Dotación económica y modalidad de prestación del 31

Zimbabwe’s heritage policy framework, like in the other two countries covered in this study, has also evolved (#DocNMMA & #DocNCP). Changes in heritage policy and legislation are motivated by the need to address inequalities and marginalisation brought by colonialism (Chivaura, 2002; Chirikure & Pwiti, 2008). In practice the changes entailed either amendments of existing heritage policies and legislation, or formulation of totally new policies. For instance the National Museums and Monument Act no. 25/11 of 1972 has been amended a number of times. Sections 17, 42, 4, 29 and 22 of the Act were amended in 1972, 1976, 1984, 1990 and 2001 respectively (#DocNMMA). Of interest is that, as from 1984, section 4 (1) of the Act read “The national museums and other property of the Board shall be held in trust for the “people” (own emphasis) of Zimbabwe” (National Museums and Monument Act 25/11: 03). And as can be easily noted, the emphasis on heritage as belonging to the people of Zimbabwe, “people” being a term not explicitly defined but most likely referring to indigenous people (see Section 4.5.2), is deeply embedded in the discourses associated with the need to redress injustices of the past.

Commenting on how policy changes have allowed local communities to access and participate actively in the management of the Great Zimbabwe monument, an officer at the monument said that:

It’s a joint venture, so we now accept that these things must be given back to the “communities” (own emphasis), here at Great Zimbabwe we now have a

committee of elders who live around this place who meet once a month, to discuss about Great Zimbabwe. Like for example if they want to do their rituals what do they expect us to do? How do they want us to open up so that it’s accessible even when we talk of the grass and grazing here and so on?

This is what we are saying to them as communities living around Great Zimbabwe. It is to try and incorporate the local communities and as I have said. (interview #NM).

Even the use of terms such as “communities” to most likely refer to formerly marginalised indigenous people in Zimbabwe, is testimony to how language use within heritage resources management has changed since attainment of political independence in the country. Challenges associated with such strategic use of language as Habermas (1984 &1987) argued, are further problematised in Chapters Eight and Nine.

On the other hand, the observed changes in policy are also premised on the argument that heritage legislation in post colonial southern African region (Zimbabwe being part of this) has remained largely Eurocentric, fragmented and inadequate to meet the demands of the present day cultural heritage resources management (#DocWBreport

& #DocAfrica2009). In a paper presented at Africa 2009’s ThirdRegional Thematic Seminar Legal Frameworks for the Protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage held in Harare in 2002, Chivaura alluded to this observation by claiming that:

Present legal instruments in Zimbabwe for cultural protection Chapter 25/11 springs from the colonial period. It was formulated to address certain issues prevailing at the time. The law has had cosmetic changes since independence however, the thrust remains the same. The definitions of heritage are also restricted to the monuments, relics and sites. The Act does not concern itself with the general community. (#DocAfrica2009).

In response, the present day government of Zimbabwe is therefore reorienting the country’s heritage policy to allow for a broader and more inclusive view of heritage, one that goes beyond heritage as limited to monuments towards heritage as a cultural landscape (see Section 2.1). Where policy amendments have not been made statutory, instruments (by-laws promulgated without necessarily passing through Parliament) are used to allow for the desired changes (#FgI 6). An example illustrating this is the case of Ziwa National Monument, in the eastern province of country where local communities were allowed to embark on a bee-keeping project, even though the

National Museums and Monument Act 25/11 does not allow for this (Chauke, G.

personal communication, September 6, 2010).

Besides amending the existing heritage policy and legislation a new “Cultural Policy”

was formulated and enacted in 2004 (#DocNCP). The Cultural Policy as illustrated in Box 5 below appears to have been heavily influenced by the discourses of culture and identity and the need to adequately represent indigenous cultures in heritage management and education practices (Manyanga, 2000; Chirikure & Pwiti, 2008).

The preamble of Zimbabwe’s Cultural Policy of 2004 is very clear on its purpose as seen in the excerpt in Box 5 below. The last part of the preamble is very vocal about the need to revive and promote traditional Zimbabwean cultures.

Box 5: Preamble to the Cultural Policy of 2004, Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe has a rich cultural heritage built over a long period of time. The defeat of indigenous people by settler colonialists in the first Chimurenga witnessed some erosion of our traditions, values and religion. Colonialism wanted to create a black man with foreign cultural traditions. Our rich cultural heritage, which withstood this onslaught, has to be promoted and preserved as it defines us as a people within the global community. Our cultural values, norms, ritual and religion have managed to shape us as a people with our own way of life, religion, beliefs and the way we relate to our environment. Our value systems and beliefs give us an identity, as a people.

We are a diverse cultural and racial society which has co-existed for centuries peacefully owing to the respect and dignity given to various ethnic groups within our communities. Some of our traditional values and beliefs seem to be disappearing owing to various factors, which include colonialism, urbanisation, globalisation and acculturation. The need to promote and preserve our cultural heritage has become more important in the face of the above factors.

Source: Excerpt from the Cultural Policy of 2004 (#DocNCP)

Implications of both the amendments of the existing heritage policies and formulation of new policies such as the Cultural Policy of 2004 on the constitution and orientation of heritage management and education practices in post colonial Zimbabwe are of interest to this study and will be further interrogated. For instance, the promulgation of the Cultural Policy in Zimbabwe was followed by the development of a number of strategies for implementation, one of them being the need to increase content on indigenous cultures into the formal education system (#FgI 6 & #DocNCP). Also of interest to note is that alongside the changes in policy and legislation, as discussed above, a number of heritage management initiatives have been developed and are

being implemented across the country. These initiatives are discussed in detail in the next section.