A non-violent cultural revolution that seeks to amend the culture in Zimbabwe is a necessary pre-condition to attaining the ideals of democracy and development.
You can think of culture, in computing parlance, as an operating system, that runs society. It's essentially software. You can’t really touch it, it's invisible. Its lines of code, electrical bits, series of zero’s and ones, that determine how a society functions.
What is culture? It is a way of doing things, a cognitive framework that governs how a group of people view things and operate.
The Cultural Revolution needed in Zimbabwe is not to be misidentified with the disastrous Chinese Cultural revolution (1966–1976) that resulted in millions of people losing their lives.
The Cultural Revolution needed in Zimbabwe exists purely at the cognitive level. It is mental. It doesn’t need to manifest in a physical form. Culture is a frame of mind. It is a mental framework that people operate in, even though it exhibits itself in the physical realm.
Thus, a cultural revolution, in this context, means a change in the way we do things.
A revolution is essentially a revolt. It is a sudden change to a system for the adoption of a better system. Our Zimbabwean culture desperately needs to be overhauled and updated. Thus, a cultural revolution is effectively conducting an update on the operating system. The Cultural System we have terribly needs an update.
I have expressed elsewhere in my writings that in Zimbabwe, the problem is not just the bad leaders we have (or rather lack of leaders), but also the people. We have a leadership vacuum, as well as a followership vacuum. The essence of leadership is followership. The country has poor-quality citizenry. An update is needed. The state of the citizenry somehow justifies the existence of the tyrannical regime, which led to the conclusion that we deserve what we have.
However, that being said, we can still make efforts to changing the system. I have expressed elsewhere that the people are not ready.
The question that beckons now is, what shall we do, given that the people are not ready. The answer is that we have to make the people ready. We have to address the problems we have at the root. We have to improve the quality of the citizenry. This can be done via a cultural revolution.
Many people claim that we are what we are because of our culture. This is usually over-emphasized, with the importance coefficient on culture being dramatically over-estimated, when people talk about the need to preserve our culture. The role of culture in shaping society is huge. It is not the ultimate factor but is nonetheless critical. Our culture, the culture that dimwits emphasize preserving is the very same culture that shaped our society into the condition that it is in. That culture is not doing us any good. It needs to be updated so that it works for us not against us. This is a big ask.
By culture, I refer to the total collective sub-cultures, some of which will be mentioned herein. By culture, I do not solely pertain to traditional things, because in Zimbabwe many people solely stick the word culture to Shona/Ndebele traditional practices. I view culture in the broadest sense. For example, Zimbabwe has recently developed a culture of corruption. When the word culture is used exclusively for old customs, some could argue that corruption is not part of our culture, our culture is the good old way whereby public officers are not corrupt. However, culture is not static. It is dynamic. I take that into cognizance. Even though our culture was largely not a corrupt one a long time ago, that same culture has dynamically changed into a very corrupt culture.
To be fair, there are many aspects of our culture that need to be preserved. Hard work is one of them. The desire to get educated is another one. These are components that define who we are, globally. They have helped the country survive difficult times. These central elements of our culture are rightfully needed and should be preserved. There are many other elements of our culture that we need.
However, there are many other elements that we do not need. Elements that need to be updated and some elements that need to be totally discarded. The focus of this article is those numerous elements that need to change. Because they are way too many aspects that need change, a cultural system upgrade becomes essential. An overhaul would be the right term.
On the surface, it looks like culture is not related to democracy and development in any way. It looks like these things are not even connected. It is an honor and a privilege for me to uncover how these things are connected and work together in giving us the society we have, which by the way is the society we deserve, as well as the society we seek to change.
9 Examples of Elements of our culture that must be changed:
- Predominantly Conservative Culture
- Ageist Culture
- Medieval Dress code
- Culture of Fear
- Culture of Witchcraft and Voodoo
- Lobola Nonsense
- Blind Christianity
- Culture of Corruption
- Culture of Worshipping South Africa, USA, and the UK
10. Others — the culture of celebrating mediocrity, the culture of infidelity, urban culture of some dumbass “chi-guy-guy”.
