For the greater part of the 1980s and early 1990s Zimbabwe was referred to as the “jewel of Africa,” a prosperous and stable country with the intelligent and moderate statesman Robert Mugabe at the helm. Since then, Mugabe has gone power mad and the jewel has lost its shine. The breadbasket of Africa, revered for its ability to feed both itself and its neighbors, has turned basket-case.

In the social, political and economic meltdown that has marked the past nine years, Zimbabwe has garnered accolades of the wrong sort. In 2005 it was one of Condoleezza Rice’s six “outposts of tyranny,” alongside Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran and Belarus. In April of this year with inflation standing at a breathtaking 1042.9 percent, the IMF gave Zimbabwe the dubious distinction of considering it the only country operating a war zone economy outside of a war zone.

What’s more, the only major opposition party in the country, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), recently split, rendering it effectively powerless, and new draconian laws that prohibit anything that could be construed as a poltical meeting have dimmed hope for change and all but muted civil protest.

Amid the chaos and decline, however, a gender-based protest movement called Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) has taken off, casting a shining light in the darkness. Frustrated by the crisis that has engulfed the country since 2000, WOZA is taking to the streets with brooms in hand, symbolically sweeping away corruption, angling to make “injustice visible,” attempting to effect what they call an “eve”-olution.

Women of course protest all the time, that in itself is nothing new. Consider the success of the Madras de la Plaza de Mayo in Argentina, or in Zimbabwe itself, the iconic Mbuya Nehanda, whose defiance and courage spurred the uprisings that blazed the path to the country’s independence in 1980.

What makes WOZA unique is the innovative and distinct brand of protest they have brought to the country’s major urban centers Harare and Bulawayo. The movement flouts restrictive protest laws by capitalizing on the laughable notion that women are “unthreatening.” The protests see thousands of women participating, many with their children strapped to their backs.

WOZA is committed to “act and publicize.” Members follow an “invisible meetings, visible protest” rule that allows them to carry out what seem to be spontaneous public protests that are creatively concieved to be memorable, which they have been, lingering like a form of theater, long after policemen have arrived, batons in hand, to disperse the crowds. Protest tactics have included banging on empty pots to call attention to food shortages, marching in silence to support censored independent media, handing out sweets to highlight the gross expensiveness of all but the absolute essentials, marching with children in school uniforms to draw attention to drastic hikes in school fees, and handing out roses on successive Valentines days to underscore the belief that only the “power of love can conquer the love of power.”

This past Valentines Day, the theme of the protest was ‘Bread and Roses’ a nod to the Lawrence textile strike of 1912.The Bread and Roses protest was a good example of how WOZA draws inspiration from similar movements of the past. The bread represented the need for affordable food; the roses, the need to remain dignified and a demand social justice. WOZA’s pot-banging march was similarly inspired by the famous Chilean March of the Empty pots of 1971.

Such bold gestures by these self-titled “hand-maidens of democracy” have become staples of the blogosphere and of the international press. In 2006 WOZA was nominated for the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. In fact, WOZA’s alliances with organizations overseas, such as Amnesty International and WOZA solidarity, its London support unit, has added significantly to the movement’s power. Jennie Williams, who co-founded WOZA with the late humanitarian Sheba Dube-Phiri, has bluntly noted that she wouldn’t be alive today if it were not for the incredible protection Amnesty provides in simply amplifying WOZA’s voice.

One of the organization’s key strengths is its hybrid gender-based identity. Although many members have wound up in prison, harrased by police, the movement relies upon the aversion of the police to apply the limited violent tactics the Zimbabwean authorities use to squash dissent. The thinking is that if physical intimidation is the only response to protest and police are loathe to employ it against women and children, then WOZA wins. WOZA is a maternal, feminist, Christian, human rights movement, switching its emphasis as required. Here the movement plays up its maternal qualities, casting politicians as children who need “tough love” in order to straighten up and act right. There, WOZA acts the feminist, arguing that women were the true liberators of the country and that “she-roes” need to return and succeed where men have failed. WOZA also draws on its Christian ethic, holding public prayer meetings. WOZA insists that it is not a traditionally political movement and that is absolutely non-violent, a tactic that has enabled it to recruit widely, gaining upwards of 30, 000 members, a remarkable figure given the hostile climate and the so far short life of the organization.

