The Political Economy of the Zezuru 1 in Botswana: Community Security and Implications

The Political Economy of the Zezuru[1] in Botswana: Community Security and Implications for the State

Abstract

The Zezuru community in Botswana has a unique political economy that distinguishes it from the rest of society. As a minority group they are subject to institutional economic deprivation. Despite this predicament the community attains economic security, which is inconspicuous in other communities. The latter, which primarily depend on government, face multiple as the state economy has become moribund and suffers external shocks. Conversely, the model of the Zezuru economy features very minimal poverty, unemployment and other causes of insecurity. The community has attained sustainable economic security, as opposed to its counterparts. This testament presents economic policy implications for the state. The author herein argues that the economy of the Zezuru political economy has various policy implications for the state, which can contribute to economic development and growth. He provides suggestions from a comparative analysis of the anatomy of the Zezuru economy vis-à-vis the challenges that face the Botswana society.

Keywords: Botswana; Zezuru; Community-Security; Minority Group

Introduction

Botswana is a country located in Southern Africa. It is largely known as a thriving democracy, with free elections held every five years. It is also hailed as an economic success story. At independence (in 1966) Botswana was one the ten poorest countries in the world. With the discovery of diamonds in 1967, Botswana’s economic fortunes changed with the GDP pci rising from $80 to $600 (Nocera, 2008). Through prudent financial management and good governance Botswana ascended to a middle-income economy, resulting in relative prosperity (Leith 2005, pp2-12). Thus the state provides free education, free health care, youth grants and venture capital in the form of loans.

Despite the advances made by Botswana economically, there are challenges that face the economy today. These include recessions, inflation and increased corruption. The drought of 1979-80 and the recession of the early 1990s chronically undermined Botswana’s economy (Valentine 1993). The drought affected the agricultural produce by reducing cattle herds; frustrating the beef exports. The recession affected the economy which is still reliant on mineral exports. Poverty has also increased with time. Poverty stands at 40 percent of the population[2]—of about 1.8 million people[3].

There is a lot of untapped economic potential in Botswana. Lange (2004) posits that Botswana has more natural capital over Namibia. Misdirected policy is one of the causes of Botswana’s economic stagnation.

Botswana is a multi-ethnic society, albeit with ethnic inequalities. The Non-Tswana speaking groups are considered minorities. This comes from British colonial system meant to assimilate all groups into the Tswana culture (Nyati-Ramahobo 2008). This system was passed into the post-colonial constitution. Attempts to correct this system failed to provide a threshold for policy shift (Motswagole 2011; Ditshwanelo, 2007). The Zezuru are classified as a minority group in Botswana.

This article seeks to discuss how a minority group attained economic security in spite of its minority status. It then makes a comparative analysis of this minority and the mainstream society in order to distinguish its uniqueness. Thereafter it proffers the implications that the Zezuru case has for the state vis-à-vis its political economy.

Conceptual & Analytical Framework

Human security is increasingly becoming a yardstick for measuring development. The United Nations incepted a commission which recommended that human security should be holistically embedded in the UN mandate (Commission on Human Security, 2003). Human security is often explained as an approach that seeks to realize “freedom from fear and freedom from want”. This has slightly variant connotations in peace building and development (MacFarlane & Khong 2006). However, the entire phrase applies to development as much as it does to peace studies.

There are mainly two schools of thought regarding human security in developmental terms. What they hold in common is the view that economic development must no longer be viewed in terms of GDP growth. Some of the problems that arose from this approach include social inequity, widened income gaps, dire poverty and the fiscal shocks resulting from capital flight. One school of thought (in human security) concedes to an approach that involves state and non-state actors (Peou 2009). The other school of thought prefers solutions exclusively proffered by non-state actors (Umegaki et al. 2009). However, there is not much variance in terms of the conceptual basis of these schools of thought: both acknowledge the limitations of the traditional approach to development and governance.

This text thus endorses the human security perspective and uses it to analyze the issue at hand. Although human security is involves different and intertwined dimensions[4], there is more emphasis of community security and economic security. This is due to the fact that the Tswana society is organized into various communities.

