Creatives Challenge Donor-bias Disability Narratives

By Dumisani Ndlovu

Gweru – A recent consultative meeting in Gweru sparked a vigorous debate among local creative and academics regarding the influence of donor terminology on local Zimbabwean narratives, particularly those concerning disability and gender.

Held in the Gweru Memorial Library conference room, the meeting, organized by veteran author, scriptwriter, and actor Aaron Chiundura Moyo through his Creative Voices for Policy Engagement (CVPE), served as a platform to challenge narratives perceived as externally dictated and commercially driven.

Chiundura Moyo decried what he termed “self-centered, Donor-centric gender based violence and disability narratives,” arguing they pose a severe threat to the authenticity of local authorship and linguistic heritage.

“These narratives, pushed by funded civic groups, are lining pockets, not preserving our legacy,” he declared in rich, flowery Shona.

“Vernacular words are heritage, if we don’t challenge this jeopardizing narrative, our mother tongues erode.”

Chiundura Moyo specifically challenged the imposition of new terminology in workshops, describing them as being “dictated, [erasing] local nuance. They’re a threat to language, to our literary independence.”

This sentiment was strongly echoed by Prof. Wiseman Magwa, former Vice Chancellor of Reformed Church University (RCU), which embraces institutions like Kapota School for the Blind said as a language expert are yet to come up with a solution to disability terminology.

“I spoke to them People with Disabilities: some are comfortable with traditional names not these imported labels.

Do we need ‘differently abled’ when Vakaremara sing or Matsi feel authentic? Let’s protect our stories,” Magwa stated.

The core tension lies between the principles of globally-recognized human rights terminology—which prioritizes Person-First Language (e.g., "persons with disabilities") to avoid negative connotations—and the cultural weight of existing vernacular terms.

A Midlands State University arts lecturer with a disability, who requested anonymity, acknowledged the complexity of the shift.“I have no problem with the names.

These are our forefathers' names, these names have always been there,” the lecturer said. “We have no names to replace those words. Instead of the name blind or bofu, it's being replaced by a description, ‘A person with a visual impairement.’ But there is no single word to replace the original noun.”

While international development guidelines mandate the use of respectful, human rights-based language aligned with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) for accessing donor funds, local creatives argue this linguistic compromise comes at the expense of cultural integrity.

For organizations seeking Official Development Assistance (ODA) and funding from bodies like the EU Delegation to Zimbabwe (which supports the CreativeACTIONs2 program funding the CVPE workshop), adopting terms like "Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs)" and focusing on "Disability-Inclusive Development" is essential.

However, the debate in Gweru underscores an urgent need for dialogue that finds a delicate balance: ensuring policy engagement respects the human rights of individuals while simultaneously safeguarding the depth and authenticity of vernacular literary expression.

The pushback articulated by the creatives targets NGOs who critics accuse of adopting language purely for the purpose of siphoning funds, often referred to as "inspiration porn," while inadvertently silencing local voices and authentic cultural representations.

An arts lecturer with a disability from Midlands State University, who requested anonymity due to professional reasons, highlighted the linguistic void created by imported terminology.“I for one have no problem with the names.

These are our forefathers’ names, these names have always been there. We have no names to replace those words,” the lecturer explained.

They noted that the imported terminology often replaces a single, culturally recognized name with a cumbersome description. “Instead of the name ‘blind’ or bofu, it's being replaced by ‘A person with a disability.’ But there is no word to replace blind or bofu.”

While local creatives stress linguistic preservation, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often adopt specific language—such as Person-First Language (PFL) or Human Rights-Based Terminology—to align with international standards like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Using this modern, rights-based language is often essential to successfully apply for and discuss donor funds.

Terms like "persons with disabilities," "Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs)," and "Disability-Inclusive Development" are mandatory in many Official Development Assistance (ODA) contexts because they emphasize the individual’s personhood and focus on systemic barriers rather than individual deficits.

The consultative meeting, hosted by Aaron Chiundura Moyo's Creative Voices for Policy Engagement (CVPE) project, aimed to equip upcoming creatives with skills to support policy implementation.

The workshop, facilitated by veteran author and University of Zimbabwe lecturer Dr. Memory Chirere, was supported under CreativeACTIONs2, funded by the EU Delegation to Zimbabwe, emphasized the critical need for local voices to navigate the complex landscape of policy and donor-centric language.