The Sunday News
Richard Runyararo Mahomva
I have always detested misdirecting my analytical energies to irrelevant adolescent political initiatives with ill-defined purpose and vision. It makes more sense to focus on deep-rooted matters of nationalism — its prospects and challenges. Its pitfalls, successes and areas of African nationalism which need remodelling in the face of changing political dynamics of the continent’s interface with the globe.
As an open-minded and independent thinker who is not easily swayed towards parochial mob logic on issues of national importance, giving dignity to trivial political projects has never been a priority to me.
Again, as a proponent of pan-Africanism I have always inclined my analytical submissions to matters of nation-building other than focusing on unitary deconstructing rememberings. As such, I vehemently turn down the absurd rendering of dignity to the band wagon of Zimbabwe’s current colloquial formations led by hashtag politicians.
One of the reasons for ignoring these emerging political bodies was because of their conception as social movements before assuming an exaggerated political posture as witnessed recently. Moreover, their few months of coming into being, especially as demonstrated through the “Shutdown Zimbabwe” campaign they have proved to be bearers of the anti-Mugabe metanarrative.
The campaign’s forerunners have fronted issues of alleged misgovernment and misplacement of priorities by the state to mobilise Zimbabweans for their bigger ulterior motive of terminating the office tenure of Zanu-PF government. Their objective, just as their predecessors in MDC and factional movers and shakers in Zanu-PF is to end the rule of Robert Mugabe.
One is left wondering how their interest to remove a man elected by the people can be the key to economic transformation.
This is a sign that such movements are directly or indirectly receiving instructions for their purpose from forces holding Africa at ransom. It’s now clear that we cannot ignore these hashtag political institutions posing as social movements as they carry the old regime change mantra to legitimise their interests.
On the other hand, this position can be regarded as less progressive considering that some citizens now subscribe to the hashtag political trends which have stolen the limelight for the country’s paralytic opposition political parties. Realism affirms that the hashtag rhetoric offers political marketing for its proponents in a bid to decapitate the relevance of opposition political retards, in the process creating a new strategic alternative of fighting the legitimacy of the ruling Zanu-PF. As clearly explained in my article: “The Shutdown Zimbabwe campaign and the hypocrisy of leftist democracy” which was published in this paper last week I stressed three key features of Zimbabwe’s political climate:
1. Zimbabwean politics is now characterised by political polarisation. Independent thought is aligned to partisan lines and bias. Ideas have been classified into pro or anti-establishment clusters with no room to embrace that citizens can think on their own.
2. In the same manner, expressions of democracy have been deconstructed and narrowed to matters of regime change and building antagonist weaponry to terminate the rule of Zanu-PF. As a reaction to that, the ruling has been justified by proved cases of the West’s harmful support to the opposition. As such the state has been pushed to its last point insecurity. Therefore, all its influence now serves as a buffer for any anti-establishment efforts in the form of hard and soft politics.
3. The last point was a highlight of the failed old regime change project which has been quickly substituted by hashtag social movements. It’s from this background that I classify hashtag movements and their campaigns as metanarrative drivers of opposition politics.
Social movements’ phenomenon of change with repetition.
After the demise of the conventional opposition parties, the Zimbabwean political arena has been graced by political “mavericks” such as Itai Dzamara and the Occupy Africa Square activists. Ousted partisan rejects like Acie Lumumba, a former Zanu-PF activist and Promise Mkhwananzi, a former MDC youth leader have also emerged to be at the fore of using online publicity to effect the new mode of opposition resistance to Zanu-PF guised as social movements. This cabal of social movement leaders claims to be apolitical and yet their message can be easily aligned to particular opposition retarded discourses.
To quote Reason Wafawarova: “The Tajamuka #ThisFlag narrative is no more than a sensationalised triviality. It’s not a new phenomenon. It is just another of the ‘Mugabe Must Go’ calls.” Ideally, social movements are not interest groups nor are they politically inclined. In most cases social movements are short-lived as they are mainly ignited to address public concern specifics to help policy makers to create favourable living conditions for citizens.
