Opinion / Columnist
Why Zimbabweans must be free to speak about Rhodesia
30 Dec 2024 at 13:06hrs | Views
In the past day, Zimbabwe's Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Information, Nick Mangwana, and ZANU-PF Chief Whip Pupurai Togarepi have called for legislation to criminalize what they termed the "romanticization of Rhodesia."
This call followed a resurgence of Zimbabweans expressing frustration with the poverty and suffering endured under ZANU-PF's rule, claiming that life under colonial Rhodesia was better than in so-called "independent Zimbabwe."
Mangwana even posted on X (formerly Twitter), "Rhodesia romanticizers put on notice. They are in the same group as Nazi glorifiers."
In other words, the President Emmerson Mnangagwa administration seeks to equate those who assert that life under colonial Rhodesia was better with those who glorify the Nazi Holocaust.
However, there are significant problems with this reasoning.
To begin with, Germany's Criminal Code, specifically Section 130, addresses "Incitement to Hatred" (Volksverhetzung).
Section 130(3) criminalizes approving, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust only if done in a manner capable of disturbing public peace.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Penalties for violations include fines or imprisonment of up to five years.
The key qualification here is that context matters.
Approving, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust becomes a criminal offense only when the act is likely to incite hatred, provoke violence, or disturb public order.
For instance, a private discussion in which someone denies the Holocaust might not meet this threshold unless it is later disseminated in a way that could incite public discord.
This nuance ensures that freedom of speech is preserved while combating hate speech and societal unrest.
Germany's historical responsibility for the Holocaust necessitates such laws, but the emphasis is on preventing tangible harm rather than punishing controversial opinions.
As such, merely approving, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust in itself is not a crime in Germany.
People are free to express their views, however regrettable or offensive, provided they do not disturb public peace.
For Mangwana and Togarepi to equate those who compare Rhodesia to independent Zimbabwe with Nazi Holocaust glorifiers is a gross oversimplification.
A better comparison would have been with those who glorify Rhodesian atrocities, such as the massacres at Nyadzonia or Mboroma, during Zimbabwe's liberation struggle.
In fact, if the Mnangagwa administration is serious about criminalizing the glorification of atrocities, they should start by addressing the Gukurahundi genocide of the 1980s, during which the ZANU-PF regime orchestrated the massacre of over 20,000 Ndebele-speaking civilians in Matabeleland and the Midlands provinces.
International organizations, including Genocide Watch and others, now recognize Gukurahundi as a genocide.
Yet, the Mnangagwa government continues to downplay these atrocities, referring to them as "disturbances" or a "moment of madness."
Such dismissive language is an undeniable attempt to minimize the gravity of the crimes committed during that dark chapter of Zimbabwe's history.
In contrast, those comparing Rhodesia to independent Zimbabwe have not glorified the injustices of colonial rule.
They have merely highlighted the stark economic differences between the two periods, particularly the infrastructural and industrial functionality of Rhodesia versus the poverty and suffering under ZANU-PF's misrule.
This is no different from mentioning the technological and economic advancements of Nazi Germany, such as the construction of the Autobahn, advancements in rocket science, and strides in automobile production.
Recognizing these achievements does not equate to celebrating or glorifying the Holocaust.
These are entirely separate discussions.
When Zimbabweans speak of Rhodesia's functional economy, even under the strain of UN sanctions after Ian Smith's 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), they are not endorsing the racial discrimination or oppression of black people.
Instead, they are stating undeniable facts: Rhodesia had reliable infrastructure, well-maintained roads, functional public hospitals, and consistent water and electricity supply.
Why should comparing this with Zimbabwe's current dire situation be criminalized?
Was the liberation struggle not premised on promises of a better life for the majority?
ZANU-PF promised higher living standards, better jobs, and equitable resource distribution.
They assured the majority of fertile, productive land and socio-economic equality.
Evaluating whether these promises have been fulfilled is not "romanticizing Rhodesia"; it is holding the government accountable.
The unfortunate truth is that independent Zimbabwe, under ZANU-PF's rule, has failed to deliver on these promises.
Poverty is widespread, public infrastructure has crumbled, and millions have been driven into economic exile.
Highlighting this failure does not glorify colonialism but serves as a call for honest introspection.
Instead of suppressing dissent through draconian laws, the Mnangagwa administration itself should lead this discourse.
They should ask themselves: "Is life better for ordinary Zimbabweans today than it was under colonial rule?"
Answering this question honestly is the first step toward addressing the failures of the past four decades.
This is the only way for the nation to evaluate whether what ZANU-PF promised the people of Zimbabwe during the liberation struggle – a better life under independence than colonialism – had been attained.
So far, the signs are undeniable: life for ordinary Zimbabweans in independent Zimbabwe is far worse than what it was under colonial rule.
Equating the discussion of Rhodesia's economic functionality with the glorification of Nazi atrocities is a desperate attempt to silence criticism.
