamental historical flaws in these assumptions by Mugabe. This creates the flaw of ‘pitfalls of national consciousness’ as articulated by Frantz Fanon besetting the land reform and indigenisation process. It took president Mugabe’s government 20 years to compulsory acquire land, and to further show the insincerity of his government to distribute land it had to take ZANU PF two years to pass amendments to the Land Act to include the Land seizures that had begun in 2000.

The period before the fast track land programme was marked by ZANU PF wining and dining with white capital and agriculture. Mugabe’s government was never at comfort with having an empowered black business or agricultural class. This explains Strive Masiyiwa’s struggle to get a licence, despite that ECONET has become the most successful business company by any black Zimbabwean. 

Zimbabwe's Business Greats: James Makamba and Mutumwa Mawere

There is a litany of cases where, black entrepreneurs were haunted out of Zimbabwe and some of them like Mutumwa Mawere are still fighting to get back their business empire from the government. In addition to this, the people of Marange and Chisumbanje have experienced land dispossession as Mugabe’s Chinese allies and alleged ZANU PF financier Billy Rautenbach get preference to exploit the land at the expense of ordinary villagers who have lived in these areas for very long periods of time. Off late, Grace Mugabe, in typical fashion of the biblical Queen Jezebel used state institutions to evict beneficiaries of the “Third Chimurenga” (Zimbabwe’s fast track land reform programme) at Manzou Farm- 60kms from Harare- to pave way for the establishment of her private game park. These new farmers have settled on this farm for 17 years and only to be removed because Zimbabwe’s First Lady developed interests on the farm. There are many cases where Zimbabwe’s beneficiaries are being dispossessed to pave way for the politically connected and elite. This is Mugabe’s toughness and revolution.

There seems to be a growing mistaken realisation that by disenfranchising white people that will transform into prosperity for black people. Political and Economic transformation means going beyond pigmentation, and not all black people act in the interest of black people. Blackness has never been a homogenous class and similarly a black leadership does not mean the end of poverty for black people. Furthermore, the characterisation of Mandela as ‘soft’ is historical dishonesty and at the same time fails to recognise the realities of the politics of decolonisation that existed. Lastly, Mugabe is not a revolutionary, but a former liberation leader turned into a despot that has outlived his time. For the South Africans and SADC region it is time that they realise “A stitch in time serves nine”, and they need to help Zimbabweans solve its crisis by making sure the 2018 elections are free and fair, and at the same time settle the political legitimacy question once and for all.  Even if, it may mean that it is time for new brooms.

Zimbabwe’s Complex Balance of Forces: Thinking Beyond the Cosmopolitans

GravitasLite July Volume. 

Zimbabwe’s Complex Balance of Forces: Thinking Beyond the Cosmopolitans

Tinashe L. Chimedza and Tamuka C. Chirimambowa*

In the past few weeks Dr Nkosana Moyo launched the Alliance for People’s Agenda, Advocate Fadzai Mahere announced she will stand as an independent, and Arthur Mutambara at his book launch in Bulawayo toyed with the possibility of a return to politics. Within the ruling elites the fissures are boiling leading to a showdown between Jonathan Moyo and the Genarillismo. Mugabe and the President’s office have catapulted the party-state’s existence to the ‘youth bulge’ hence the emphasis of ‘meet the youth’ and generous land distribution to the youth in the form of 20,000 residential lands.  It has been a maelstrom for our friend and brother Dr Alex Magaisa who was caught up with the factional gladiators at the The Plot Café ­– but we know that the learned doctor is made of sterner stuff and an independent mind. What is at stake is simple: state power. The question which arises and we have hinted before in previous Gravitas issues, is how do the old and new political movements measure up under the contemporary balance of forces.  We pose four questions: how does this political project differentiate itself from the post-nationalist movement like the MDC or the radical nationalist coercive hegemony of the ruling party-state; secondly how do these political projects organize themselves ‘strategy & tactics’ wise  to assail the party-state networks; thirdly and historically political movements generally emerge from a process of protracted contestation which feeds, mobilises and builds some form of class solidarity and in the case of APA there is no such history,  and fourthly Zimbabwe’s terrain is already dominated by political formations, civil society and social movements of some kind how do these emerging ‘independent’ candidates and APAs relate to them? ­

Fig 1.0 Dr Nkosana Moyo at the World Economic Forum: Old Bottle with New Wine ?

