Political cosmovision of contemporary Mozambique

 Josué Bila

Professor Elísio Macamo has helped many of us to reflect, in a refined way, on the

difference between observation and analysis. Last week, he unleashed his sociological

arsenal on us, criticizing Joseph Hanlon's latest book, entitled ‘Mozambique

Recolonised through Corruption: How the IMF created an oligarchic state’. Personally,

I recognize the importance of Hanlon's work in the descriptive field and in the

bibliographic material, which I will cite in the coming months in a paper I am writing. I

also recognize that the criticism that sociologist Macamo is receiving makes sense,

according to which journalist Hanlon did his work as an investigative journalist, not as a

social scientist. Nevertheless, regardless of the supposed inconvenience of Macamo's

criticism, I recognize his sociological role in deepening and problematizing

Mozambican issues, from which he has helped many social science researchers to

sophisticate their methodologies and refine their theories and socio-anthropological

questions.

What does sociologist Macamo propose?

Macamo understands that complaints and findings reinforce and amplify what the

streets, citizens and non-governmental organizations are saying – and, consequently,

activist intellectuals will continue to act as spokespersons for the “people”, perhaps in

the name of reproducing rancorous citizenship against the alleged oligarchic elites of the

Mozambican state. Furthermore, according to sociologist Macamo, all this contributes

almost nothing to scientific endeavor, especially when such ‘findings’ fuel the debate

that we have “oppressors” against the ‘oppressed’, without, however, understanding the

historical and social factors that produce oppression and privilege in the social structure.

The understanding of social or political phenomena does not primarily follow a pro- or

anti-government logic, which is why social scientists are antonyms of ‘common

sayings,’ as they deeply deconstruct the components of the social mortar. Thus, in this

work of deconstruction, social scientists have discovered the invisible compositions of

the social mortar. Similarly, social scientists seek to understand what sometimes

invisible details (components/compositions) mean to people interconnected in many ties

and institutions. Perhaps what it means to be or strive to be a neighborhood leader has

similarities to striving to be a head chef (at a wedding or funeral), director,

administrator, governor or president (public/state/NGO/business). The social scientist

must be diligent and delve deeper to discover the (ir)regular behavioral lines of these

struggles or positions and, consequently, what these positions mean in society as a

whole. These struggles for positions or power can also lead to the question: what does

power mean for people interconnected with each other in the social structure? What to

do with power? Are there regular behavioral patterns amongst the power exercised in

the family (by the head of the family), in the church (by leaders [pastors, reverends,

apostles, prophets]), in the company, in the school (by principals or heads), in the

municipal, provincial or central government?

Perhaps social scientists can, depending on theories, methodologies and creativity,

clarify why regular behavioral patterns of seeking positions or struggling to belong to

and remain in the ‘oligarchic elites’ in Mozambique, for example, are similar regardless

of the origin of the group or individual. Therefore, the question remains: what does

power mean in our social relationships? My small abstraction may follow the teachings

of Professor Carlos Serra, according to whom his sociology sought to ‘peel away the

shell of phenomena and try to understand the soul of social buds, without forgetting that

the most difficult thing is to understand the shell.’ In fact, a visit to Serra's sociology

books will reveal warnings that understanding social phenomena is much more complex

than descriptions and observations. It seems to me that Professor Macamo is warning

participants in the national debate to distinguish between describing the buds and peels

and understanding the soul of the buds and peels.

Political cosmovision in Mozambique

If we look at the regular behavioural patterns in society, we will understand that the

overwhelming majority of men and women belonging to ‘anti-status quo groups’

(because they allegedly side with the oppressed) reproduce the same oppressions and

privileges as the so-called oligarchic/recolonizing elites of the state. However, because

of many accusations and findings, we lose sight of the fact that social ties, political

interconnections, the production or reproduction of power, friendships, coalitions,

interests between groups and individuals, and the local cosmovision on politics and

economics outweigh the immediate observations of the recolonization of Mozambique

through corruption and how the IMF created an oligarchic state. Intellectuals and

activists, who allegedly claim to be pro-justice, accountability, and transparency in

Mozambique, need to understand the socio-historical causes of our ‘existential

rascality’.

Socio-historical causes are not just scattered and dynamic fragments of the past. They

are processes that shape or have shaped the way a society or community thinks, feels,

and acts in everyday circumstances. Cosmovision is obviously the result of socio-

historical processes. In this regard, aspects such as why, at a wedding or funeral

ceremony, we first serve the pastor of a church, some “special” guests, and only then

serve impoverished children and widows, demonstrate our general cosmovion as people

interconnected with one another, with implications for our political cosmovision. The

political cosmovision does not come only from the state, nor from the elites, but is

influenced by various historical melting pots and social dynamics.

The difference between the corrupt practices of various groups lies in where each group

or individual operates in their lives. All of us (where are the exceptions?) are bearers of

the burdens of republican dishonor. We have all been socialized to fight for justice,

using moralistic discourse and unjust undertakings, as long as my/your group or friend

helps my/your project to expand. Therefore, the fundamental question cannot be to

denounce the oppressive/colonizing elites, but to ask whether these behaviors of the

elites (oppressive/recolonizing) are not a reproduction of existing behaviors in the social

structure. I will repeat the usual maxim: one of the serious problems with our analysts is

that they “analyses” politics from the top down. The resentment of citizens towards the

oligarchic elites also stems from the multiple “analyses” of politics from the top down,

as we refuse to understand and hold accountable the politics from the bottom up. I

capitalize “Politics”. And I also lowercase “politics”. ‘Politics from below’ and ‘politics

from above’ are twin sisters, feeding off each other, supporting each other, without

knowing, however, which is the older. They do not operate ‘suddenly’. They are the

product of various historical cauldrons and social dynamics. What are the legacies,

worldviews, and procedures that the current generation has inherited from previous

ones? What are the behavioral impacts of these legacies?

Perhaps this rancorous citizenship against ‘Politics’ (oligarchic/recolonizing elites of the

State) prevents us from understanding that our maid, our roasted peanut seller or our bus

fare collector are just as wicked as the oligarchic elites, precisely because we prefer to

publicize the visible elements (oligarchic/recolonizing elites, for example), ignoring

other underlying structural elements and, worse still, without linking them to the history

of the production of what I call the political cosmovision of contemporary Mozambique,

whose practices boil down to privileges, unpredictability, trickery, favors, rudeness and

vulgarity, where each group or individual exploits and plunders ‘everything’ at their

disposal, ignoring the rights of the majority, undermining the construction of the

Republic, in the insatiable proliferation of impunity. What sometimes differentiates

some social actors from others are the spaces from which they energize their lives, but

the mindset (or ‘political cosmovision of contemporary Mozambique’) that exists in the

social structure may be the ‘same’. Why do we expose and mobilize our inter-individual

vulgarities and republican missteps, without mercy or regret?

Conclusion

We have all been socialized within this ‘political cosmovision of contemporary

Mozambique’ – and it did not begin in 1975 – from which we carry trunks of shady

dealings, to divert money, objects and various resources, the fruits of dishonesty and

theft, in the streets, in families, at parties, in stalls, on public transport and in civil

society, business and state institutions. Recognizing that these chests of shady dealings

are not only carried by the ‘colonizing elites’ but also by society as a whole is

therapeutic and honest. Unfortunately, there are many dishonest intellectual voices in

our national criticism, which prefer to talk about the visible sins of an

“oligarchic”/‘colonizing’ group rather than the social heart that produces them.