The Sunday News
Michael Mhlanga
WE savoured freedom in a long time, and it felt good. This is the best summary in recounting the symbolism that was netted by the advent of the New Dispensation in November of 2017. Creed, politics, culture and racial disparities that marked our social discord were fleetingly forewent.
Dear reader, the shifts in our nation always demand a congruent reflection on the meaning of November 18 2017 as it ceased to be just any Saturday or a march clamouring demands, it became a symbol of freedom yet to come and a historical memory to be always present in referring to Zimbabwe’s politics. I reckon that numerous meanings of the day’s actions have been offered and we are still in the process of decoding many of the events between 14 November and 24 November. Let us agree on one thing: Things happened so fast, so stealthy that political scientists world over were slow to catch up with analysis which transformed into predictions and later an assumption of the spectators’ role.
At one point, if not many, science ceased to be a method of decoding and interpreting what was happening, both media and political science found themselves trapped in cages of speculation of transferring questionable information. Believe me, journalism and political science was tested to the brink. I very well remember how a colleague and I concluded that the political re-counting at that time are more spiritual than scientific.
Freedom of expressing ideas
The day should be remembered as the hope for liberation of public freedoms such as expressions, association, movement and for the academia, it was an opportunity to unlock stashes of heaped analysis on Zimbabwe’s politics without fear. I feasted on a horde of literature by Zimbabwe’s academia, all decrypting the “end of an era and the beginning of an end”. Such were the themes that at one point one would ask himself why people have been thumping such dear knowledge and perspectives of their country.
The day presented an opportunity of honesty as people not only marched in the streets but also on the internet (for me and others who enjoyed the abundant literature). Indeed, the day allowed for sincerity as people were unrestrictedly allowed to share their despair, frustration and the betrayal of the liberation ethos they lived with for this long. The opportunity which was once there in 1980 was re-presented, assuredly, those who have lived long, lived to share again the same euphoric experience. At that time, some asked, guided by Geoff Hills book “What Happens After Mugabe?” after all, what mattered was the re-presentation of an opportunity of freely expressing oneself, and that was affirmed to be important for the Zimbabwean citizen.
Freedom of the space of ideas
There was a gleam of hope that spaces of ideas would be rekindled without worry and the best I could think of is the centrality of the public sphere in rebuilding and rebranding a crippled country. The concept of the public sphere appears, albeit with differences, in the works of Aristotle, Hannah Arendt, Jürgen Habermas, Nancy Fraser, Charles Taylor, Niklas Luhman, John Keane, Robert D. Putnam and others. Even so, Habermas stands out. In 1964, a German scholar Jugern Habermas conceptualised what in discourse is known as the Public Sphere. To adequately relate his scholarship with this November 2017, Habermas referred to the Public Sphere as the realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. He prescribes that in this enclave, access is granted to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body. While lodged in this nutritious knowledge, we learn that televised debates and mostly actions in our multiple WhatsApp groups, in their authenticity facilitated candidly open discussions that flicked hope of a better Zimbabwe. Such an unfrightening opportunity dear reader, was a discussion with realities and “To Whom It May Concern”. It also was a debate with ourselves as ideas and visions were shared.
I invited Habermas to this discussion to show that, November 2017 gave hope to the possibility of a true public sphere. It unlocked the most important process and phenomenon in a democracy which Karl Popper reminds that there is no absolute rightness or wrong in democracy “You may be right, I may be wrong, but together we are closer to the truth”. That is what November should always mean. It represents the re-opening of that closed chapter of democracy in our society which is effectively necessitated by the public sphere’s existence and its role in allowing citizens to exchange ideas, interrogate what is perceived to be true or sacrosanct, and if need be, recall or discard it. Such is the positivity of a healthy democracy which was marked and shall be remembered to have come in November of 2019.
On 18 November, an unfiltered experience in defining the public sphere in its originality was re-gained, we recovered not only a free space of freedom but also, a place for our humanity, an undaunted pride of being called Zimbabweans, peaceful and educated people who are keen to restore their legacy of the liberation struggle and independence — it is November 2017 which re-ignited that which once-existed-1980-feeling.
Now that we have tested new governance, it grows down to two important specimens in this dispensation. Firstly and importantly, you and I have to be responsible with our freedoms. Just because you have freedom of expression doesn’t suddenly eliminate proper and civil processes of registering displeasure or contribution. I think in our civility we must acknowledge that rules and systems of engagement exist to protect harmony and an ambience of tranquillity existing in the peaceful nation. We are prone to temptations of being irresponsible and in the process when the law applies, we speedily scream that the freedoms have vanished, let us enjoy the freedom responsibly. Be your brother’s keeper.
To the Government, you have a social contract to uphold. Protect that freedom you helped us taste and serve the people as they responsibly enjoy those freedoms. In any case, the public sphere is not entirely a space of rational discourse oriented towards understanding, but it allows compromise where each entity in state building exhibits their responsibility.