The current Zimbabwean constitution legally endorses the right of citizens to peacefully participate in interrogating and supporting Government policies. In response to my position in this discussion; Mr. Arthur Chikerema a lecturer in the Department of Politics and Public Management at the Midlands State University stated Section 67(2) (d) of the constitution gives right to:
. . . Every Zimbabwean to participate individually or collectively in peaceful activities to challenge the policies of the Government.
Chikerema further explained:
“From my perspective I think he (Evan Mawarire) has re-energised citizen activism in Zimbabwe’s political landscape . . . This kind of activism will make Government to be responsive, effective and efficient in responding to the needs of the populace. I think the Government should desist from thinking that any divergent view from the citizenry is sponsored or is about regime change. I also hope Evan Mawarire’s action is within the confines of national interest, not a ploy to lure funding from neo-colonialists.”
The comment by Chikerema suggests that social movement leaders are the new face of anti-establishment narrative. In as much as there are constitutional endorsements of their current shadowy mandate there are clear indications that they aspire to assume the position which has been occupied by opposition parties since the inception of the Land Reform Programme.
While Chikerema appreciates their promotion of citizen participation, his views also displays fears that social movements could be working in the service of neo-colonialism. As a result, this validates Zanu-PF’s sense of insecurity towards such political initiatives guised as institutions of the ordinary interests of citizens in engaging their Government. Chikerema further recommended Government to be on the fore of heightening citizen participation in policy matters to avoid giving space to unnecessary opposition opportunists using the social movement card to gain political expediency:
“The Government should also seek wider consultation from non-state actors and opposition parties so that they formulate holistic and universal acceptable policies so as to contain discontent from the populace . . .”
The hypocrisy of social movements has been exposed by Acie Lumumba’s high force of ambition which dragged him to form a new political party. For now the challenge is left to Pastor Evan Mawarire who has emerged as the most influential proponent of this exposition with his #ThisFlag campaign. His unquestioned support by most Zimbabweans made it unnoticeable when the #OurFlag campaign fronted by Professor Jonathan Moyo became a success punctuated by the one-million man march on 25 May 2016. This was followed by the 6 June Shutdown Zimbabwe campaign which was a hijack of the teachers’ strike which was deemed as successful yet it was a highjack of the long communicated teachers’ stay-away. I realised that these hashtag political institutions guised as social movements cannot be dismissed because they are shaping the nation’s current political discourse. This has been confirmed by Dr Samukele Hadebe in his response to my request to share his views on hashtag politicians like Pastor Mawarire:
“I will not comment on what eventually resulted from Pastor Evan’s campaign as it ended in courts. However, from a citizen participation point of view, I think everyone has a democratic right to express his or her opinion even if that opinion is not liked by others. Similarly, public protest or demonstration over any issue is a right and we cannot legislate against people’s feelings. What I found interesting is public sympathy to Pastor Evan showing that his message had an appeal and therefore generating debate which itself is healthy for nation building and a viable democracy.
Those not happy with this are equally entitled to their opinions and we need not all agree on any issue but freedom of expression should remain sacrosanct.”
Probably their success in terms of public appeal is because of their articulation of ills like corruption, cash shortages, unemployment and poor service delivery. As such their relevance has been founded on the fact that many Zimbabweans relate to their gospel hinged on the hypocrisy of “exposing bad governance”. However, these same issues have been disseminated by the state and the ruling party has on several occasions addressed the matters for instance, the 2013 salary-gate scandal.
For countless times, the President has condemned corruption in high places even before these social movements were born.
On the other hand, I strongly feel that the state of poverty architectured by sanctions and misplaced priorities within the country’s governance system makes the hashtag propaganda palatable to Zimbabwe’s citizenry. This obligates patriotic citizens to grapple with sources of Zimbabwe’s political crisis. The first step towards that direction was the citizens’ boycott of the second “Shutdown Zimbabwe” campaign.