Predominantly Conservative Culture
The default mindset in Zimbabwe is conservative. Democracy and development are by nature, progressive. Thus, our predominantly conservative culture is anti-development.
Our culture does not encourage or reward change. We, as a society, collectively view the preservation of the old ways of doing things, as necessary. This salient attribute filters into elections as well. We still have hundreds of thousands of people living in rural areas that vote for Zanu PF because they do not want change, their mindsets are conservative and they simply want to preserve the way things are.
It is natural to resist change. However, in our case, the prevalence of that resistance is too large. It's outsized. The size of the prevalence is a factor that can be attributed to culture. If our culture were just a little bit more progressive, we could actually have the right forces at play to push for democratic change and development.
For illustrative purposes, I will just make up some numbers; 9 out 10 Zimbabweans are very conservative. If we have maybe 6 out of 10 being conservative, the remaining 4 out of 10 that are progressive would generate enough traction to further the democracy and development agenda, even though the majority of the population is still predominantly conservative.
The code we are running for our culture needs an update on a few lines, so that is not overly conservative.
The Zimbabwean culture is very ageist. Ageism, according to Wikipedia, is stereotyping and/or discrimination against individuals or groups on the basis of their age. This may be casual or systemic.
The Zimbabwean society does not view ageism as a problem. It is viewed as a good thing, an essential part of who we are. This obviously needs to change.
Nelson Chamisa is 43 years old now. He had just turned 40 when the previous elections were held. He was viewed as young by people from both sides of the political divide. How can you view a 40-year-old as a young person? Okay, in politics, he is young, given that our politics is dominated by pensioners. The Zanu PF administration even went as far as threatening to instill a law that prohibits persons under the age of 50 from being presidents. This was obviously targeted at Chamisa.
This whole shebang sounds ridiculous. But believe me, this is actually a core tenet of our culture. In our culture, young people are viewed as inferiors. Older people are automatically viewed as superior and better placed to make decisions.
Leadership, in all spheres of Zimbabwean life, is age-based. Whilst this ageism could have been a useful heuristic decades ago before the information age, it is very irrelevant nowadays and acts as a hindrance to progress. Age is no longer a good proxy for knowledge, wisdom, leadership, and good decision-making skills.
Another dimension of our ageist culture that is as obnoxious as the leadership positions one is the one relating to respect. To be fair, every individual deserves some basic respect. That being said, any level of respect above the basic has to be earned. Our “now dysfunctional” culture says respect is bestowed upon a person by age.
Respect the elders. Which elders? The ones that fucked up the country or allowed the country to be fucked whilst they watched. They don't deserve that level of respect.
The idea of bestowing respect to a person simply because he is older was probably very relevant and useful before the information age. Elderly people don't necessarily know better anymore. The world has changed and is changing by the minute. Whatever they know to be true is changing rapidly.
The point here is not to have a go at elderly people but to simply recognize that ageism has led us to a result set that is far below the optimal level. Our public and private institutions are all being governed and manned by the elderly who are not capable of driving development. They are just there because of age.
The longest-serving employee is promoted to a more senior position even though he has zero leadership skills. The oldest guy gets to sit on the church board because he is deemed to have more wisdom, even though that might not be the case. Within Zanu PF, anyone below 40 is deemed a youth, and the president of the youth league is way beyond 40. In the MDC, the ones older than Chamisa are envious of being led by someone younger than them. Within the same MDC, leaders in their early 20s are not given enough room to lead, they are elbowed out by the more senior members in their late thirties based on nothing other than age.
A Zimbabwean naturally feels that he or she is not supposed to be outcompeted by someone younger than him/her. The phrase used is “kukundwa nekamwana kadiki” which literally translates to “how can you be beaten at it by a small child”.
