Zimbabwe

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Zimbabwe is the name which was assumed at independence on April 18, 1980, as a former British Colony of southern Africa. The name change was stemmed from the desire to shed off colonial legacy and embrace a name that resonated with the country’s history and identity.

Until 1980, Zimbabwe was formerly known as Southern Rhodesia (1898), Rhodesia (1965), and Zimbabwe Rhodesia (1979).
The name “Zimbabwe” was derived from the Shona word, dzimba dzemabwe, meaning houses of stone or stone buildings and symbolised by the Great Zimbabwe, thus, the capital city of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe, a kingdom which flourished from approximately 1220 to about 1420 in Southern Africa.

Zimbabwe lies between the Limpopo and Zambezi rivers in south central Africa.  It is bounded by Zambia (797km) in the north and northwest, by South Africa (225km) in the south by Mozambique (1,231 km) in the east and north-east, and by Botswana (813km)in the south-west. It has no coastline and is landlocked.
Zimbabwe occupies a total land area of 390,000 square kilometres and has one of the highest literate populations in Africa.

Famed for its beautiful landscapes and diverse wildlife, it is home to many well-known tourist sites, including the Great Zimbabwe Monument, the celebrated Victoria Falls, and the scenic Eastern Highlands. The natural resources of Zimbabwe are vast and these include coal, gold, chromium ore, asbestos, nickel, copper, iron ore, vanadium, lithium, tin, and platinum group of metals.

Zimbabwe is home to more than 70 different ethnic groups. This diversity is reflected in the country’s languages, religions, and cultures. The two largest groups are Shona and Ndebele, but there are also significant numbers of Tonga, Venda, and Chewa, among other ethnic groups.

Early Origins

Like many African states, pre-colonial Zimbabwe was a multi-ethnic society inhabited by the Shangani/Tsonga in the south-eastern parts of the Zimbabwe plateau, the Venda in the south, the Tonga in the north, the Kalanga and Ndebele in the south-west, the Karanga in the southern parts of the plateau, the Zezuru and Korekore in the northern and central areas, and finally, the Manyika and Ndau in the east. 

Scholars have categorised these ethnic orientations into two main groups, ‘Shona’ and ‘Ndebele’, largely because of their broadly similar languages, beliefs, and institutions. The political, social, and economic relations of these groups are complex, dynamic, fluid and constantly changing. They were characterised by both conflict and co-operation.

The Shona Ethnic Groups

The Shona are the largest ethnic group in Zimbabwe, with a history that stretches back over a thousand years. They are descendants of Bantu-speaking peoples who migrated into southern Africa around 1000 AD. The Shona established advanced kingdoms and societies, most notably the Kingdom of Great Zimbabwe, which thrived between the 11th and 15th centuries.

The Shona ethnic group are made up of several sub-groups or clans that share a common language and cultural heritage. While they all speak varieties of the Shona language and have similar customs, each group has its own identity and historical background. The main Shona ethnic sub-groups are:

Zezuru – Found mainly in the central part of Zimbabwe, including the capital city, Harare. The Zezuru are one of the most politically influential sub-groups.

Karanga – Primarily located in the southern region, especially around Masvingo. The Karanga are historically linked to the builders of Great Zimbabwe and are considered one of the oldest Shona groups.

Manyika – Found in the eastern region, particularly in and around the city of Mutare. The Manyika have close cultural ties with neighboring Mozambican groups.

Korekore – Based in the northern parts of Zimbabwe, especially around Mashonaland Central and parts of Mashonaland West. They are known for their distinct dialect.

Ndau – Located in the southeastern region near the border with Mozambique. Although sometimes considered distinct due to language variations, they are often included as a Shona sub-group.

Barwe – A smaller group closely related to the Ndau, found near the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border. Like the Ndau, they have cross-border cultural ties.

The Ndebele Ethnic Group 

 The Ndebele Ethnic Group of Zimbabwe traces their origins to the early 19th century in what is now South Africa. They are descendants of a breakaway Zulu faction led by Mzilikazi, a former general under Shaka Zulu. After falling out with Shaka, Mzilikazi led his followers, later known as the Ndebele or Matabele on a long migration northward during the Mfecane (a period of widespread upheaval in southern Africa). 

By the 1830s, they settled in southwestern Zimbabwe, establishing a powerful kingdom centered around present-day Bulawayo. The Ndebele developed a centralized state with a strong military tradition, using a regimental system modeled on that of the Zulu.