The government must acknowledge that suppressing debate will only perpetuate the destructive policies that have brought Zimbabwe to its knees.
The people of Zimbabwe deserve an open and honest dialogue about the country's trajectory.
Only by confronting uncomfortable truths can the nation begin to rebuild and fulfill the promises of the liberation struggle.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
This call followed a resurgence of Zimbabweans expressing frustration with the poverty and suffering endured under ZANU-PF's rule, claiming that life under colonial Rhodesia was better than in so-called "independent Zimbabwe."
Mangwana even posted on X (formerly Twitter), "Rhodesia romanticizers put on notice. They are in the same group as Nazi glorifiers."
In other words, the President Emmerson Mnangagwa administration seeks to equate those who assert that life under colonial Rhodesia was better with those who glorify the Nazi Holocaust.
However, there are significant problems with this reasoning.
To begin with, Germany's Criminal Code, specifically Section 130, addresses "Incitement to Hatred" (Volksverhetzung).
Section 130(3) criminalizes approving, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust only if done in a manner capable of disturbing public peace.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Penalties for violations include fines or imprisonment of up to five years.
The key qualification here is that context matters.
Approving, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust becomes a criminal offense only when the act is likely to incite hatred, provoke violence, or disturb public order.
For instance, a private discussion in which someone denies the Holocaust might not meet this threshold unless it is later disseminated in a way that could incite public discord.
This nuance ensures that freedom of speech is preserved while combating hate speech and societal unrest.
Germany's historical responsibility for the Holocaust necessitates such laws, but the emphasis is on preventing tangible harm rather than punishing controversial opinions.
As such, merely approving, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust in itself is not a crime in Germany.
People are free to express their views, however regrettable or offensive, provided they do not disturb public peace.
For Mangwana and Togarepi to equate those who compare Rhodesia to independent Zimbabwe with Nazi Holocaust glorifiers is a gross oversimplification.
A better comparison would have been with those who glorify Rhodesian atrocities, such as the massacres at Nyadzonia or Mboroma, during Zimbabwe's liberation struggle.
In fact, if the Mnangagwa administration is serious about criminalizing the glorification of atrocities, they should start by addressing the Gukurahundi genocide of the 1980s, during which the ZANU-PF regime orchestrated the massacre of over 20,000 Ndebele-speaking civilians in Matabeleland and the Midlands provinces.
International organizations, including Genocide Watch and others, now recognize Gukurahundi as a genocide.
Yet, the Mnangagwa government continues to downplay these atrocities, referring to them as "disturbances" or a "moment of madness."
Such dismissive language is an undeniable attempt to minimize the gravity of the crimes committed during that dark chapter of Zimbabwe's history.
In contrast, those comparing Rhodesia to independent Zimbabwe have not glorified the injustices of colonial rule.
This is no different from mentioning the technological and economic advancements of Nazi Germany, such as the construction of the Autobahn, advancements in rocket science, and strides in automobile production.
Recognizing these achievements does not equate to celebrating or glorifying the Holocaust.
These are entirely separate discussions.
When Zimbabweans speak of Rhodesia's functional economy, even under the strain of UN sanctions after Ian Smith's 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), they are not endorsing the racial discrimination or oppression of black people.
Instead, they are stating undeniable facts: Rhodesia had reliable infrastructure, well-maintained roads, functional public hospitals, and consistent water and electricity supply.
Why should comparing this with Zimbabwe's current dire situation be criminalized?
Was the liberation struggle not premised on promises of a better life for the majority?
ZANU-PF promised higher living standards, better jobs, and equitable resource distribution.
They assured the majority of fertile, productive land and socio-economic equality.
Evaluating whether these promises have been fulfilled is not "romanticizing Rhodesia"; it is holding the government accountable.
The unfortunate truth is that independent Zimbabwe, under ZANU-PF's rule, has failed to deliver on these promises.
Poverty is widespread, public infrastructure has crumbled, and millions have been driven into economic exile.
Highlighting this failure does not glorify colonialism but serves as a call for honest introspection.
Instead of suppressing dissent through draconian laws, the Mnangagwa administration itself should lead this discourse.
They should ask themselves: "Is life better for ordinary Zimbabweans today than it was under colonial rule?"
Answering this question honestly is the first step toward addressing the failures of the past four decades.
This is the only way for the nation to evaluate whether what ZANU-PF promised the people of Zimbabwe during the liberation struggle – a better life under independence than colonialism – had been attained.
So far, the signs are undeniable: life for ordinary Zimbabweans in independent Zimbabwe is far worse than what it was under colonial rule.
Equating the discussion of Rhodesia's economic functionality with the glorification of Nazi atrocities is a desperate attempt to silence criticism.
The government must acknowledge that suppressing debate will only perpetuate the destructive policies that have brought Zimbabwe to its knees.
The people of Zimbabwe deserve an open and honest dialogue about the country's trajectory.
Only by confronting uncomfortable truths can the nation begin to rebuild and fulfill the promises of the liberation struggle.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