This phrase is cultural. It is as ageist as it can get, and it is hardcoded into our psyche. As a 35-year-old journalist, it is very possible that a 25-year-old journalist somewhere can be better at journalism than you. There is nothing shameful about that. In fact, it is a mathematical reality.
The same applies to leadership. There can be a better leader somewhere, who is younger than you. The same applies to almost everything else in life. There should be no shame in that.
Ageism is the piece of code, in our culture, that needs to change, thus warranting a cultural revolution.
Medieval Dress code
How is this related to democracy and development? The umbilical cord is psychological.
If people cannot free themselves mentally in terms of dress code, how are they going to free themselves from the shackles of false consciousness? Dress code is a small area that doesn't really matter, but it is an indicator of the extent of liberalism and freedom of the mind. If our people can be freed in this dimension, it will become easier for them to be freed on the other dimensions.
I was speaking to someone who had spent 5 years living in Pretoria. He was visiting Harare. He said he was surprised to see “everyone” in the CBD putting on a jacket and a tie, in the middle of a hot October day. He was obviously exaggerating. The point he was trying to score was that the Zimbabwean dress code is too conservative and too uptight. Walking in Harare, it's as if everyone is a banker or a lawyer. A shopkeeper in a stationery shop is clad in a jacket and a tie. Why?
The point here is not to promote nakedness and these other outfits where people are semi-naked. The point is that our dress code is very much in the 1970s whilst the rest of the world has moved on. Whilst the Chino has become the default work trouser across the world, Harare still has the classic formal trouser from a suit. Even vendors wear that type of trousers.
Anything other than an uptight buttoned-up dress code is viewed as improper on many social occasions. It ought not to be so. Free the young people, free the elders. Let the women wear tracksuits in winter instead of skirts, without judging them.
A cultural revolution is needed indeed in terms of dress code. It's not about the money. It's about the mindset. When the mindset changes, even the type of a bale of second-hand clothes that are shipped to Harare also changes to reflect that liberalism and progressiveness.
Silicon Valley has proved to us that people need to be free in terms of dressing for them to fully immerse themselves into working on creative destruction and technological progress. The suits are all about compliance these days, and very little innovation. Innovation is coming from those fellas in jeans and t-shirts. Moreover, the association of a buttoned-up dress code with professionalism has been broken.
A dress code is part of a culture. Ours need to change. In fact, change is long overdue.
Again, how does this tie into development and democracy? It is purely psychological. Too many people are chained by our uptight dress code and they need to be mentally free, by overcoming the cultural constraints. Thus, a cultural revolution, along that dimension is necessary. To some people, this is actually a very real liberty issue, it's not just psychological.
Culture of Fear
The biggest obstacle is fear. Fear is a culture. The levels of fear in Zimbabwe are cultural. This culture of fear was created by Ian Smith. It was heightened by Robert Mugabe and Emmerson Mnangagwa has perpetuated it.
The worst manifestation of this type was when villagers were told that if they vote for Tsvangirai, colonizers would come and take everything from them and that they were already at the border waiting for a Tsvangirai electoral victory. As absurd as it sounds, poor villagers believed it.
Zimbabweans live in fear. They fear their government, the police, the soldiers, and state security agents. The fear is now part and parcel of the Zimbabwean culture. It is so deep, it's almost existing at the core of our culture.
Other than political fear, there is rampant fear of the dead, fear of killing people, etc. I am not promoting death, but the fear is too high in Zimbabwe. It is almost as if only Zimbabwe has ghosts and Ngozi's. South Africa, Australia, and other countries do not have the same level of fear. Every living person is afraid to die, but I think Zimbabweans are 100 times more afraid to die (NB* exaggerated for the echoing effect).
People are not going to stand up for their rights if fear is ingrained into our culture. Fear is the obstacle. The obstacle needs to be pushed out of the way.
100 Zimbabweans can be controlled, beaten, and humiliated by one soldier, one by one, one after the other. 1,000 villagers live in fear of 10 Zanu PF thugs. 10,000 residents of Warren Park live in fear of 100 CIOs when they are actually aware that so and so forth are state security agents.