The analysis of this case study is mainly comparative. First, the paper focuses on the anatomy of the Zezuru political economy and then makes a comparison with the mainstream society. It capitalizes on the minority status of the Zezuru in order to underscore their uniqueness. It contrasts the Zezuru from the rest of society. Thereafter it makes comparisons between the two societies. Then it draws parallels, and discusses the implications for one group from the other (in this case the state). This does not imply that the party from which the better parallel is drawn (Zezuru community) is perfect. The parallel seeks to provide premise that Botswana could be better if certain variables are dealt with—key among them is the minority status of the Zezuru and an outward looking policy.

Methodology

This paper follows a qualitative approach. It features data collected from Zezuru and Shona respondents in Botswana.

The data collection methods include in-depth interviews (also filling questionnaires) with key respondents. These were selected on the basis of organic ingenuity (Chambers 2005). The treatise also relies on observations made in areas such as Francistown, Mandunyane, Moroka and Gaborone. These are areas where the author has lived at various times: Mandunyane, home-village; Francistown, home-town; and Gaborone, undergraduate tenure.

In cases where the evidence was directly sourced from one of the respondents, it is indicated by a number enclosed in square parenthesis. Each number designates a particular respondent. For example [1] would represent a particular respondent, say Frank Zikhale and not Abel Nyika who would be [2]. It is imperative to mention that some of the parentheses enclose specific cases of observation for which other forms of evidence exist, such as pictures and videos. A sample of the questionnaire used in 2011 is referenced at the end of the paper.

Historical Background

Botswana’s Colonial Context of Migration

In 1885 Botswana was declared a British protectorate. The primary objective was to frustrate the imperial endeavours of Cecil John Rhodes, founder of De Beers Company (Maylam 2005). It was also meant to contain Ian Smith’s unilateral declaration of independence over Rhodesia. The British were also concerned with the Afrikaner population in South Africa (Parson 1999). However, Bechuanaland was of no economic utility to the British since it did not possess valuable mineral resources (Mwakikagile 2009, p21). Thus the declaration of Botswana as a protectorate was only strategic not pivotal.

Botswana was much calmer compared to its neighbours before and after independence. Most of Botswana’s neighbours were involved in armed struggles against colonial masters. This led to human migration from South Africa, Namibia, Zambia Angola and Zimbabwe. These settler communities are found in different places of Botswana today.

Zezuru Migration into Botswana

The actual Zezuru are the largest clan of the Shona tribe in Zimbabwe. They constitute a quarter of the entire Zimbabwean population (Stokes 2009, p755). The Zezuru dialect is the most preeminent of Shona dialects. The Zezuru and Karanga dialects were preferred over other dialects such as Korekore, Ndau and Manyika; during the standardization of the Shona language in the post-colonial Zimbabwe (Ndhlovu 2009, pp33-34). Thus the Zezuru exist as a larger and differentiated population in Zimbabwe.

The Zezuru community in Botswana traces its origins to one Johane Masowe. Masowe was born Shoniwa Masodze but later claimed that while working in Salisbury (Rhodesia) he had a divine encounter. His claims resulted in euhemerisation (the active process of making of men into [demi] gods[5]). He claimed that his divine mandate was to liberate African natives from captivity (Engelke 2005, pp781-2). His followers earned the name “Vaspostori”, a localized version of the term “apostles”. The Rhodesian apartheid government banished him to South Africa, settling in Port Elizabeth. He was repeatedly imprisoned in South Africa and later fled to Zambia where he died in 1973. In each of his stops, some his followers often remained to ply economic trades.

A group led by Ebrahim Moyo migrated into Bechuanaland Protectorate in the late 1940s, following a split among the Vapostori who had remained in Rhodesia. The Moyo-led group settled in Moroka village[6]. Residents of Moroka village are of Kalanga tribe, formerly a fellow member of the same Mwenemutapa Dynasty (Van Waarden 1988). Chief Moroka, of Moroka, contracted Moyo and his followers to build a primary school for the village. In consequence he allowed the Vapostori (and their Zimbabwean counterparts) to pay tax for three years in advance. The receipts for taxes guaranteed citizenship in Bechuanaland and South Africa (Tshambani, cited in Makgala 2006). This angered the British colonial office. The Vapostori subsequently migrated to Francistown, then a flourishing gold-mining town. It was in Francistown that the Vapostori first earned the name “Mazezuru”, which stuck to this day.

