Opinion / Columnist
It's time Zimbabwe redefined who we call a national hero
7 hrs ago | Views
The recent declaration of the late ZESA executive chairman, Sydney Gata, as a national hero has once again reignited a longstanding and deeply divisive debate in Zimbabwe.
At the core of the controversy lies a critical question: who truly deserves the honour of being laid to rest at the National Heroes Acre, and more importantly, who decides?
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
That this decision rests solely with the President of the Republic, as provided under the National Heroes Act [Chapter 10:16], is in itself a significant part of the problem.
The law, enacted in 1985, gives the Head of State the sole legal power to designate a deceased Zimbabwean citizen as a national, provincial, or district hero.
There are no laid-down criteria.
No measurable standards.
No independent oversight.
Just one man's discretion, however subjective or politically influenced it may be.
Are we truly comfortable with that?
Are we, as a nation, content that such a sacred honour can be conferred without meaningful consultation, transparency, or accountability?
When a person is declared a national hero, many citizens are left confused or angered.
When another is denied, there is equal outrage.
Both decisions spark debate, fuel suspicion, and deepen political divisions - precisely because there are no publicly known standards by which these decisions are made.
The elevation of Gata to national hero status, despite being mired in allegations of corruption and gross mismanagement during his time at ZESA, has exposed the moral bankruptcy of this process.
How can someone widely associated with Zimbabwe's worsening electricity crisis - marked by years of prolonged blackouts, industrial stagnation, and suffering in millions of homes - be considered to have rendered "outstanding and distinguished service to Zimbabwe"?
Is this what we now celebrate?
If so, then the very definition of a national hero has become blurred beyond recognition.
Contrast this with the late Cde Dickson "Chinx" Chingaira, a decorated liberation war veteran and musician whose songs inspired thousands of fighters in the trenches and kept the spirit of resistance burning among ordinary citizens at home.
Despite his unquestionable contribution to the liberation of Zimbabwe, he was relegated to provincial hero status.
Are we seriously saying Sydney Gata is a greater hero than Cde Chinx?
And what message does this send to the nation?
Even more baffling is that Chinx now lies buried in the same provincial cemetery as the late "Zim Dancehall" artist Soul Jah Love.
While the latter was undoubtedly a cultural icon for many urban youth, he did not risk his life for the country's freedom, nor did he contribute to the political, economic, or cultural transformation of Zimbabwe in any profound way.
This is not to discredit his talent, but to emphasize the need for clear categories of recognition that are not haphazard or based on populism.
Surely, there must be a difference between national legacy and entertainment popularity.
This is precisely why revered revolutionary icons such as the late Dumiso Dabengwa, former War Veterans Minister Tshinga Dube, and even former Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko all refused to be buried at the National Heroes Acre.
They could see that the shrine had become a politically compromised space, tainted by decisions that favoured ruling party loyalty over genuine service to the nation.
The rot did not begin with the Mnangagwa administration.
His predecessor, the late Robert Mugabe, equally made controversial hero declarations, often reserving the honour for those who were loyal to him or the ZANU-PF project, while sidelining deserving individuals who were perceived as opponents.
Why, for instance, was the late Solomon Mutsvairo - who penned the words of Zimbabwe's national anthem - only declared a provincial hero when he died in 2005?
If inspiring patriotism at a national level does not qualify one for hero status, then what does?
We must also ask why genuine heroes in the hearts of millions of Zimbabweans, such as the late opposition MDC leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda, were not honoured in the same way.
Tsvangirai was a towering figure in Zimbabwe's political history, who led one of the most formidable democratic resistance movements against tyranny in post-independence Africa.
Yet he was denied hero status simply because he dared to challenge ZANU-PF.
The same fate befell the late Chief Justice Enock Dumbutshena, a liberation-era legal scholar and the country's first black judge, who went on to lead the opposition Forum Party of Zimbabwe.
That he was denied national recognition purely because of his politics is a betrayal of the very ideals of the liberation struggle.
Which brings us to another uncomfortable truth: the struggle for Zimbabwe's independence was not fought only by those who carried guns.
The unsung heroes of this nation are the countless ordinary men, women, and children - particularly in rural areas - who faced the brunt of the war.
They provided shelter, food, information, and moral support to the combatants.
They suffered the raids, the bombings, the curfews, the torture.
