E
VERY year when August arrives, Zimbabwe pauses to remember the men and women who gave their lives so that this country could be free.
Wreaths are laid at the National Heroes Acre, speeches are delivered, and the nation is reminded once more of the blood that purchased its independence.
This year the commemorations run under the theme Lest We Forget, a call that is both a tribute and a warning, because remembering is easy when it is confined to a single day of ceremony, but living out the meaning of that sacrifice in the daily conditions of ordinary citizens is a far harder and more honest test.
It is worth asking, without sentimentality and without the comfort of slogans, whether those who are buried at the acre, those whose bones lie scattered in the Zambezi valley, in Mozambican and Zambian training camps, in unmarked graves across the former operational areas and those who never came home at all, would recognise the country they died for if they rose today and walk through it. It is a question that deserves an honest answer rather than a ceremonial one.
The liberation struggle was fought against a settler colonial system that denied the black majority land, dignity, political voice and the basic right to move freely in the country of their birth.
The dream that sustained the guerrillas through years in the bush was not an abstract dream of a flag and an anthem, important as those symbols are.
It was a dream of land restored to its rightful owners, of a black child able to attend a decent school without being confined by law to an inferior curriculum, of a worker able to organise and bargain without being crushed, of a citizen able to speak without fear and of an economy that would finally serve the majority rather than a settler minority.
- Bryn Mteki back on the music scene
- Lobby group bemoans impact of graft on women
- Smuggling of gems bleeding Zim’s economy
- Pakistan likely to dissolve CPEC Authority
Keep Reading
Judged against that original dream, the record of the past four and a half decades is neither the story of total betrayal that cynics tell nor the story of uninterrupted triumph that State occasions prefer to project.
It is a mixed and uneven record, and a mature nation should be able to hold both the achievements and the failures in the same hand without flinching from either.
On the political front, independence delivered majority rule, universal suffrage and the formal architecture of a sovereign State with its own institutions, courts and security services no longer answerable to a colonial governor.
These are not small things and any analysis that pretends they do not matter insults the memory of those who died to secure them.
Yet political independence has not translated to the depth of democratic culture that the liberation promised.
Zimbabwe has held elections regularly, but almost every election since 2000 has been contested as flawed, marked by allegations of manipulation, violence or an uneven playing field that favours incumbency.
The ruling party that led the liberation struggle has remained in power continuously since 1980, and while continuity of leadership is not inherently wrong, the manner in which political space has been managed, including the treatment of opposition parties, civil society, and independent journalists, has often mirrored the very intolerance of dissent that the liberation movement once condemned in its colonial oppressor.
The Gukurahundi atrocities of the 1980s in Matabeleland and the Midlands remain an open wound precisely because the State has been slow and reluctant to offer full acknowledgement, accountability, and closure to the families of the victims, even as it asks the nation each year to honour its own liberation dead.
A country cannot selectively remember its history and expect its citizens to feel that all lives and all sacrifices are equally honoured.
Economically, the picture is similarly divided between genuine gains and deep disappointment.
Land reform, whatever criticisms can fairly be made of how it was implemented, corrected a historical injustice in which a small minority controlled the most productive agricultural land while the majority were confined to overcrowded and less fertile communal areas.
Black Zimbabweans today own farms, run businesses and occupy professional and technical positions across every sector of the economy in a manner that would have been unthinkable under Rhodesian law.
Access to education expanded dramatically after independence, producing one of the most literate populations on the African continent, a genuine and lasting achievement that deserves to be stated plainly.
But these gains sit alongside a macroeconomic story of repeated currency collapse, hyperinflation that wiped out savings and pensions and a formal economy that has struggled for decades to create enough jobs for a young and growing population.
The majority of working Zimbabweans today survive in the informal sector, hustling in vending stalls, cross-border trading and small manual trades, not because this is the economy the liberation struggle envisioned, but because the formal industrial and manufacturing bases that once employed hundreds of thousands has shrunk considerably since the 1990s.
Youth unemployment remains a serious structural problem and although official figures are often contested and vary depending on methodology, the lived experience of most young Zimbabweans, educated and eager to work, is one of scarce formal opportunity, underemployment, and a daily struggle to make ends meet in an economy dominated by survivalist informal activity.
When a nation produces graduates in large numbers and then cannot absorb them into productive work, it is fair to ask what kind of freedom this is, since the colonial system was condemned precisely for denying black Zimbabweans economic opportunity, and a postcolonial economy that still fails to provide that opportunity at scale has not yet completed the journey the liberation began.