The Minority Status of the Zezuru in Post-Colonial Botswana

The Zezuru are considered a minority in Botswana. The concept of minority group in Botswana is measured against Tswana ethnicity. For example, the Kalanga were the second largest ethnic group during the colonial era, yet they were considered a minority[7]. This qualifies the Zezuru aa minority.

When the Zezuru settled in Francistown their economic lifestyle appealed to many people. However, they maintained that non-Zezurus were “marudzi” (foreigners). A few others allowed locals to join their religious movement but resulted in the expulsion of moderates for fraternizing with marudzi (Makgala, 2006). The expelled members settled in Shashe (near Tonota), while others moved to Gaborone and Lobatse. Nevertheless the Zezuru would finally face this sort of discrimination in the post-independent Botswana.

Inter-tribal animosity is common in most African states. When the Zezuru migrated into Botswana, the then British colonial office had a policy that sought to regulate migration into the territory. The ‘African Immigration Proclamation of 1941’ was a law meant to regulate African migration into Bechuanaland. The proclamation partly stated that all Africans “domiciled south of the equator may enter the protectorate provided [they are] in possession of a pass signed a by a person authorized to sign passes” from the sending country (Makgala 2006, p11). By 1957 the African Advisory Council (AAC) drafted a repellent of the law, complaining about the implications of unregulated migration. In one of the cases this sentiment was directed towards the Zezuru.

The post-independence constitution of Botswana designates some ethnic groups as minorities. This includes the Kalanga, Wayeyi, Khoe-San, Hambukushu, Herero and Zezuru.. Such groups were late settlers in Botswana (except for the San and Kalanga). The Constitutional Amendment Act of 2005 which increased the number of Ntlo ya Dikgosi[8] seats from 15 to 35, sought to ratify these mistakes and inequality but it still retained the primacy of the Tswana-speaking groups (Ditshwanelo 2007). This amendment was of no use to the Zezuru due to the fact that the Zezuru do not have a centralized form of leadership.

The Socio-Political Organization of the Zezuru Community

The social and political organization of the Zezuru differs from other ethnic groups. Other groups have centralized leadership. Each tribe has a paramount chief and sub-tribal authorities, exercising limited judicial and administrative powers. Their jurisprudence of customary law preceded the modern state. The Zezuru do not have such representation. They are a loosely organized community with patriarchal head-figures at family level.

Zezuru communities are paternalistic. Each household is headed by a father-figure to whom the entire household pays homage. The affairs of Zezuru households revolve around religion and business activities; hence the role of the honcho comprises social and economic responsibilities. This involves grooming young people for marriage, which is an intra-ethnic and arranged affair. The honcho oversees this process and consults with other households. In case of marrying a non-Zezuru, it is the duty of the honcho to ensure that the new bride is assimilated into the Zezuru custom [1]. His role extends to preparing the youths initiation ceremonies. The purpose of these rites does not differ from those of other African tribes, which the latter decided to forgo after they failed to assimilate them into Christianity (See Mbiti 1989, pp118-129; Schapera 1957; Nkomazana 2001). The purpose of these initiation rites is to mould youth into responsible adults [2], [1]. Subsequently the honcho sees to the induction of the newly initiated into the business community, through apprenticeship in a chosen trade. He later provides start-up financial capital for the economic endeavour.

The role of the mother-figure is similar to those of the father-figure. However, they do not have equal status. The mother-figure’s jurisdiction solely covers females. Her role resembles fraternal deputation while her male counter-part retains the alpha role.

The lack of participation by the Zezuru in mainstream politics is conspicuous. During elections in Botswana, communities tend to vote based on tribal identity and regionalism (Makgala 2007, p22). This annuls the political aspirations of Zezurus, given their geospatial organization. The philosophical mainstay of the Zezuru community is heavily influenced by John Masowe’s emphasis of economic self-sufficiency. Thus this pursuit is the nucleus of the Zezuru lifestyle. This eclipses political ambitions and engagements. One of the informants (in Gaborone) indicated that the recent political upsurge spreading across the nation has rubbed on the community [1]. This is limited to a spectator role.

The socio-political organization of the Zezuru community has heavy economic overtones. The interest in politics is very minimal and there is no overt willingness to participate. The prime focus is economics.

The Anatomy of the Zezuru Economy