Many lost life and limb, yet their stories remain buried in silence and poverty.
They are still traumatized, still marginalized, still invisible in our national discourse.
Who will honour them?
It is time Zimbabwe redefined who a hero is.
Forty-five years after independence, our understanding of heroism must evolve beyond liberation war credentials.
We must recognize citizens who have made transformative contributions in education, healthcare, science, justice, human rights, the arts, and even in grassroots community development.
A teacher who spent 40 years educating rural children, a doctor who dedicated their life to fighting disease in neglected areas, a civil society activist who stood up for the oppressed - these are national heroes too.
To get there, we must reform the National Heroes Act.
The power to declare heroes should not rest in the hands of one person.
A broad, representative, and apolitical commission must be established - comprising historians, legal experts, civil society, war veterans, and other stakeholders - to assess each case transparently and on merit.
The President and the ruling party should be completely removed from this process.
After all, who is to say that they alone have the wisdom to decide who is worthy of eternal national honour?
In more progressive and democratic societies, the process of honouring national heroes is often decentralized, transparent, and inclusive.
For instance, in South Africa, decisions about national honours are made by the National Orders Advisory Council, an independent body comprising individuals from diverse sectors, which advises the President based on merit and public service, not political affiliation.
In the United Kingdom, honours such as knighthoods and peerages are vetted by independent committees and subject to public scrutiny, ensuring accountability and fairness.
In Ghana, national heroes are honoured on Founders' Day and Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Day, celebrating a range of contributors to national development - not just politicians or military figures.
These systems reflect the evolving definitions of heroism and ensure that honour is bestowed on the basis of impact, sacrifice, and national contribution, rather than loyalty to a ruling party or individual leader.
There must also be clearly defined guidelines and disqualifiers.
Anyone involved in corruption, abuse of public office, or human rights violations should be automatically disqualified - regardless of their rank or wartime history.
We must also demand financial transparency.
How much is being spent annually on hero burials, allowances for dependants, and the upkeep of Heroes Acre?
What is the cumulative cost to the taxpayer?
Are the dependants of declared heroes receiving meaningful support, or is this yet another system that benefits only a privileged few?
Until these fundamental reforms are made, Zimbabwe's National Heroes Acre will remain not a shrine of national unity, but a reflection of partisan interests.
The time has come to reclaim the meaning of heroism - not just for those who carried the gun, but for all who carried the burden of building this country.
© 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/
At the core of the controversy lies a critical question: who truly deserves the honour of being laid to rest at the National Heroes Acre, and more importantly, who decides?
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
That this decision rests solely with the President of the Republic, as provided under the National Heroes Act [Chapter 10:16], is in itself a significant part of the problem.
The law, enacted in 1985, gives the Head of State the sole legal power to designate a deceased Zimbabwean citizen as a national, provincial, or district hero.
There are no laid-down criteria.
No measurable standards.
No independent oversight.
Just one man's discretion, however subjective or politically influenced it may be.
Are we truly comfortable with that?
Are we, as a nation, content that such a sacred honour can be conferred without meaningful consultation, transparency, or accountability?
When a person is declared a national hero, many citizens are left confused or angered.
When another is denied, there is equal outrage.
Both decisions spark debate, fuel suspicion, and deepen political divisions - precisely because there are no publicly known standards by which these decisions are made.
The elevation of Gata to national hero status, despite being mired in allegations of corruption and gross mismanagement during his time at ZESA, has exposed the moral bankruptcy of this process.
How can someone widely associated with Zimbabwe's worsening electricity crisis - marked by years of prolonged blackouts, industrial stagnation, and suffering in millions of homes - be considered to have rendered "outstanding and distinguished service to Zimbabwe"?
Is this what we now celebrate?
If so, then the very definition of a national hero has become blurred beyond recognition.
Contrast this with the late Cde Dickson "Chinx" Chingaira, a decorated liberation war veteran and musician whose songs inspired thousands of fighters in the trenches and kept the spirit of resistance burning among ordinary citizens at home.
Despite his unquestionable contribution to the liberation of Zimbabwe, he was relegated to provincial hero status.
Are we seriously saying Sydney Gata is a greater hero than Cde Chinx?
And what message does this send to the nation?
Even more baffling is that Chinx now lies buried in the same provincial cemetery as the late "Zim Dancehall" artist Soul Jah Love.
