Opinion / Columnist
ZANU never fought against the British - lets not distort history
3 hrs ago | Views
When we distort the past, it ceases to be history and becomes propaganda.
In Zimbabwean politics, the manipulation of history is as common as the empty promises made during election campaigns.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
One of the most persistently repeated yet historically inaccurate claims by the ruling ZANU-PF regime is that its liberation war was fought and won against the British.
This narrative, often parroted in speeches and state-sponsored propaganda, is not only historically inaccurate but deliberately misleading - a calculated effort to exaggerate ZANU-PF's revolutionary credentials.
Let us set the record straight: ZANU did not fight the British.
It is astonishing that, over four decades after independence, the ruling party still thrives on the distortion of history.
In a recent article I came across, the writer echoed the tired claim that ZANU's armed struggle was against the British.
Yet any honest student of history - or anyone who lived through those tumultuous years - knows that by the time the liberation war was in full swing, Britain was no longer in control of the country.
The real target of the armed struggle was the white minority regime of Ian Douglas Smith, who, in 1965, unilaterally declared Rhodesia independent from Britain.
The infamous Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) transformed Rhodesia into a self-governing state under white rule, unrecognized by the international community, including Britain itself.
From 1965 until early 1980, Zimbabwe was effectively under Rhodesia minority rule, not British colonial rule.
It is this regime that liberation movements like ZANU and ZAPU fought - not the British Crown.
In fact, Britain briefly returned to Zimbabwe at the end of 1979 as a transitional authority - not as a colonial overlord, but as a supposed neutral facilitator of democratic change.
Following the Lancaster House Agreement, which brought together Rhodesian authorities and the liberation movements to negotiate an end to the war, Britain temporarily resumed legal control over Rhodesia.
Lord Christopher Soames was appointed governor for this brief transition, during which elections were held in February 1980, leading to independence on April 18 of that year.
That is why, at the official independence ceremony, it was the Union Jack - the British flag - that was lowered, not the Rhodesian flag, symbolizing the legal return of authority from Britain, not from the unrecognized Rhodesian regime.
Britain, in this context, played the role of mediator and peacemaker, not enemy combatant.
The liberation war was waged against a domestic settler regime that appeared reluctant to cede power to the black majority.
Smith and his colleagues were fighting to preserve their economic dominance and racial privilege - not on behalf of Britain, but in defiance of it.
Britain consistently opposed UDI, imposed economic sanctions on Rhodesia, and refused to recognize Smith's government.
So, when ZANU-PF leaders claim to have fought against "the British," they are rewriting history for their own glorification.
Their actual adversary was the Rhodesian state, which had unilaterally cut political ties with Britain and operated independently.
Ironically, as I detailed in a recent article titled "The ZANU PF–Britain alliance is a self-serving bond that never served the people," there is significant evidence that ZANU was not only not opposed to Britain but may have had covert support from British authorities.
There were widespread perceptions that Britain leaned towards ZANU during and after the liberation struggle.
Robert Mugabe was widely perceived as the preferred candidate of both Britain and the United States during the liberation struggle, leading up to Zimbabwe's independence.
In contrast, Joshua Nkomo - leader of ZAPU - was viewed with suspicion in Western capitals due to his closer alignment with the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries.
This geopolitical dynamic, shaped by Cold War rivalries, significantly influenced the international community's posture during the 1980 elections.
Many observers at the time believed that Western powers, particularly Britain, subtly favoured ZANU, seeing Mugabe as the more moderate leader who could better protect Western economic interests.
This perceived Western preference for Mugabe was reflected not only in diplomatic circles but also in the tone of international media and policy documents of the time.
It was widely believed that ZANU received preferential treatment during the electoral process.
Even during the transitional administration under Lord Soames, there were murmurs that ZANU was being allowed more operational space and leeway than their ZAPU counterparts.
Reports emerged of ZANLA combatants operating with relative impunity in rural areas, where they were accused of intimidating villagers and unleashing violence to influence the outcome of the 1980 elections.
Despite these concerns, the British authorities overseeing the transition appeared to turn a blind eye - further reinforcing the perception that ZANU enjoyed preferential treatment from Britain during this critical period.
After independence, ZANU-PF under Mugabe continued to maintain a cordial and cooperative relationship with Britain.