The political fear was designed by the politicians. The torture, beatings, murders, are meant to incite fear. When they preach violence, the goal is really not to beat up everyone but to incite fear. When they unleash the army, they are aware that the people can actually unite with the army and fight back, thus creating a problem for themselves, now facing a splinter army faction with the masses behind it. They do not go into overdrive. They know just the right amount of violence to make you think that they have the capacity to execute a mass genocide.
The intention is to make you think that nothing will stop them from instructing the army to kill everyone. The intention is to make you afraid, and believe they have God-like powers because the army works along command lines. The reality is that they do not have God-like powers. They can kill, but their actions (because they are based on instructing other people) run into finite limits. What limits? The number of people that the soldiers can kill before they turn the guns to their commanders.
Politicians are not fools. They are quick to board a flight abroad when the tiniest of street revolutions erupt. They have an acute sense of danger. They know how to make people afraid.
The fear in the people is exactly what they want. They have us exactly where we are “supposed” to be. But what happens when the people are no longer afraid?
That being said, being fearless does not mean being stupid. You don't carry sticks and stones to run up against an army with guns and grenades.
The members of the army fear their commanders, they fear their coworkers, they fear being found out to be anti-government. But what happens when that fear is blown away.
Fear is a state of mind. Mass fear is a culture. A culture of fear cannot last forever. The revolutionary peoples have to actively seek to destroy the entrenched fear from society.
Culture of Witchcraft and Voodoo
This is controversial because many people do not want to acknowledge the widespread practices of witchcraft and voodoo.
Every country has a certain level of dark spiritualism. Zimbabwe has a very high level of dark spiritualism. It is just a notch behind notorious Malawi, Nigeria, and Ghana. Some of the dark spiritualism is celebrated as culture. This has to stop at some point. The people have to be freed. Societal psychology has to move past this.
In England, in the 17th century, they purged witches from their culture. Witches are real. Just like politicians, they are not as powerful as they say they are and as we think they are. In hindsight, it was a very barbaric exercise. This is where the term “witch-hunt” comes from.
Was that barbarism necessary? The modern critics, who live in modern societies, that are no longer dominated by witches do not understand the motivations for the witch hunts. They have never lived in fear of witches. Those of us, who still live in societies where witches are still prevalent and actively operate understand why this had to be done.
The culture of fear ingrained in society is due to all these practices of darkness. When they say, Africa is dark, they don't really mean lack of electricity and skin color, they refer to these dark practices.
We should, as a matter of policy, purge out all witches, traditional healers, voodists, dark priests, those who cast spells, prophets, etc. from the land. This is the only way to free our people along these dimensions. Capture all of them and throw them into one prison-like community where they have no contact with the outside world. If they try anything funny, execute them. Most of these have committed heinous murders and have tormented society for a very long time. They create spiritual problems, wait for the people to suffer, and then come around with the solutions, just like the computer geek that creates a virus, spreads it around, and then starts selling the anti-virus. It's all a con job.
Total elimination of all these characters is difficult but they should not be comfortable. Think of a Zimbabwe without a n’anga, a tsikamutanda, a witch, and a prophet. It is possible if the majority of the society chooses to have such a society. Burn them all.
The society, which is being fooled by these dark spiritualists believes some of the spiritualists are really needed to fix societal problems, just like how the guy that buys the anti-virus defends the seller of the anti-virus. Traditional healers in the sense of n’angas, for example, are recognized by law. People love them. They have been part of our culture for probably thousands of years. They probably helped us and were necessary a long time ago.
In the age of science, however, we ought to eliminate these from our culture. We have to actively do that because if we wait for time to get things right, as the prevalence of n’anga slowly depreciates, we will be late for development. The world is flying at an amazing speed and if we don't catch up now, we might never catch up.