The Ndebele of Zimbabwe, also known as the Northern Ndebele or Matabele, are a unified ethnic group, but their society is made up of several different ethnic origins that came together under the leadership of Mzilikazi in the 19th century.

When Mzilikazi broke away from the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa, he led a diverse group northward, and along the way, they absorbed and assimilated various other ethnic groups. As a result, the Ndebele nation in Zimbabwe is a blend of different peoples. The main components include:

Zansi – These are the original Nguni-speaking followers of Mzilikazi from the Zulu Kingdom. They formed the ruling elite and brought with them the Zulu military system, language, and culture. Their Nguni heritage is still central to Ndebele identity today.

Rahabe – This group consisted of people of Sotho-Tswana origin who were absorbed during the migration northwards. They were integrated into Ndebele society and contributed to its linguistic and cultural diversity.

Holi (or Lozwi/Kalanga) – These were local groups, including the Kalanga, Rozvi, and other Shona-speaking communities, who were conquered or incorporated when the Ndebele settled in present-day southwestern Zimbabwe. They formed the majority of the commoner class in the Ndebele kingdom.

Although the Ndebele people today are unified under a common identity, their historical makeup reflects a multi-ethnic origin. The Ndebele language (isiNdebele) and culture are strongly influenced by Nguni traditions but also include elements from Sotho, Tswana, and Shona groups that were assimilated into the kingdom.
Many great empires emerged in pre-colonial Zimbabwe. Notable among them were the Great Zimbabwe State, the Mutapa State, the Rozvi State, the Torwa State, and the Ndebele State. 

Great Zimbabwe State

Great Zimbabwe was a majestic ancient stone city that flourished near the modern town of Masvingo from about 1290 to 1450, supported by a powerful and organised society. Its economy was sustained by agriculture (cattle keeping), exploitation of vast minerals, as well as external trade with nearby and distant countries, including China, India, the Middle East, East Africa and West Africa. 

Archaeological excavations have uncovered Persian bowls, Chinese dishes, Near Eastern glass, and other such items at the site of the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, confirming the trade contacts with these distant places. 

Ancient Zimbabwe also traded in a variety of glass beads, brass wire, seashells iron wire, axe heads and chisels. Local goods included ivory, iron gongs, gold wire and beads, soapstone dishes and other items as well as handicrafts featured prominently in the Great Zimbabwe Empire.

Scholars have established that the period of prosperity at Great Zimbabwe was, however, followed by decline and abandonment due to shortages of food, pastures, and natural resources in general, not only at Great Zimbabwe, but in the city’s most immediate neighbourhood. Shona traditions identify Mutota, an Mbire ruler, as the leader who led his people to found a new kingdom, the Mutapa in the Dande area in the Zambezi Valley, where smaller and less spectacular madzimbahwe were built (stone houses). 

According to historical accounts, by the late 15th century, Great Zimbabwe had completely lost its wealth, trade, political and cultural importance. 

It is generally believed that in about 14th Century, the process of political centralisation had begun among the Shona-speaking people. This has largely been attributed to good economic conditions that ensured successful harvests and the accumulation of surplus grain, animals, and other forms of wealth, which in turn stimulated population growth, allowing some individuals to assume positions of leadership. 

The Mutapa State

It is important to note that the decline of Great Zimbabwe as a result offered a window of opportunity to Mutota to conquer the Korekore and Tavara of the Dande and Chidema areas.

Oral traditions have it that Mutota’s victims were so impressed that they nicknamed him Mwene Mutapa, ‘owner of conquered lands’ or ‘master pillager’, hence the birth of the Mutapa dynasty. He then pursued an expansionist policy that led to the rise of a vast empire known as the Mwene Mutapa, or simply the Mutapa State, which extended from the Zambezi Valley into the Mozambique lowlands and reached as far as the edges of the Kalahari Desert.

However, the Mutapa’s influence in these distant regions was likely limited and inconsistent. In fact, the sheer size of the empire was one of the factors that eventually contributed to its fragmentation and decline.

An important feature of the Mutapa state was its way of life an intersection between politics and religion. It was for this reason that the Portuguese who reached Mutapa state decided to capitalise on religion to penetrate the state. When Father Gonzalo da Silveira arrived in December 1560, he worked on converting the royal family to Christianity. He was largely successful in this because the vast empire had become heavily riddled with conspiracies, coup plots, succession disputes, and civil wars to the extent that the reigning Mutapa probably wanted Portuguese help to hold on to power. The King, however, soon turned around and renounced Christianity, leading to the murder of Father Gonzalo da Silveira, thus marking a turn in Portuguese–Mutapa relations.