Socially, the picture requires the same honesty. Zimbabwe built one of the more capable health and education systems in the region in the first two decades after independence and there remains a strong foundation of professional skill and human capital in the country to this day.
But investment in public health and education infrastructure has not kept pace with population growth or with the wear of decades of economic strain, so that hospitals frequently lack basic medicine and equipment, and public schools operate with overstretched teachers and underfunded facilities.
Corruption, both petty and grand, has eaten into public resources that should have gone towards roads, clinics, water systems and housing, and this corruption is arguably one of the sharpest betrayals of the liberation ideal, because the struggle was fought against a system that hoarded resources for a privileged few, and any postcolonial elite that recreates that same hoarding, whether through looting of public funds or through capture of lucrative sectors like mining for personal enrichment, is repeating the sin it fought to end.
Urban governance in cities like Harare and Bulawayo has visibly deteriorated, with potholed roads, erratic water supply, uncollected refuse and burst sewer systems becoming normal features of daily life rather than emergencies, a decline that speaks to weak accountability at both local and national levels of government.
Perhaps the most painful evidence of unfinished national aspiration is the scale of migration out of Zimbabwe over the past two and a half decades.
Millions of Zimbabweans, including many of the country's most skilled nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers and artisans, have left for South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and elsewhere, not primarily in search of adventure but in search of the basic economic stability and opportunity that should have been available at home.
This is a demographic vote of no confidence that no amount of official rhetoric can talk away.
A country that was liberated so that its children could build their lives on their own soil, among their own people, should not be a country whose brightest and most capable citizens feel that leaving is the most rational path to a decent life.
When a mother in Mutare, Gweru or Bulawayo has to say goodbye to a son or daughter departing for Polokwane, Manchester or Perth, she is living the unfinished business of the liberation struggle most intimately and painfully possible.
The fallen heroes did not die so that the next generation would inherit a plane ticket and a foreign postal address as the surest route to dignity.
Political polarisation compounds all of this. Zimbabwe today is a deeply divided society along party lines and this division is not merely a matter of differing policy preferences expressed through healthy democratic debate.
It is often tribal, regional and generational in its undertones, amplified by a political culture in which opposing the government or the ruling party is frequently treated as disloyalty to the nation itself, rather than as the legitimate exercise of citizenship.
This conflation of party and nation is itself a distortion of what the liberation struggle stood for, since the war was fought for the right of Zimbabweans to determine their own future collectively, not for the permanent entitlement of any single political formation to define what patriotism means.
A truly liberated citizenry should be able to disagree passionately about the direction of the country without being branded traitor and until that space exists comfortably and safely for all Zimbabweans regardless of their political affiliation, the promise of full liberation remains incomplete.
None of this analysis is offered to dishonour the fallen. It is offered in the spirit that honouring them properly requires more than ceremony, wreaths and speeches once a year.
It requires an honest national reckoning with the gap between what they died for and what has actually been delivered.
If the departed heroes could stand today at the graves, along the rivers, on the mountains and in the foreign soils where some of them still lie, they would likely feel pride in the fact that the flag flying is one designed and chosen by Zimbabweans, that black children now sit in classrooms without legal restriction, that black farmers now own the land their parents once worked as labourers and that a Zimbabwean voice, however imperfect the system carrying it, now determines the country's affairs.
But they would also, if honesty is permitted, feel a measure of grief at a governance culture that has too often protected the interests of a few rather than the many, at an economy that still cannot employ its own graduates, at families broken apart by migration, at hospitals without medicine and at a political climate that turns neighbour against neighbour along party lines. They would likely ask why, 46 years after the guns fell silent, the nation is still searching for the economic and institutional maturity that true liberation was always meant to deliver.
The lesson of this Heroes Day, if it is to mean anything beyond ritual, is that the liberation struggle was a beginning and not a conclusion.
Political independence was the necessary first victory, but it was always meant to be followed by economic independence, institutional integrity, social justice and a political culture mature enough to allow disagreement without division into enemies.
Zimbabwe has achieved real and important things since 1980 that deserve honest acknowledgement, but it has also fallen short in ways that are equally real and that continue to drive its children away from home in search of the dignity that independence was supposed to guarantee on this very soil.
Remembering the fallen well means more than laying wreaths in August. It means building, with the same seriousness and sacrifice that the liberation war demanded, the Zimbabwe that was actually promised, so that one day it can be said without hesitation that those who died in the struggle would look upon this nation and know, without doubt, that it was worth it.