It is impossible to determine how WOZA will impact the dire socio-political landscape of Zimbabwe in the long-term. But the movement has already managed to re-ignited public political conversation within the country, a feat that seemed impossible until WOZA arrived.

——–
Kim Chakanetsa is a freelance writer living in London. She has contributed to the Guardian and recently completed a masters in Africa studies at Oxford University.

Just about every time a Hummer blows by me on the 880 or the 405, I’m left to ponder the yellow ribbon and the fading “Bush-Cheney” stickers adorning its billboard-sized backside. What is it about Republicans and the environment? I wonder. Is there some bylaw in the party platform that says you have to be an ecological flat-earther? I get the whole “private property is sacrosanct, don’t tread on me you dirty hippy tree-hugger” ethos. And after walking a gauntlet of Greenpeace canvassers on Telegraph Avenue, sometimes I catch myself indulging in it. But seriously, how did “The Party of Lincoln” become the party of Jim Inhofe?

On November 17th, Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, told Fox News viewers not to worry about global warming. Why shouldn’t we worry? Because “God’s still up there,” he said. In July, he compared Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Inhofe is the outgoing chairman of the Senate Committee on, get this, the Environment and Public Works.

The first chapter of Genesis says mankind has “dominion” over the planet and everything in it. We’re not supposed to love it or nurture it. We’re supposed to “fill it and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:26-30) Inhofe and his Christian Coalition cohorts see the environmental movement as a secular attack on these biblical enjoinders. That could be why the Bush Administration muzzled its own top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, and why W himself started taking tea with famed warming skeptic Michael Crichton. A more cynical commenter than myself might point out the happy political synergy between right-wingers’ “faith-based” denial of global warming and the interests of their biggest campaign contributor, the oil industry. But I digress. The fact remains that the evangelical wing of the Republican Party cannot allow themselves to believe in an environmental crisis like global climate change, no matter how unified the scientific community becomes about it. Doing so would amount to heresy.

Christian hagiography is full of martyrs who suffered gruesome deaths rather than renounce their faith. Saint Stephen was stoned; Paul was beheaded; John the Evangelist was even cooked in boiling oil—all because they stood fast against unbelievers. Unfortunately, many right-wing Christians misapprehend their willful scientific ignorance for saintly righteousness. Just look at all the hubbub and silliness about evolution in recent years. Did you know there’s a theme park in Florida (where else would it be?) that “proves” dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together? But, again, I digress.

Let me return to my original question. What is it about being a Republican—not a Tim Lehay/Quiverfull/Christianist Republican, but simply a good-old-fashioned, cigar-chomping, upper-tax-bracket, capital gains–loving Republican—means you cannot call yourself a friend of the environment? After all, not all GOPers are born-again biblical literalists. And big-money honchos these days are just as likely to be vested in software apps as strip mining. So what gives?

Power. That’s what. As David Kuo documented in his recent book, the kingmakers of the Republican Party have pandered to evangelicals for years now, all the while deriding them behind their backs. When Richard Nixon and his advisor Kevin Phillips deployed the Southern strategy, they exploited racism for political gain. Now Karl Rove and his cronies have plunged the GOP into a game of environmental brinksmanship for the sake of winning elections. By elevating pols like Jim Inhofe to leadership positions and loading up the President’s speeches with Christianist code-speak, Republicans have secured a faithful voting block. But as global warming begins to wreak more and more havoc with our daily lives and other ecological Swords of Damocles begin to fall, this cynical right-wing power play could cost our country much more than even the disastrous Iraq war.

The one potential bright spot? I won’t have to watch SUV’s with jingoistic bumper stickers barrel past me on the 405 anymore. Even a Hummer can’t go very fast underwater.

——
JB Powell lives in San Francisco. His novel, The Republic, is available from Livingston Press or at Amazon. Thumbnail by Ralph.