Fleeting with Ephemeral Modernity: the flight of Political Economy Analysis

It was very significant that APA was launched at Meikles Hotel. For now, we will put the history of Thomas Meikles aside and confine ourselves to the very worrying infantile political adventurism of Zimbabwe’s advanced intellectual class. This adventurism is not limited and or monopolized by Dr Nkosana Moyo, it is a malady which fatally infects not Zimbabwe but Africa’s advanced intellectual class. Having walked down the cobbled streets of London, felt the electricity in Washington DC or walked down to the chiming bells of

Prague, they return home and do not for a moment think that they are a minority within a minority. That reality is a complex lingering of the colonial-settler political economy which pushed the urban enclave into existence and had its fortunes tied to the colonial metropole.

With the advent of independence, suddenly Muchadeyi Masunda can sit on the board of London based corporates, Arthur goes to Oxford with the Royals and Nkosana Moyo sits on the boards of global corporates with real capitalist power.Feted with luncheons abroad, donned in cosmopolitan and almost imperial gowns, with access to global networks of power and paraded as the acceptable face of ‘African modernity’ this class can almost degenerate into a comic caricature of its possible potential. When they return home their lenses fail to understand the obtaining material and social conditions of the homeland as well as the objective balance of forces. Unwittingly, they long for the homeland to follow closely in the steps of the metropoles and this logically leads not to Mai Misodzi Hall or Stanley Hall or an open land in Dotito but straight to Meikles Hotel.  Then watch the Fannonian tragedy which ensues: interviews on BBC, CNN, Twitter, and Facebook gives them a sense of over-exaggerated popularity and power divorced from the ordinary man/woman or peasant farmer who goes on with life almost un-intruded.

Fig 1.1 Arthur Mutambara: Real Power Remains Elusive

These African cosmopolitans remain very few as the African society continues to be trapped in Peter Ekeh’s ‘two publics’; where one is modern but composed of a privileged few and the other ‘primordial’ but composed of the majority. Convincing or penetrating this primordial majority is the crux that the cosmopolitan Africans have to crack.  In one episode of this tragicomedy, in cabinet we gather, a very learned Professor presented a very intricate infrastructure project meant to create billions of value and on seating down was puzzled that the whole cabinet nodded heads and moved on to discuss fervently and very intensely whether a recently appointed Chieftainship was correct as predicted by the medium spirit of the concerned clan. On exiting the cabinet meeting he huffed and puffed to a colleague about these ‘peasants’. Too much for the modernist to gulp down his sieve of reason, science and logic.

Here is what we are simply saying: the urban sector which is very tiny has had extended brushes with the international political economy either first as colonized, second as neo-colonial and then generally as part of the liberal cosmopolitan dream. Yet the stubborn rural economy dominated by peasant subsistence remains and with it the rapid urbanization process has multiplied the ghettos which survive outside the formal economy. Professor David Moore has warned that Africa’s rising authoritarianism or the ‘arc of authoritarianism’ is a direct consequence of liberal democracy’s unfulfilled promises. Dr Simba Makoni, Dr Nkosana Moyo, Dr Manyika, Advocate Fadzai Mahere, Prof Arthur Mutambara and even to some extend our comrade Tendai Biti find themselves inserted in this puzzling international cosmopolitan dream. This is the slippery slope of modernity: one night you are dining in New York, one night you are having coffee in Brussels and the other night you are hosted at Westminster, brushing shoulders with the world’s business and political elite, yet when you return to the motherland, the ‘peasant’ remains trapped in what Mamdani called the ‘bifurcated state’ which the party-states exploits fully especially by state benevolence. Therefore, slowly and fatally, without knowing it, the political projects that the African cosmopolitans become part of and initiate want to jump millennia: the seduction is p­­­­­­­­­­­­owerfully infectious, yet very suicidal.

Radical Coercive Nationalism & Social Democrats:  Now What?