The reality however is that it is very difficult to identify a witch. That's where the practicalities of eliminating the culture of witchcraft from society become difficult.
How is dark spiritualism connected to democracy and development? A nation that is deeply entrenched in this type of spiritualism is a nation that is hard to “psyche up”. It is a nation that cannot stand up for rights. It's all mental. It is connected to the culture of fear. It's the ever-present wish to seek higher powers for help when in fact it is only you that can help yourselves. The over-focus on the spiritual leads to neglect of the physical. Backward elements of our culture have to be updated.
In the article on Overcoming Widespread False Consciousness, we touched on how women, under the spell of false consciousness, support that which is against their best interests.
It can be argued that the whole lobola culture has to go away. Its time is over. It's outdated. The practice needs to be abolished in favor of a more modern way of instituting marriages.
Those who love culture for the sake of culture will vehemently beg to differ. You can collectively refer to these people that crave old things as “ana chiVanhu Chedu”. They will proffer the same old lame, silly reasons. That's what culture does to us. It blinds us from objectively assessing our cultural practices. The code is stubborn. It refuses to be updated. We have to update it nonetheless and free millions of our people that actually don't know that they're not free. They have not known freedom.
How is this connected to progress, democracy, and development? If charity begins at home, then democracy and development also begin within the institution of marriage. All of our people have to have their rights respected. No group should be left behind. Institutions that are fundamentally opposed to liberty have to be opposed by those who are for liberty.
A cultural revolution would call for the total abolishment of the lobola process and practices as we know them. Total Abolishment.
Partial abolishment sounds cute, but it could easily fall into a trap and fail to accomplish the goals of the revolution. Partial abolishment would seek to remove the “legalized human trafficking” aspect from the lobola processes and practices. The charging of a price and exchange of a human as if it is a good or service is effectively human trafficking, which has been legalized by culture for centuries. Removing the commercial transaction aspect from lobola would leave the rest of the lobola intricacies in place. This partial abolishment could simply be a ban on the levying of a price on a bride, thus making any negotiations illegal. In theory, it could work. In practice, people would continue with negotiations, one way or the other, behind closed doors.
We know better now. We are informed. We can rebuke and condemn certain practices. The killing of twins and albinos in Zimbabwe was legal for hundreds of years. Slavery was also legal in the USA for hundreds of years. Total abolishment rather than partial abolishment was necessary in both of these cases.
The fact that these sickening practices were once 100% legal is a point that hits hard on those who defend every aspect of culture using the basis that it has been around for a very long time, and that its the way we do things, and that our forefathers who came up with the practice new better. Clearly, they didn’t know any better. The fact that something is legal doesn't mean it is right and does not mean that it should be legal. A cultural revolution in this lobola regard should then seek to make lobola processes and practices illegal.
A new form of instituting a marriage should then be conceived and put in place to replace the lobola nonsense. The cultural revolution along this dimension will present us with an opportunity to paint a new picture. It gives us a blank canvas. We can then construct and design the new form of instituting a marriage taking into account the realities of modern life such as human rights, individual rights, liberties, freedoms, contract law, et cetera.
This is what needs to be done. It is not just free and fair elections that are needed. Society itself needs to be fundamentally transformed, being catapulted into a modern era.
This is a culture. How can we express this without offending Christians? When Christianity as a religion was introduced to Zimbabwe, it became part and parcel of our society. It was a software update on society. Whether that update was a good upgrade, or a downgrade is another issue. We can all agree that is now at the core of our culture.
Some people would want to separate religion from culture. For the purposes of the revolution, religion shapes and influences culture.
What do we mean by “Blind Christianity”? This can be referred to as a politically passive manner of living the Christian way. There are millions of people in Zimbabwe who do not participate in political processes. Millions do not involve themselves in any manner of standing up for their rights because they are Christians. It ought not to be so.
Christianity, as a form of religion or spiritualism, doesn't have to be blind. It doesn't have to ignore the physical conditions in which we live. It doesn't have to be blind to justice and equal rights.
