Zimbabwe: Do we understand what we are reading? Part 2

July 25th, 2016 Words by Tendai Murisa

[wtr-time]

In the earlier post, our count of protests had come up to 25, and in the two weeks since that post we have had a very successful countrywide stay-away popularly referred to as #Zimshutdown 2016. The protests reached new heights with the much publicized overnight detention of one of the popular faces behind the protests, Pastor Evan Mawarire – the founder of the #thisflag campaign. His arrest and arraignment resulted in a spontaneous gathering of over 5,000 protesters who thronged the Harare Magistrates court, protesting his arrest and demanding his release. In light of the growing dissent and protests, the state has also actively responded by deploying its anti-riot police to unleash violence upon some of these protests and people. Unlike before where this violence could be hidden, the people have become journalists and have recorded some of these gruesome acts of violence perpetrated by the state’s agents against unarmed protesters. At the moment it seems like there is confusion on what should be done next; should citizens continue with the stay-aways that had been called for, or there is room for new public forms of protest. This post will explore the significance of the moment as part of a wider discussion on what we are observing. It is important to state from the beginning that what we are witnessing is citizen based politics which is beyond party politics. In the process citizens are developing their own voice and make legitimate demands on their government[1].

On Hashtag Activism

So now we have #thisflag, tajamuka, tshay’imbiza but what does it really mean for democracy and the future of Zimbabwe. Premature as it may seem, there are many lessons to be gleaned from these protests. We must acknowledge that we are analysing something that is in motion, yet still needs to be understood – that is the challenge of social change. There have already been a number of criticisms raised on the value of social movements and public protests such as #thisflag and #tajamuka. Miles Tendi (15 July, 2016) dismissively states that, “Hashtag activism and Facebook posts will never be a substitute for a well-crafted agenda; nor do they offer a successful alternative to on-the-ground political engagement”. He is right in many ways, there is usually a huge vacuum created after such intoxicatingly spontaneous protests for example during the Arab Spring and even more recently in Burkina Faso. However, Tendi misses one of the beautiful things about these protests – their origins and the social base – the real challenges of living in present-day Zimbabwe with very limited space to organize and the high price one has to pay to speak against the regime. These movements are mostly led by ordinary people and we have discussed this in the previous post. I agree that on the ground political engagement is a necessity but we should also not be blind to the potential of such a movement. For those who have argued that it’s not engaged politically, tell me of a formation in our recent past that managed to organize a town-hall like meeting with the governor of the central bank or ran a public petition for the dismissal of a Cabinet Minister over corruption – isn’t this political engagement?

I must, however, also concede the fact that the power/ influence of either #thisflag or #tajamuka is uncertain. It can literally be destroyed overnight but it also could be the engine of transformation – it is way too early to judge it. Others have raised the following as potential weaknesses of the #thisflag campaign; not sustainable, not ideologically sound, no structure and lack of viable leadership (not sure what viable leadership means though). There are many other critics of these protests and one of the common denominators is their impatience regarding what should happen and limited appreciation of what social movements do and also what we generally refer to as weapons of the weak – what these signify and can potentially do. But to be fair to them they represent the challenges that we are all facing in terms of ‘understanding what we are seeing’. These movements are not the beginning of the struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe, and neither are they the only social justice initiative. The question cannot be whether this movement alone could usher in change – because it’s existence alone is a testament to the great work of others – but rather we should be looking at the contribution this innovative movement has provided, the energy it has brought with it. The following are thoughts that are still developing but also shaped by studies of other movements that have emerged in Zimbabwe over the years.

We currently live in a world where the periodic elections to choose a leader – members of parliament and councilors – have become synonymous with democracy. The criticisms that have been raised against the protests seem to suggest that change is impossible without an election based strategy. It is based on the dominant paradigm/ world-view that democracy is about voting. We measure our democracies by evaluating the electoral processes (thus the quality of our democracy), with the criteria being whether a country has had ‘free and fair’ elections. There are many dangers to this, but I will highlight two in this discussion.

Firstly, we have to acknowledge that our crisis is partly due to the demobilization of private individuals from the business of government – citizens have been invited to have a say over who would rule every five years and in-between these private individuals only exist either as invited delegates to a political rally where political elites talk down to them and/ or to victory celebrations. So for an average private individual who has been eligible to vote since 1980 they have had less than two hours of power since independence – the moment where they cast their votes, and after that we have a sovereign who is supposed to govern without being questioned. We have thus reduced political participation to voting that’s why you will hear many experts tell you of a problem of voter-apathy. The fact that we have fewer people coming out to vote is a problem and it has to be addressed, but if you think that elections alone would improve the quality of our democracy you may be disappointed.