It is important to note that the MDC and ZANU PF have had some distinguishable ideological differentiations. In the post-colonial context ZANU PF shifted from scientific/state-socialism to neo-liberal Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes (ESAP) and over the past few decades especially after 2000 has re-generated a radical very extractive nationalist project. The central project is the retention of power, they forged some kind of a re-distribution agenda (land reform and economic indigenisation), yet more than the ideas and policy it has been the state institutions used to ward off democratization. The MDC emerged as a post-nationalist and social democratic project anchored in social and economic justice. The question which arises is how are these political projects: the PDP, Mavambo, APA and NPP building an alternative ideological framework so as to challenge the existing political parties or is it just a matter of personalities ?  In the case of Nkosana Moyo he haps on this very damp idea that all we need is ‘technocratic solutions’ and by that prophesy Zimbabwe’s is on the path to a modern advanced capitalist economy. Zimbabwe’s stagnation or what Masunungure and Shumba called ‘mirred in transition’ demands much more than ‘small government’ (like less cabinet ministers) as promised by Dr Nkosana Moyo. Looked at from this perspective Dr Nkosana Moyo’s policies are no departure from those elaborated by the MDC, the NPP, PDP, NCA and even Transform Zimbabwe leaving a question as to what this brilliant physician is up to. Perhaps his confession that he ‘respects’ one Emerson Mnangagwa is an admission of the things we must expect from him if he is elected?

Movements as Organic Contestations: nationalism and post-nationalism in Zimbabwe

Often political and or social movements that become very powerful are often a logical development or culmination of decades of social and political contestation which have long been simmering. The political institution in this case, the political party becomes a necessary and reasonable development which mutates from the organic contestations. The political parties of liberation like NDP, ZANU and ZAPU were a logical development of national discontent which had always simmered between the settler garrison and the large vast of the population. This national discontent morphed from the strikes, the peasant grievances on land, the urban insurrections against pass laws and so on. Firstly, these slowly expressed themselves in petitions, then in strikes and eventually developed into militant nationalism. Secondly, these nationalist movements became powerful because they expressed social and political power that was grounded in the majority population. The MDC in 1999 was a logical development of Zimbabwe’s disillusionment with the post-colonial nationalist project which had become exhausted and the party-state was now very extractive and anti-developmental.

Chiefly the labor movement, students, women, resident groups, intellectuals, the landless movement, churches and other sections of society slowly allied together and built a social democratic alternative. The point here is that: the MDC was not conjured in a vacuum, it was forged through solidarity actions and real confrontations with those in charge of the party-state. There was no road for a middle ground, it is either one was with the status quo or with the labour backed political formation.  In the case of these cosmopolitan projects one gathers their few friends, in a hotel usually, and then proceeds to go out there and mobilize the people who have no sense of solidarity with the project, no sense of identity with the project and this is simple: when the citizen has been detained in daily grinds of struggle against the party-state the elites have often been absent and there is no organic relation at all. Built on quick sand the elite political projects melt like butter in the summer sun.

Rethinking the Balance of Forces: The Possibilities for Confluences?

In a recent article Arnold Chamunogwa (Newzimbabwe, 05.07.2017) questioned whether Dr Nkosana Moyo’s APA or envisaged political project will be able to engage and or mobilise social forces that are outside the elite political orbits of Meikles Hotel. This is a serious question and we think that the question paused by the brother requires an elaboration of Zimbabwe’s balances of forces and the implication this has on any political formation seeking state power. By balance of forces we mean simply this: given the actually existing political economy one has to ponder: which are the social, political, cultural and economic classes with the political and social power to influence and or directly determine who rules Zimbabwe.  Firstly, the labour movement has declined after years of de-industrialization and lack of capital investment; secondly, the student movement has whittled under defunding and nationalist authoritarianism; thirdly, the NGOs and churches that were natural allies of the opposition are on the dip in popularity and fundamentally, the land reform programme has shifted the social base as ‘new’ (very unstable) social classes emerged.

The new social base is now dominated by variegated social classes: in the urban areas, the informal economy which is un-unionized has emerged; on the resettled farms, a new class of farmers has emerged; on the mining arena, artisanal miners (makorokoza) have emerged and cross-border traders & vendors have emerged as the ordinary citizen search for livelihoods. Interestingly, at a recent SAPES Conference on Post-Liberation Movements in Southern Africa, Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa spoke glowingly of the Informal Economy as one of the best thing to happen to Zimbabwe because it destroyed the base of the MDC. Yet, benign to his admiration of the informal economy is the full knowledge that it creates precarious conditions in which the dominant social classes will always require the benevolence of the dictatorship to eke its livelihood: hence, scratch my back and I scratch yours. These are some of the challenges that Zimbabwe’s cosmopolitans have to deal with in either their individual or collective form. On the other hand, the security apparatus has remained hitched to the party-state for its own reproduction.