Diplomatic visits between Harare and London were common in the 1980s and early 1990s, and bilateral relations remained warm.
Remarkably, Mugabe was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1994 - despite his regime's responsibility for the Gukurahundi massacres, in which over 20,000 Ndebele-speaking civilians were brutally killed in Matabeleland and the Midlands provinces during the 1980s.
British aid, technical assistance, and even military training support flowed into Zimbabwe throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
The new ZANU-PF-led government retained British military instructors, particularly at institutions like the Zimbabwe Staff College, and continued to rely on British expertise in civil service, education, and financial administration.
Relations between Harare and London remained largely cordial, underpinned by mutual diplomatic engagement and a shared interest in post-independence stability.
It wasn't until the early 2000s that this relationship began to unravel - primarily as a result of the chaotic, often violent land reform program.
From the British perspective, this abrupt shift was seen as a betrayal of the understanding that Mugabe's government would protect key Western and commercial interests, including the orderly transfer of land through structured compensation mechanisms.
How then can a party that received British goodwill, aid, and even symbolic honors claim to have fought against Britain?
This historical revisionism is not just an academic concern - it has real consequences.
When ZANU-PF rewrites the past, it shields itself from criticism, elevates itself falsely above its peers, and delegitimizes other liberation movements, particularly ZAPU, whose contribution to the liberation struggle has been downplayed for decades.
Moreover, such distortions embolden the regime to justify repression under the guise of protecting a revolutionary legacy that was never theirs in full.
They claim exclusive rights to Zimbabwe's independence when the struggle was a collective national effort.
In the face of state propaganda, it is the duty of conscientious citizens to tell the truth - no matter how uncomfortable it may be to those in power.
ZANU never fought the British.
They fought Smith's Rhodesia.
In fact, evidence suggests that Britain may have been more of a silent partner to ZANU than an adversary.
It is time Zimbabweans refused to be fed falsehoods in the name of nationalism.
True liberation must begin with an honest account of our past, untainted by political agendas.
History should not be rewritten to serve the ambitions of the ruling elite.
It must be told as it is - for the sake of truth, for the sake of the future, and for the honor of all who sacrificed genuinely for our freedom.
© 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/
In Zimbabwean politics, the manipulation of history is as common as the empty promises made during election campaigns.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
One of the most persistently repeated yet historically inaccurate claims by the ruling ZANU-PF regime is that its liberation war was fought and won against the British.
This narrative, often parroted in speeches and state-sponsored propaganda, is not only historically inaccurate but deliberately misleading - a calculated effort to exaggerate ZANU-PF's revolutionary credentials.
Let us set the record straight: ZANU did not fight the British.
It is astonishing that, over four decades after independence, the ruling party still thrives on the distortion of history.
In a recent article I came across, the writer echoed the tired claim that ZANU's armed struggle was against the British.
Yet any honest student of history - or anyone who lived through those tumultuous years - knows that by the time the liberation war was in full swing, Britain was no longer in control of the country.
The real target of the armed struggle was the white minority regime of Ian Douglas Smith, who, in 1965, unilaterally declared Rhodesia independent from Britain.
The infamous Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) transformed Rhodesia into a self-governing state under white rule, unrecognized by the international community, including Britain itself.
From 1965 until early 1980, Zimbabwe was effectively under Rhodesia minority rule, not British colonial rule.
It is this regime that liberation movements like ZANU and ZAPU fought - not the British Crown.
In fact, Britain briefly returned to Zimbabwe at the end of 1979 as a transitional authority - not as a colonial overlord, but as a supposed neutral facilitator of democratic change.
Following the Lancaster House Agreement, which brought together Rhodesian authorities and the liberation movements to negotiate an end to the war, Britain temporarily resumed legal control over Rhodesia.
Lord Christopher Soames was appointed governor for this brief transition, during which elections were held in February 1980, leading to independence on April 18 of that year.
That is why, at the official independence ceremony, it was the Union Jack - the British flag - that was lowered, not the Rhodesian flag, symbolizing the legal return of authority from Britain, not from the unrecognized Rhodesian regime.
Britain, in this context, played the role of mediator and peacemaker, not enemy combatant.
The liberation war was waged against a domestic settler regime that appeared reluctant to cede power to the black majority.