 Punitive expeditions were sent to assist the Mutapa’s enemies, particularly Mavhura, a rival claimant to the Mutapa kingship. For their help, the Portuguese demanded that Mavhura sign treaties of vassalage to Portugal, thus tying the Mutapa state to the Portuguese crown. 

The Portuguese took this opportunity to advance their imperial interests by using slave labour to work on the land they acquired under these treaties. This resulted in many armed conflicts in the area, causing many Shona to flee to the south where Changamire’s rule was being established.

This era of puppet Mutapas, however, came to an end due to the rise of reformists within the Mutapa royal family, led by Mutapa Mukombwe in 1663. This led to a new crop of rulers known as the VaRozvi. Between 1663 and 1704, Mukombwe and his successors successfully drove the Portuguese off their prazos with the support of the Tonga in the Zambezi valley and the Chikanga of Manyika. Mukombewe achieved the important feat of resettling Mutapa families in the lands he had freed.

Rozvi State

Mutapa Mukombwe faced rebellion, a development that gave rise to the Rozvi State. Changamire Dombo defeated a punitive Mutapa army after rebelling in 1684. He established and consolidated his control in the western Butwa/Butua area, once dominated by the Kalanga as well as in the lands of the Manyika and in the trading centres of mainland Mutapa. Dombo and his successors established the Changamire dynasty and ruled over the territory that includes most parts of what is now Zimbabwe.

The development of the Rozvi State was tied to its economy. This is because the empire took advantage of its vast dry grasslands, low trees and excellent pastureland of Guruuswa, to raise large heads of cattle, goats and sheep. Crop farming also thrived. 

Pottery, blacksmithing, weaving and basketry were equally prioritised and they thrived. The empire’s iron industry gave rise to the manufacturing of tools and weapons, which supported the development of their economy and army.

Gold mining and game hunting were however low key activities. The Rozvi, having ‘grown’ out of the Mutapa state, were well aware of the destructive activities of the Portuguese traders. They thus adopted an indirect way of dealing with the Portuguese. Trade was carried out through special agents called vashambadzi or through markets in the Mutapa areas. This policy allowed the Rozvi to maintain their political independence.

Finally a combined Rozvi-Mutapa force managed to drive out the Portuguese out of the Zimbabwe high veld by 1694. After these celebrated anti-Portuguese campaigns of the 1680s and 1690s, Portuguese mercantilism never again made any serious attempts to establish control over Zimbabwe.

The Rozvi state also suffered the fate of Mutapa due to its vastness. The state could not be sustained by its ‘feudal’ structures in the face of growing pressures from the Mfecane groups advancing from the south. Starting around 1826, the region previously discussed came under intense pressure from waves of migrants fleeing the Mfecane upheavals south of the Limpopo River. By 1838, up to five Nguni groups had either passed through or settled in the area, each attacking the Rozvi state and significantly altering the local people’s way of life. 

Two of these groups, the Ndebele and the Gaza, however eventually settled permanently in Zimbabwe and subjected several Shona groups to their rule. The new settlers introduced a system of tributary control premised on the threat of military use. These newcomers not only dismantled the core of the Rozvi ruling elite, but also scattered its varying factions in all directions.

Mzilikazi’s Ndebele state was thus subjugated and or incorporated into Ndebele society. However, as the Ndebele pursued their Shona enemies on the plateau, they nevertheless deferred to Shona spirit mediums. Mzilikazi’s son and successor, Lobengula, actually strengthened his relations with the Mwari cult.

By the 1850s, Ndebele rule stretched over the Zambezi, the Mafungavutsi plateau and Gokwe, with the Shona chiefs there paying tribute to the Ndebele. However, by 1879, Ndebele power was itself coming under serious threat from some Shona groups as Ndebeleimpis were being defeated due to the gradual adoption and proliferation of guns by most southern Shona groups.

The Ndebele had to establish a strong military presence to establish their authority in their newly acquired land. Besides subduing the original Shona rulers, they had to contend with the Boers from the Transvaal, who in 1847 crossed the Limpopo and destroyed some Ndebele villages in the periphery of Ndebele country. Then there were the numerous hunters and adventurers who also entered the country to the south. 