1.2 MDC Rally: Will the cosmopolitans be with ‘the people’?

Essentially, if the experiments by Zimbabwe’s ‘advanced intellectual class’ or what we have termed the cosmopolitans is to impact the political scene they need to re-think how they stretch their imagination beyond the ‘modern’ part of the country which they are well versed with.  More recently the agitation, by very brilliant people, for an National Transitional Authority (NTA) has softly slithered into the political dustbins because the architects of the idea ignored the question of balance of forces and or were not even concerned about building a political project which will make the NTA the logical development from the sharpening of political contestations. This will mean thinking reflexively about what makes sense to re-settled farmers; to the informal economy; to the rural political economy and importantly present some sort of cross-class solidarity project which goes beyond their comfort zones. As Frantz Fanon warned: our intellectual cosmopolitans will need more than a ‘bookish’ acquaintance with the African political economy.

Tinashe L. Chimedza and Tamuka C. Chirimambowa* are the Editors of Gravitas. Contact gravitas@ipazim.com for feedback and expanding the debate.

New Publication Alert.

Crisis, Identity and Migration in Post-Colonial Southern Africa

H.H. Magidimisha, N.E. Khalema, L. Chipungu, T. Chirimabmowa, T. Chimedza (Eds.)

This book offers a socio-historical analysis of migration and the possibilities of regional integration in Southern Africa. It examines both the historical roots of and contemporary challenges regarding the social, economic, and geo-political causes of migration and its consequences (i.e. xenophobia) to illustrate how ‘diaspora’ migrations have shaped a sense of identity, citizenry, and belonging in the region. By discussing immigration policies and processes and highlighting how the struggle for belonging is mediated by new pressures concerning economic security, social inequality, and globalist challenges, the book develops policy responses to the challenge of social and economic exclusion, as well as xenophobic violence, in Southern Africa. This timely and highly informative book will appeal to all scholars, activists, and policy-makers looking to revisit migration policies and realign them with current globalization and regional integration trends.  http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319592343

Special issue call for papers from the Journal of Public Administration and Development Alternatives

A re-imagined Zimbabwe: trajectories for economic recovery, political reconstruction and national development

Guest Editor

Dr. Sandra Makwembere, University of Limpopo, South Africa

Background and purpose of special issue

This special issue seeks to offer scholarly thought from different disciplines on the challenges and opportunities in Zimbabwe related to economic recovery, political reconstruction and national development. In recent years, Zimbabwe’s extensive economic hardships have somewhat stabilised since dollarization in 2009 but have not entirely died out. The economic growth potential, for example in agriculture and mining, could be supported not only for the benefit of the country, but the region as well. Questions that can be raised: What resources can be made available to improve the economy? What major economic growth drivers might need to be enhanced and how? In what ways can SADC enhance the economic capacities of Zimbabwe? In what ways can Zimbabwe grow the economic capacities of SADC?

The political environment is peaceful but apparent factional struggles, political party infighting and shaky party coalitions pose a challenge to the country’s development agenda. As the 2018 elections approach, a spotlight on political reconstruction is appropriate. Questions to ask are: What role can democratic institutions play in peace and stability processes? What spaces are needed to promote constructive citizenry engagement? The Zimbabwean nation is poised to rise from its many struggles like many countries in history that have seen yet overcome protracted socio-economic and political difficulties. National development strategies could achieve more if inclusivity, commitment and sustainability are cultivated. Some questions to ask: What contributions can women make in politics for national development? How do Zimbabwe’s national development strategies fit within global development goals? How can environmental vulnerabilities be managed to ensure development is not compromised? How can youth economic empowerment support national development? Authors are invited to submit interdisciplinary papers that push the boundaries of existing ideas on Zimbabwe. Both empirical and conceptual papers are welcome.

Contributions on the following topics are especially encouraged:

o   Economic recovery potential & Economic reform

o   Zimbabwe in SADC

o   Structural imperatives for political and economic development

o   National development imperatives

o   Climate change strategies and capacities

o   Illicit capital outflows

o   Employment, unemployment and informality

o   Political economy of elections

Guideline for authors

Submitted articles must not have been previously published, accepted for publication or under consideration for publication elsewhere. Length of articles should be a range of 4500 to 6000 words (including references). Abstracts should be a maximum of 250 words. Five keywords must be provided. Use Harvard reference style. Only articles written in English will be considered. Articles will go through a double-blind review process. For additional information, email sandra.makwembere@ul.ac.za.

Submission of articles

Articles should be sent to the attention of the guest editor at sandra.makwembere@ul.ac.za.

Timelines

Submission deadline: 11 August 2017

Review process: 14 – 25 August 2017

Publication: September 2017