African and other progressive scholars‘ call for Africans to seek own solutions for African problems (Onyeani, 2008, Moyo, 2009; Madhimba, 2011) seems to gain currency, and, as a reaction to the cliché in which Africa is viewed as a ―…dark continent…‖ (Jones, 2004: 390). As revealed in literature, the latter, however, has adverse consequences on the conceptualization and consequently implementation of HIV and AIDS programmes on the African continent. In summary, such problems are realised as embarking in Africa on HIV and AIDS intervention programmes that emphasise prevention rather than treatment (Jones, 2004), inadequate funding for HIV and AIDS programmes in Africa, crafting HIV and AIDS intervention programmes out of Africa and without the involvement of Africans, viewing Africans as dangerous unthinking sex machines and adopting blind ―…developmentalism…‖ (Jones, ibid: 393) in the fight against HIV and AIDS irrespective of African contexts.
First, we conceive developmentalism thus:
…a tendency to reduce the problems of improving life in poor countries to one of a compulsion to promote ‗development‘ by looking at them and knowing them only through the lens of ‗developmentalism‘ and what they are not (Ibid: 393).
Precisely, the above definition creates a scenario in which the third world is perceived as innocent fodder for Western models of development. In this case the west moulds itself as a life - saver for Africa – a developing agent without which Africa will remain uncivilised (dark continent). This has far reaching consequences for Africa as it remains a tabular rasa to receive dosages of such development – oriented intervention packages. The irony is that such development is implemented through the use of strategies and programmes that would have been tried and tested miles and miles away from the African continent. The problem is that such development is implemented within a framework of erroneous regimes of assumptions and misconceptions regarding what Africa is and is not.
One immediate problem of developmentalism is the emphasis, by donor policy, on prevention at the expense of treatment. Research has revealed, for example, that of the ―…4 100 000 people in Africa who need treatment, only 50 000 or 1% receives
47
treatment for HIV and AIDS‖ (WHO, 2002 in Jones (Ibid: 386). Hence, even though HIV and AIDS is a human rights issue, in Africa donor countries are overlooking this aspect through emphasizing prevention at the expense of treatment. There is lack of ―…prevention -treatment continuum‖ (Jones, Ibid: 387). In addition to this is the realisation that quite many HIV and AIDS campaigns instill fear among the target audiences. On this issue of fear campaigns Hsu (2006: 286) avers, ―… merely increasing fear or worry is not enough in the system that affects behaviuoral outcomes in HIV and AIDS prevention‖. Such prevention - based fear campaigns have been seen to be ineffective as they ignore those who would have already been infected by the virus. As scholars argue, such people need treatment and not prevention messages based on fear.
The root cause of the problem in the intervention model cited above has been the perception of the West in which it deems it its legitimate role to think on behalf of Africans. As put by Jones (ibid: 387), the problem stems from the ―… representation of the North as the privileged centre of knowledge, authority and power, representations which exclude the voice of the excluded subaltern, or ‗Other‘‖.
In some circles Africans have been depicted as being incapable of sticking to the prescribed treatment requirements. The following is an apt summation of this thinking: ―Ask Africans to take their drugs at a certain time of the day, and they don‘t know what you are talking about (USAID in Johnes, ibid: 397). It is the purpose of this study to incorporate these perceptions in so far as how they are reflected in newspaper reports as well as in the views of Zimbabweans on issues relating to donor funding of HIV and AIDS programmes. For example, the emphasis on prevention rather than treatment can partly be blamed for the wrong assumption made by western thinkers about the sexual habits of Africans. The wrong assumption has been that of constructing an African as a misguided sex machine. Jarosz (1992 in Jones, ibid: 392) makes it succinctly clear thus, ―Not only has Africa been represented as the cradle of HIV/AIDS, it is also depicted by academics through the lens of sexual practices which are seen as abnormal, untamed and dangerous‖. However, the irony is, assuming this is the case, the question is, ‗What do you do with those who are already infected? Do you let them die? Lack of consultation of Africans by donor countries on major policy issues
48
regarding the implementation of HIV and AIDS intervention programmes in Africa has been blamed for the overlooking of African culture, religion, social practices and historical realities that needed to be meaningfully incorporated to effectively fight the disease.
It remains to be seen how these views relate to the implementation of the HIV/AIDS policy for Zimbabwe of 1999. The text below presents scholarly findings on how Operation Murambatsvina (Operation Drive Out Filth) in Zimbabwe is perceived as having affected people of Zimbabwe in general and HIV and AIDS patients in particular.