By Mlilo Joyinani and Ndaba Nduku
The recent call for a stay-away in Zimbabwe led by some prominent figures including controversial War Veteran Blessing Geza has sparked a heated debate about the efficacy of such actions in a country where a significant portion of the population operates in the informal economy. As citizens grapple with the economic challenges for mere survival, the important question those calling for stay- aways should be asking is: can stay-aways truly effect change, or do they exacerbate the struggles of those who can least afford it?
Zimbabwe’s economy is characterized by a large informal sector, with many citizens relying on daily income to survive. For these individuals, staying away from work is not a viable option, as it would mean forgoing essential income. The call for stay-aways, therefore, raises questions about the impact on those who are already struggling to make ends meet. Those calling for Stay-aways are mostly in a better position, being individuals who always were financially better in comparison to the masses struggling to get the mere basics.
Nonetheless, despite the economic challenges, citizens have the right to express their grievances and demand change. Peaceful protests and stay-aways can be effective tools for citizen engagement, allowing people to voice their concerns and hold leaders accountable. However, the use of force or threats, such as gunfire, can create a climate of fear and undermine citizen engagement.
Therefore, leaders calling for stay-aways must be transparent about their motivations. Leaders must be visible at the forefront and known who they are so that the masses would know who is leading and if they are politically and morally fit to lead them. Leaders’ visibility enables everyone to be held accountable for the consequences, or get credit of an effective or failed stay-away. We all learn from a successful or failed action plan. Thus, visibility of leaders will enable society to consider whether these leaders are genuinely committed to effecting change or if their actions are driven by other interests. The government, too, must be responsible willing to engage with citizens and address their grievances, rather than resorting to repression. Repression merely exhibits an uncaring government focused on bad governance without listening to the concerns of its citizens.
In light of the challenges posed by stay-aways, it may be more effective to explore alternative approaches to citizen engagement. Peaceful protests, demonstrations, and dialogue between citizens, leaders, and government officials can provide a platform for addressing grievances and finding solutions. By engaging in constructive dialogue, Zimbabweans can work towards finding ways to address the country’s challenges and build a more prosperous future. The country has been in this failed economic situation for the longest any nation has ever been; and this needs government, Opposition and civic leadership finding an embracive lasting solution without the cat and mouse fights which are heading nowhere.
At the moment Zimbabwe’s stay-away conundrum highlights the complexity of citizen engagement in a country facing significant economic and social challenges. Thus, while stay-aways can be an effective tool for expressing grievances, they must be carefully considered in light of the potential impact on those who can least afford it. By exploring alternative approaches and prioritizing dialogue and accountability, Zimbabweans can work towards finding solutions that benefit all citizens. Politicians should aspire to lead well run and functional economies.
Comments
About Author
