In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

222 Homosacer Citizenship, exclusion and irregular labour migration from Matabeleland, Zimbabwe, to South Africa France Maphosa INTRODUCTION Homo sacer is a concept that was used by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben (1998) to refer to a naked or bare life that is depoliticised. Though he has a biological life, homo sacer, has no political significance. The term homo sacer was borrowed from ancient Roman law under which a man who committed a certain kind of crime was banned from society and all his rights as a citizen revoked. This status meant that such a man could be killed by anybody but could not be sacrificed in a ritual ceremony. Homo sacer is therefore the direct opposite of citizen. A citizen does not only have the right to political and economic participation but also the right to protection by the sovereign. Those who are excluded from these rights – homo sacer – exist in what Agamben refers to as ‘zones of exception’ or ‘zones of indistinction’ in which the application of the law is suspended. One who falls into this zone; [I]s not, in fact simply set outside the law and made indifferent to it but rather abandoned by it, exposed and threatened on the threshold in which life and law, outside and inside become indistinguishable (Agamben 1998:28). For Agamben, politics is preoccupied with the classification between inclusion and exclusion, between forms of life the sovereign will protect and represent and those it will not. Rajaran and Grundy-Warr (2004) used the concept of homo sacer to describe irregular migrants in Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. They argue that as used to indicate exclusion, today the term is applicable to ‘terrorists,’ refugees and irregular migrants. The experiences of irregular migrants from Matabeleland in Zimbabwe fit a type of life portrayed by the concept of homo sacer. CHAPTER 12 223 HOMO SACER THE MATABELELAND PROBLEM Several writers have discussed the Matabeleland problem as one of sustained political, economic and cultural domination, suppression, exclusion and marginalisation in postcolonial Zimbabwe, (Alexander et.al. 2000, Musemwa 2006; Mhlanga 2010; Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2008). The postcolonial state in Zimbabwe has over the years used various labels such as ‘dissidents’, ‘detractors’ and ‘enemies of the state’ to exclude people from both political and economic participation and protection by the state. For example ‘dissident’ was a term that was used not only to justify exclusion but also to denote individuals who could be killed with impunity. The term was not confined to individuals but to cities, regions and whole ethnic groups. This is lucidly captured by Musemwa (2006)’s use of the phrase ‘disciplining a “dissident” city:’ to explain lack of serious political efforts to find a lasting solution to the perennial water problems of Bulawayo, Matabeleland’s largest city. According to Darbon (1992) the military operations in the provinces of the south of the country during Gukurahundi operations gave the state an excuse to unleash intimidation on the local population.This was done through the use of force, imprisonment, torture, maiming and killing and blocking of development aid and food. As Alexander and others (2000) observe, even after the cosmetic unity agreement of 1987, no deliberate development effort was embarked on in Matabeleland. There was no programme put in place to compensate the region for the loss through violence and neglect. Mhlanga (2010) provides several examples which prove that there has been a deliberate effort by the postcolonial government in Zimbabwe to marginalise Matabeleland as a region in the distribution of national resources. The cases include the electrification of the railway line from Gweru to Harare, leaving out the Gweru to Bulawayo stretch despite the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) being headquartered in Bulawayo; the gradual relocation of heavy industries from Bulawayo to Harare and the unwillingness to implement the Matabeleland Zambezi Water Project. One of the objectives of the land reform programme embarked on by the government of Zimbabwe beginning in 2000, particularly its fast track (jambanja ) phase was ostensibly to decongest the communal areas. This refers to reducing population pressure on the land. A Land Review Committee appointed by President Mugabe reported in 2003 that, for Matabeleland North; ‘the impact on decongestion had therefore been negligible’ (Land Review Committee, 2003: 122). With regards to Matabeleland South, the Committee reported that, ‘Decongestion of rural areas has not been effected’ (Land Review Committee, 2003: 130). At the same time, the same Committee reported extremely high rates of uptake of land offered for resettlement in these areas. For example, Matabeleland...

Share