The idea of urban modernity has its roots in colonial times. At the time of independence in 1980, following a liberation war from 1965 to 1979, Zimbabwe’s economy was looking strong. Urban residents, especially, could think of themselves as modern: they had middle- and working-class lifestyles, social protection, social mobility opportunities and fixed working hours. Urban modernity meant order, steady employment, education.

Zimbabwe’s economy was exceptional in sub-Saharan Africa: diversified and robust.

However, rapid socio-economic changes followed in the 1990s and 2000s. Zimbabwe was hit by a series of economic, financial and political crises. This led to the collapse of urban middle- and working-class modernity and the rise of visible informal economic activities in the urban space. By 2004, over 80% of people had informal livelihoods in Zimbabwe.

My PhD thesis (2021) examined Harare’s shift to informality and the impact of this on people’s everyday experiences of citizenship. The respondents in interviews carried out between 2016 and 2018 included vendors, cross-border traders, manufacturers, residents’ associations, informal sector organisations, local authorities and urban planners.

These interviews also form the basis of my recent research paper. My analysis sought to examine how people deal with the fact that current circumstances don’t support their myths of urban nationalism.

During a crisis, people rethink old ideas and adjust them to fit their new situation. As they do this, their notions of urban modernity and economic exceptionalism change. At the same time, they remember a past when their country was economically successful. This memory shapes how they think about the country’s future - and it also makes them question the government, which hasn’t lived up to those past ideals.

So, what do the myths of urban modernity and economic exceptionalism mean in Zimbabwe today? Some people cling to the early postcolonial notions nurtured by the government. Others reluctantly accept economic informality while seeking to upgrade the idea of the informal sector. But there are others who challenge altogether the view that street vending is not modern and formal enough.

The prevalent informality was seen as a temporary phenomenon which would end soon. Then the country would return to having a modern urban lifestyle and strong economy.

Grappling with informality

To many of the respondents in 2016-2018, “working” and “having a job” meant being employed and having regular wages, job security and social protection.

At the same time, people also reluctantly accepted economic informality and some of the changes it made to their lives, while seeking to upgrade the idea of the informal sector. Some informal sector associations, for example, attempted to teach their members to see their activities as businesses and themselves as business people, as I reported in another paper.

Some respondents drew a line between economic activities that were acceptable in the city centre and those that were not. These were similar to the early postcolonial notions enforced by the government. They suggested, for example, that street vending had no place in the city centre. It should only occur in limited designated spaces, and in residential areas.

Some street vendors, though, defied the notion of street vending not being modern and formal enough. They dressed smartly to emphasise that street vending could also be done in a “modern” way and be a part of the mainstream economy.

The history of the urban modernity myth

At the beginning of colonial rule in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the colonisers planned for the cities to remain “white”. Unless Africans lived in their employers’ facilities, they were required to live in dedicated areas.

At the same time, the colonial administration introduced and enforced the concept of “order” in Salisbury, now Harare, the capital. It punished poor, marginalised and homeless people. The same with economic and social activities it deemed undesirable.

Today, over 32% of Zimbabweans live in urban areas.

The establishment in the 1930s of the African middle class was an important part of the urban modernity project. Those who sought to belong to it largely used education as their primary social mobility tool.

After independence in 1980, the cities were deracialised. Everyone was free to enter and use the urban space. But the new government still held tight control and dictated who had the right to the city.

Numerous operations were conducted from the 1980s to clear the street of “undesirable” people and activities. For example, informal settlements were removed. Many women were arrested on the pretext of clearing the city of prostitution. The most notorious clean-up operation was the 2005 Operation Murambatsvina. It effectively punished all those considered “unproductive” and not deserving to be in the city.

Those high and, frankly, brutal standards of urban modernity have a long history in Zimbabwe and became a part of its urban nationalism.

Economic exceptionalism

Colonial and early postcolonial Zimbabwe had an exceptional and diversified economy with strong mining, agricultural, and industrial sectors. Zimbabwe’s manufacturing sector contributed 25% to GDP by 1974.

Despite the economic decline, it is still a common narrative that Zimbabwe’s industrial sector was second only to South Africa’s in sub-Saharan Africa and that Zimbabwe was “the breadbasket” of Africa.

However, manufacturing in colonial Zimbabwe benefited a small number of white industrialists. Black Zimbabweans did not have the opportunities. They could not own profitable manufacturing businesses or access finance.

After independence, the government made considerable efforts to deracialise the economy and public services.

The present

The early postcolonial ideas about urban modernity and economic exceptionalism were severely undermined in Zimbabwe. But people try to give new meanings to these ideas in the changed social and economic circumstances. There is ongoing reluctance to accept that informality altered Zimbabwe for good. And many of my respondents wanted to find ways that the myths of modernity and economic exceptionalism could keep their meaning in the changed circumstances.

Continuity and change in the myths of urban nationalism also raise the questions of legitimacy. In this case, it is about legitimacy of informal economic practices and legitimacy of the government that did not uphold the myths.

Ideas can be very powerful in explaining people’s understanding of the political community they belong to. And when such ideals cannot be upheld, people will find new meanings in their material reality that let them hold on to old ideas or reinterpret them.

Written by Kristina Pikovskaia, Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.