Colonial arts, culture laws must go

institu­tions, especially cultural ones, are still using outdated Rhodesian colonial policies and Acts of Parliament, especially those pertain­ing to the arts and humanities are still being adhered to today. 
The Rhodesian cultural discourse was one of domination and power. At its most extreme it specialised in a process of exclu­sion and cul­tural apartheid by which the regime discrimi­nated and isolated its African nationalist opponents and their indigenous cultural beliefs and valorised its own exclu­sionist, supremacist authority.
It is important to raise these issues when reconstructing a new arts policy for an inde­pendent, post-colonial Zimbabwe.
Another anomaly is that in terms of gover­nance today, the arts and culture sector falls under the Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture. 
This does not take into cognisance the importance of art and culture as an entity that promotes and defines our identity as Zim­babweans. 
As such, it is pertinent that arts and cul­tural practitioners create a common platform for the formulation, review and implementa­tion of a new Indigenous National Cultural Policy.
As with many former colonised African countries, Zimbabwe is signatory to a num­ber of International Standard Setting instru­ments including in the field of arts and cul­ture such as the “Unesco Convention for Cul­ture” — albeit without fully understanding their sig­nificance, and/or implementations and its resultant effects on the creative indus­tries.
The constitution must provide for the auto­matic domestication of international instru­ments and regional instruments and treaties signed by Zimbabwe that protect and pro­mote the welfare of art, artists and cultural groups.
Some of these instruments include:
l The International Covenant on eco­nomic social and cultural rights 1966;
l The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.  These are civil, political, cul­tural, environmental and social rights.
Colonial Acts drawn up in the mid-1970s, were last amended or revised in 1980, and as late as 1990. These have not taken cognisance of:
l the new Indigenisation Act
l its implication to the Arts and culture;
l The constitution of boards and liability of members;
l The constraints and limitations brought about by the applications of out-dated acts;
l The private externalisation and sales of national art works and cultural artefacts; 
l Transparency;
l Commissions of public art;
l The interaction between the cultural institutions and print and electronic Media;
l Cultural tourism and its impact on the creative industries;
l The protection of rare cultural artefacts from illegal art trade.
These acts have not been reviewed and amended to accommodate the many changes that have taken place in the cultural sectors across the world and the concerns and aspira­tions of those working in the arts and culture sectors and those who wish to invest in it.
Neither have the demands and benefits of implementing the Unesco Conventions and other instruments that the country has rati­fied been brought forward for debate and dis­cussion to the concerned parties.
Several Acts such as the “National Gallery of Zimbabwe Acts” 76/1971, 29/1990, the “National Arts Council Act”, and “Censorship Act” need to be reviewed and amended in line with the new Indigenisation Act.
The interpretation of the National Gallery of Zimbabwe Act limits its definition of works of art to outdated media, which has since pro­gressed to include cyber imagery, digital art, installations, happenings and other forms of  African artistic expressions hitherto unknown when the Act was imple­mented.
Questions of ownership of artworks and restitution are also dubious and unchartered for in the current Acts, as well as questions of copyright ownership and intellectual prop­erty rights.
Colonial power was authoritarian and based on political, agrarian, economical, racial, cultural and religious discrimination.
Indigenous Africans had no say in the administration of the country, or in the for­mation of the constitution.
Art and cultural constitutions in these enti­ties were under authoritarian governance and without limitations of executive power.
Directors of arts and cultural institutions which are believed to be the stronghold of African intelligence and creativity were run by autonomous boards of directors who were not accountable to the nation nor to the peo­ple they served. 
Hence institutions such as the National Gallery of Zimbabwe and the National Arts Foundation in the mid-1980s (now the National Arts Council), were the preserve of a colonial elite.
The same paradigm and institutional dis­crepancies and unaccountability are still per­petuated today, despite the changes in the governing hue.
The annual reports of national arts institu­tions, such as the National Art Gallery, were privy to an exclusive, elite group of Rhode­sians; they were barred from public scrutiny and consumption. Similarly, national consul­tations on acquisitions, exhibitions, sales and commissions were not carried out with the tax-paying public’s approval, let alone by a panel of art experts by way of a quorum.
This impropriety has not only been extended to the present day, but also fortified.
It is time that Zimbabweans acknowledge that a true artist is someone who is especially sensitive to the environ­ment — at physical, intel­lectual, spiritual and psy­chological levels.
It is out of the need to make sense of that envi­ronment that he or she creates.
Since no one art form is adequate to express this, the artist embarks on an endless search for a better way of expressing ideas about life, as expressed in society and within the artists’ constitutional make-up.
The artists’ most meaningful creations are meant for contemplation, appreciation, re-orientation, education, and the training of sensibilities. Cultural achievements are thus aesthetic, intellectual, educational, edifying and civilising of a nation. 
Art within the context of national libera­tion and indigenisation can act as a mobiliser, edu­cator and recorder of the socio-cultural dogma which gave it birth.
However, ultimately a good work of art will outgrow the socio-historical and political peculiarities which gave it birth, just as the statues of Cecil John Rhodes, David Living­stone and other colonial settler monuments have ceased to be perceived as great symbols of colonial and former imperial grandeur but rather as symbols of oppression and self-enrichment. 
It is therefore essential to periodically re-visit, re-examine and update cultural policy and their definitions before they become redundant to African contemporaneity.
At a time when digital technology is trans­forming the way we make, distribute, receive and exchange art it would be absurd to define excellence in the language of the conven­tional art forms.
Art forms are continuously morphing, combining and reinventing themselves in entity, form, material, context and definition.
To be relevant in the contemporary world any definition of cultural policies has to find room for participation in its chronological contemporaneity as well as within classical and traditional notions of African art cre­ation.
In conclusion, to be holistically effective in the educational, social, cultural and eco­nomic sectors of the nation, the arts and cul­ture sec­tors should advocate for the setting up of an autonomous Ministry of Arts and Culture.
National policy debate around these issues will benefit the art and culture of Zimbabwe and strengthen dialogue and interaction between artists, art institutions, the associa­tions, and other interested parties operating in the arts and cultural sector. Such debate will contribute to the public advocacy required to revise and amend the outdated pieces of colo­nial legislation and policies gov­erning arts and humanities in Zimbabwe.

l Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD in Post-Mod­ern Art Theory and a Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA) in Post-Colonial Art and Heritage Studies.  He is also a practising artist, designer, art critic and corporate image consultant. He has studied Art and Law Advocacy at George­town University, Washington, DC.