Then there is the cult followership of the Christian prophets. That has to be stopped. Our people have to be freed from the chains of those who purport to be freeing them whilst executing scams. This mass psychosis and obsession with larger-than-life prophets is a recent phenomenon. It is a direct consequence of economic mismanagement. It is a malicious code that has been added to our culture. It needs to be removed.
People need to focus their energies on the right direction. Prophets are not going to fix the economy and create jobs and the prosperity that millions seek. This diversion is tragic.
A cultural revolution would seek to modify Blind Christianity so that its sight is restored, and millions can be mentally unchained and be free to stand up for their rights. A cultural revolution would seek to remove the recently installed malicious code of prosperity-focused mega-prophets from our culture so that the people can be mentally free to direct their energies towards the policymakers.
Only the policymakers can create conditions for the economy to grow, making a prosperous nation, that includes you, your churchmates, and your Papa. Nations with great policymakers and great leaders make policies that lead to prosperity. Just look at Silicon Valley in the USA and Shenzhen in China.
A cultural revolution along this dimension is a must.
Culture of Corruption
This is a culture. It is another recently added piece of code. The Mugabe-led Zanu PF government installed this code onto our cultural operating systems in the 80s. Now that code is dominant. It is running at every layer of society. It's a virus. Malicious lines of code.
Corruption is a cancer that is eating away society. Its “foreign” cells multiplying themselves within our societal body. It's a pathogen.
Everything that needs to be said about corruption has been said by someone else, somewhere, and is known by almost everyone. There is no need to emphasize why this culture of corruption needs to be removed from our societal software.
Because the breadth and depth of corruption in our country are so large, a successful cultural revolution would also require actions that are so extreme.
Burn every corrupt person. Hang them in public places. Feed their bodies to the dogs. Send them to the maximum-security prison to serve a life sentence with hard labor. Confiscate the ill-gotten wealth from them and their descendants.
Corruption no longer needs just an anti-corruption commission and rhetoric. Corruption in Zimbabwe will not subside without a revolution, a cultural revolution. There is no other factor or element that justifies a cultural revolution more than corruption.
A cultural revolution is the only way to remove corruption from society. One way. No other way. It's the only therapy available. It's the only antidote.
That being said, even radiation and chemotherapy can be too late for certain cancer patients. Is it too late to burn the cancerous cells from our society?
Culture of Worshipping South Africa, USA, and the UK
This can be broadly classified as an inferiority complex. It is cultural. It is a dominant feature of being Zimbabwean. It is yet another recent addition to our social fabric.
There is a difference between admiring good things that other countries have and worshipping other countries. Zimbabweans do the latter. Our country is so dysfunctional that anything that is not Zimbabwean is loved, honored, and revered.
We watch South African TV stations, eat South African foodstuffs, use South African products, and listen to South African music. As such, to the mind of a Zimbabwean, everything South African is deemed to be better. It ought not to be so.
That is not to say we should have pride in our rags and have pride in our poverty. The point is we just have to see ourselves as human beings. We have to see ourselves as worthy. We do not have to worship South Africa. It is a better country, but it is just a country after all. The same goes for the USA, UK, and Australia. There is nothing wrong with copying products and technology but there is no need to assimilate with everything these countries do.
This Inferiority Complex that engulfs our people is very difficult to explain. It is only something that can be diagnosed by a cultural observer. It's a subject too deep for an untrained mind to understand. A normal person would think that we are being too extreme and taking things too seriously.
We have to uproot the national inferiority from our culture. We are equals. We are people. Importing goods and services does not necessarily make us inferior people.
A cultural revolution would seek to address this national shame, with a view towards building a proud nation.
What’s the end goal of this?
The sole purpose of a cultural revolution is to change the culture. Once the culture is changed, the society is also transformed into a better society.
We cannot achieve the ideals of freedom, progress, democracy, and development without first changing the society, which entails changing the culture. The underlying understanding is that our society is broken and dysfunctional. A cultural update will make it more functional.