While the latter was undoubtedly a cultural icon for many urban youth, he did not risk his life for the country's freedom, nor did he contribute to the political, economic, or cultural transformation of Zimbabwe in any profound way.
This is not to discredit his talent, but to emphasize the need for clear categories of recognition that are not haphazard or based on populism.
Surely, there must be a difference between national legacy and entertainment popularity.
This is precisely why revered revolutionary icons such as the late Dumiso Dabengwa, former War Veterans Minister Tshinga Dube, and even former Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko all refused to be buried at the National Heroes Acre.
They could see that the shrine had become a politically compromised space, tainted by decisions that favoured ruling party loyalty over genuine service to the nation.
The rot did not begin with the Mnangagwa administration.
His predecessor, the late Robert Mugabe, equally made controversial hero declarations, often reserving the honour for those who were loyal to him or the ZANU-PF project, while sidelining deserving individuals who were perceived as opponents.
Why, for instance, was the late Solomon Mutsvairo - who penned the words of Zimbabwe's national anthem - only declared a provincial hero when he died in 2005?
If inspiring patriotism at a national level does not qualify one for hero status, then what does?
We must also ask why genuine heroes in the hearts of millions of Zimbabweans, such as the late opposition MDC leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda, were not honoured in the same way.
Yet he was denied hero status simply because he dared to challenge ZANU-PF.
The same fate befell the late Chief Justice Enock Dumbutshena, a liberation-era legal scholar and the country's first black judge, who went on to lead the opposition Forum Party of Zimbabwe.
That he was denied national recognition purely because of his politics is a betrayal of the very ideals of the liberation struggle.
Which brings us to another uncomfortable truth: the struggle for Zimbabwe's independence was not fought only by those who carried guns.
The unsung heroes of this nation are the countless ordinary men, women, and children - particularly in rural areas - who faced the brunt of the war.
They provided shelter, food, information, and moral support to the combatants.
They suffered the raids, the bombings, the curfews, the torture.
Many lost life and limb, yet their stories remain buried in silence and poverty.
They are still traumatized, still marginalized, still invisible in our national discourse.
Who will honour them?
It is time Zimbabwe redefined who a hero is.
Forty-five years after independence, our understanding of heroism must evolve beyond liberation war credentials.
We must recognize citizens who have made transformative contributions in education, healthcare, science, justice, human rights, the arts, and even in grassroots community development.
A teacher who spent 40 years educating rural children, a doctor who dedicated their life to fighting disease in neglected areas, a civil society activist who stood up for the oppressed - these are national heroes too.
To get there, we must reform the National Heroes Act.
The power to declare heroes should not rest in the hands of one person.
A broad, representative, and apolitical commission must be established - comprising historians, legal experts, civil society, war veterans, and other stakeholders - to assess each case transparently and on merit.
The President and the ruling party should be completely removed from this process.
After all, who is to say that they alone have the wisdom to decide who is worthy of eternal national honour?
In more progressive and democratic societies, the process of honouring national heroes is often decentralized, transparent, and inclusive.
For instance, in South Africa, decisions about national honours are made by the National Orders Advisory Council, an independent body comprising individuals from diverse sectors, which advises the President based on merit and public service, not political affiliation.
In the United Kingdom, honours such as knighthoods and peerages are vetted by independent committees and subject to public scrutiny, ensuring accountability and fairness.
In Ghana, national heroes are honoured on Founders' Day and Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Day, celebrating a range of contributors to national development - not just politicians or military figures.
These systems reflect the evolving definitions of heroism and ensure that honour is bestowed on the basis of impact, sacrifice, and national contribution, rather than loyalty to a ruling party or individual leader.
There must also be clearly defined guidelines and disqualifiers.
Anyone involved in corruption, abuse of public office, or human rights violations should be automatically disqualified - regardless of their rank or wartime history.
We must also demand financial transparency.
How much is being spent annually on hero burials, allowances for dependants, and the upkeep of Heroes Acre?
What is the cumulative cost to the taxpayer?
Are the dependants of declared heroes receiving meaningful support, or is this yet another system that benefits only a privileged few?
Until these fundamental reforms are made, Zimbabwe's National Heroes Acre will remain not a shrine of national unity, but a reflection of partisan interests.
The time has come to reclaim the meaning of heroism - not just for those who carried the gun, but for all who carried the burden of building this country.
© 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.