Smith and his colleagues were fighting to preserve their economic dominance and racial privilege - not on behalf of Britain, but in defiance of it.
Britain consistently opposed UDI, imposed economic sanctions on Rhodesia, and refused to recognize Smith's government.
So, when ZANU-PF leaders claim to have fought against "the British," they are rewriting history for their own glorification.
Their actual adversary was the Rhodesian state, which had unilaterally cut political ties with Britain and operated independently.
Ironically, as I detailed in a recent article titled "The ZANU PF–Britain alliance is a self-serving bond that never served the people," there is significant evidence that ZANU was not only not opposed to Britain but may have had covert support from British authorities.
There were widespread perceptions that Britain leaned towards ZANU during and after the liberation struggle.
Robert Mugabe was widely perceived as the preferred candidate of both Britain and the United States during the liberation struggle, leading up to Zimbabwe's independence.
In contrast, Joshua Nkomo - leader of ZAPU - was viewed with suspicion in Western capitals due to his closer alignment with the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries.
This geopolitical dynamic, shaped by Cold War rivalries, significantly influenced the international community's posture during the 1980 elections.
Many observers at the time believed that Western powers, particularly Britain, subtly favoured ZANU, seeing Mugabe as the more moderate leader who could better protect Western economic interests.
This perceived Western preference for Mugabe was reflected not only in diplomatic circles but also in the tone of international media and policy documents of the time.
It was widely believed that ZANU received preferential treatment during the electoral process.
Even during the transitional administration under Lord Soames, there were murmurs that ZANU was being allowed more operational space and leeway than their ZAPU counterparts.
Reports emerged of ZANLA combatants operating with relative impunity in rural areas, where they were accused of intimidating villagers and unleashing violence to influence the outcome of the 1980 elections.
Despite these concerns, the British authorities overseeing the transition appeared to turn a blind eye - further reinforcing the perception that ZANU enjoyed preferential treatment from Britain during this critical period.
After independence, ZANU-PF under Mugabe continued to maintain a cordial and cooperative relationship with Britain.
Diplomatic visits between Harare and London were common in the 1980s and early 1990s, and bilateral relations remained warm.
Remarkably, Mugabe was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1994 - despite his regime's responsibility for the Gukurahundi massacres, in which over 20,000 Ndebele-speaking civilians were brutally killed in Matabeleland and the Midlands provinces during the 1980s.
British aid, technical assistance, and even military training support flowed into Zimbabwe throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
The new ZANU-PF-led government retained British military instructors, particularly at institutions like the Zimbabwe Staff College, and continued to rely on British expertise in civil service, education, and financial administration.
Relations between Harare and London remained largely cordial, underpinned by mutual diplomatic engagement and a shared interest in post-independence stability.
It wasn't until the early 2000s that this relationship began to unravel - primarily as a result of the chaotic, often violent land reform program.
From the British perspective, this abrupt shift was seen as a betrayal of the understanding that Mugabe's government would protect key Western and commercial interests, including the orderly transfer of land through structured compensation mechanisms.
How then can a party that received British goodwill, aid, and even symbolic honors claim to have fought against Britain?
This historical revisionism is not just an academic concern - it has real consequences.
When ZANU-PF rewrites the past, it shields itself from criticism, elevates itself falsely above its peers, and delegitimizes other liberation movements, particularly ZAPU, whose contribution to the liberation struggle has been downplayed for decades.
Moreover, such distortions embolden the regime to justify repression under the guise of protecting a revolutionary legacy that was never theirs in full.
They claim exclusive rights to Zimbabwe's independence when the struggle was a collective national effort.
In the face of state propaganda, it is the duty of conscientious citizens to tell the truth - no matter how uncomfortable it may be to those in power.
ZANU never fought the British.
They fought Smith's Rhodesia.
In fact, evidence suggests that Britain may have been more of a silent partner to ZANU than an adversary.
It is time Zimbabweans refused to be fed falsehoods in the name of nationalism.
True liberation must begin with an honest account of our past, untainted by political agendas.
History should not be rewritten to serve the ambitions of the ruling elite.
It must be told as it is - for the sake of truth, for the sake of the future, and for the honor of all who sacrificed genuinely for our freedom.
© 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.