A good example is gender equality. All the organized efforts by feminists and women groups towards gender equality remain nonsensical as long as lobola is being practiced. A hard edit of our culture using brute force that removes the lobola nonsense from our culture will lead to a fundamentally changed society, a post-lobola society with egalitarian worldviews. Such a society will be ready to achieve gender equality, which by the way doesn't necessarily mean the subjugation of men by women, which is the understanding of most of these ideologically empty dimwit feminists and gender equality activists who have very little understanding of both culture and egalitarianism.
Gender equality can never co-exist alongside lobola. Ideologically dry feminists refuse to see this, and they continue barking the wrong tree. The same applies to politics and other areas. The MDC, as a political party refuses to see that something is wrong with the society of Zimbabwe. It is not just the leaders in Zanu PF that are fucked up, the followers and non-followers are fucked up too.
The operating system, culture, is in a mess. An upgrade will fix it. Every other piece of the puzzle will fall in place once the operating system is cleaned, and all bugs have been removed.
A cultural revolution addresses the problems we have at the root.
How do we get this done? Hard Fork
That’s the answer. A hard fork. A complete break away from the prevailing culture. We are borrowing this terminology from blockchain nomenclature.
Investopedia defines it as a radical change to a network’s protocol that makes previously invalid blocks and transactions valid, or vice-versa. A hard fork requires all nodes or users to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software.
Every person is a node. The young ones are the most critical nodes. This makes the primary focus of the cultural revolution those under the age of 30. These are also very much ripe and conducive for cultural edits. The old dogs are very difficult to teach new tricks.
Re-education of the ones above the thirties becomes a secondary priority.
Some of the cultural software edits require organized efforts to encourage compliance, without which it is very difficult to successfully edit the code. To that end, special groupings are needed such as:
- Anti-Lobola Vigilantes
- Anti-Corruption Vigilantes
- Anti-Ageism Movement
- Christian Political Education Association
- Movement for National Pride
- Society for the Eradication of Witchcraft, Voodoo and Dark Practices
- Progressive Minds Network
Many more forms of organized activity can be created to specifically counter the prevailing culture, to change the narrative, to re-educate an entire society.
The above list appears radical. It is radical. You cannot edit society’s operating system without a little bit of radicalization (as understood by those who conform to and perpetuate mediocrity and a substandard society).
What they term radicalization is actually normalization to us. It is changing culture towards a better future with more freedom and prosperity. A cultural revolution is essentially the normalization of what has been radicalized over the years, and over the centuries. Anti-corruption vigilantism, for example, is not radicalization because endemic levels of corruption in Zimbabwe are a pandemic, i.e., society is radically corrupt and must be normalized. Normalization will hammer down corruption to levels that are at or below the universal average.
The cultural revolution should be a proper and real revolution. It should take the format of a movement. It should a real movement, unlike the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance, a political party, which is not really a movement (contrary to its name), and not really democratic (contrary to its own claims) and not really pushing for fundamental changes.
The MDC Alliance or any other MDC outfit, is seeking political change with regards to who leads the government. They seek to change one aspect of the system, a very important aspect. They seek to change the government, and the government subsequently changes everything. A cultural revolution, on the other hand, seeks to change the operating system, which will subsequently change everything else. In other words, a cultural revolution seeks to change everything, which will then change our politics. It seeks to change the electorate, not just the ones vying for election.
Social education in the modern day is done via the internet. The general framework of information dissemination and re-education becomes the internet. However, efforts of compliance on the ground are needed for changing the minds of the old dogs.
Executives who have attempted to change corporate culture know how hard this exercise is. It's not easy. But it has to be done, especially when the corporate culture is stinky and is eating strategy and business success for breakfast. If culture is so difficult to change at the corporate level, even the family level, how difficult do you think it is at the national level?
Operational and tactical strategies have to formulated in these cultural and ideological wars.
This is what needs to be done. Will it be done? By whom?