It is no small question as to what happens in between elections when a government that has been elected into office begins to make a mess of policies in sensitive areas such as corruption, monetary policy (such as the introduction of bond notes) and unemployment. What should the citizens do – wait for elections? A number of other initiatives have come up to fill the void of what happens between elections, but they have not been entirely successful. The most important being embedding the practice of governing by the constitution and Alex Magaisa has written several important pieces on constitutionalism – (see his blog posts here www.alexmagaisa.com). However credible constitutionalism maybe it also relies on the supply of an informed citizenry. Let me put it this way democracy has two important co-requisites; a good constitution and an informed citizenry. The lessons from the past month have taught that in our case we scarcely know what citizenship really means – when they speak they are accused of being traitorous or treasonous – just by expressing their displeasure at how they are being governed.

The challenge we have had in Zimbabwe has to do with a political class that has lost a modicum of civility, is highly corrupt[2], is unaccountable to citizens and for years they have managed to get away with it. The compact between citizens and the state is characterized by fear, intimidation and patronage. It disempowers any voice of dissent using its monopoly on violence. This is not a problem that elections can resolve, but rather requires an engaged citizenry. Elected officials through the different tiers of government need to know much more or to be educated about how citizens will respond to public policies. In many instances policymakers make assurances that they have perfect plans that are fail proof but if there is anything we have learnt since the late 1990s is that our government is made up of humans and not gods and they are just as prone to making wrong decisions with disastrous effects. In our chapter on the ‘Democracy Manifesto in Zimbabwe’ we stated that; “Currently one of the most significant challenges to democratisation is that the majority of the citizens feel powerless or do not see the need to participate in national processes…” (Murisa 2015:357). These citizens congeal into a public voice formed by the interactions of people who are all trying to address a common problem.

The aspirations and demands being made through popular campaigns/protests such as #thisflag and tajamuka are not necessarily new. Many of us have been murmuring about the high levels of corruption, lack of employment, increasing poverty and also gross violation of people’s political and civil rights. However, the new actors (#thisflag and tajamuka) are using unusual tactics, social media, non-violence (against people with degrees in violence). At the core of the message, especially #thisflag is for better engagement on the part of citizens.

Thus we get to the second issue – we have to note that there is a huge difference between voters and citizens. A democracy requires active citizens; it is not enough just to vote. The two questions that citizens have grappled with are ‘how can we talk amongst ourselves about issues that affect us?’ and secondly ‘how do we talk to those in office in a manner that they will hear us and be more accountable to us?’. Elections have definitely been part of the tools they have used and since 2000 the majority in the urban areas have rejected ZANU (PF) preferring instead the MDC. However, with the MDC having lost so many elections, wouldn’t you also lose faith in the process – you keep on doing the same thing, hoping for a different outcome. Nathaniel Manheru (Saturday 23 July 2016) argues that in effect ZANU (PF)’s approach is to cater for the needs of the electorate that voted for them. That alone, besides being very irresponsible, means there is a huge section of the population that has no government. I would like to believe that Manheru’s statement was just emotional speak and nothing else – it cannot be government policy. But also it gives us an insight into how ZANU (PF) thinks.

There is need to develop a much broader definition of democracy that extends beyond the holding of regular ‘free and fair’ elections. The current protest movements such as #thisflag and #tajamuka may provide a way to re-engage the citizens to engage in the processes of governance and open up democratic spaces in the broader sense of the word. The public space is not yet vibrant enough – take the auditor controller general’s annual reports for instance – rarely have we had strong calls to address issues of corruption and criminal activities carried out in the name of government from non-state actors. We are somewhere but not yet there – we need a more engaged citizenry to an extent that those in public office are literally afraid of citizen power. The current lot of elected officials is intolerant of citizen’s dissenting voices and thinks threats of imprisonment and violence will resolve the challenges that the country is facing. To date we have not seen evidence that government is reconsidering any of its policies in light of citizen protest mainly because of the adversarial nature of our politics – but to what end?

[1] This post is part of a two-part series the first one was entitled Zimbabwe: Do We Understand what we are reading.

[2] For instance, in a highly publicized divorce application the former wife of the current Minister of Homer Affairs listed close to 100 properties owned by the Minister- in any country this would have been a scandal leading to his political demise. He is still in power and threatening protesters. This is partly because we have developed and bred a culture of impunity which cannot be broken by elections alone.