Over and above these were the missionaries and traders; all these groups threatened the internal security and stability of the kingdom. After protracted diplomatic negotiations with Robert Moffat, the Ndebele allowed the London Missionary Society to establish a mission station at Inyati in 1852. 

Through the influence of traders, hunters, missionaries, and other fortune seekers, the value of the Ndebele area had become well known to the white communities in the South by the late 1860s, paving the way for the complex encounters that culminated in colonial subjugation.

Era of Colonialism

From the 1880s through the early decades of the 20th century, the intersection of Christianity, mercantilism, colonialism, and capitalism gradually displaced the pre-colonial socio-political and economic structures. This colonial transformation ushered in a range of profound changes, including the emergence of new identities, commodities, languages, ideologies, relationships, political and economic orientations, and cultural preferences.

The myth of a “Second Rand” in Zimbabwe, suggesting vast mineral wealth akin to South Africa’s Witwatersrand, spurred the dispatch of the Pioneer Column, which effectively marked the beginning of Zimbabwe’s colonisation. While missionaries introduced certain reforms, such as Western medicine, the curtailment of witchcraft-related persecution, and the discouragement of practices like forced marriages and child pledging, they were nonetheless the vanguard of imperial expansion that eventually violently conquered the Shona and the Ndebele. Their efforts, framed as a civilising mission, aimed to reconstruct African societies in the image of European modernity and Christian doctrine. 

In doing so, however, they undermined indigenous African religious, political, and judicial systems, promoting instead a worldview centred on individual accountability to a monotheistic deity, an idea that conflicted with communal African spiritual traditions. Christian teaching stressed individual accountability to God above. 

Missionaries were often relentless in their denigration of African religious and cultural practices, frequently characterising them as pagan, demonic, or morally depraved. It is not surprising that some missionaries like John Moffat, for example, betrayed the trust of local leaders like King Lobengula by collaborating with concession seekers. 

Moffat and others misrepresented treaties such as the Moffat Treaty and the Rudd Concession, which Lobengula signed without fully understanding their implications. These agreements ceded significant land and mineral rights to Cecil John Rhodes, who subsequently leveraged the Rudd Concession to secure a Royal Charter from the British government.

Faced with mounting pressure from multiple external parties seeking concessions, as well as internal divisions between pacifist and conservative factions within his own ranks, Lobengula ultimately fell victim to colonial manipulation and deceit. In 1890, Rhodes deployed the Pioneer Column to invade Mashonaland, initiating white settler occupation in Zimbabwe.

The Shona, initially misjudging the intentions of the column as a temporary commercial expedition, did not immediately resist. However, the invading British South Africa Company (BSAC) soon established a Native Department that orchestrated forced labour and tax extractions. These impositions provoked sustained resistance, as the unconquered Shona communities rejected the legitimacy of BSAC authority. More critically, the company began appropriating indigenous lands, distributing them to settler pioneers and solidifying settler colonial control over the territory.

By 1893, the invading settlers had failed to find rich gold deposits in Mashonaland. They therefore decided to extend the frontiers of their new acquisition to Matabeleland. The colonial forces were bent on the complete annihilation of the Ndebele state and thus attacked the Ndebele in 1893.

Despite spirited resistance at the Battles of Mbembezi River, Shangani River and at Pupu across the Shangani River, the Ndebele were defeated in October 1893, leading Lobengula to set fire to his capital and flee to the north, never to be seen again, dead or alive. Superior weapons were the decisive determinant of the outcome of this Anglo-Ndebele war.

The Ndebele forces were, however, not completely defeated and rose violently again in March 1896 against the excesses of the BSAC. These excesses, which also affected the Shona, included forced labour (chibaro/isibalo), taxation, raping of local women and looting of African resources, notably cattle. The Shona joined the uprising in June. The heroic Ndebele-Shona Uprisings of 1896, termed the First Chimurenga, formed the basis of later mass nationalism. 

An important feature of this uprising was the purported role of traditional African religious authorities that were said to have provided unity and coordination across Ndebele-Shona ethnic divides, with two religious figures, Mkwati of the Mwari cult and Kaguvi of the Shona Mhondoro religious system, prominent. Mbuya Nehanda was another religious figure who played a pivotal role in propping up the rising in and around the Mazoe area. 

Other prominent heroes of the First Chimurenga included Mashayamombe, Makoni, Mlugulu, Siginyamatshe, Mpotshwan, and Kunzvi-Nyandoro. Stories of the heroic exploits of these early heroes and the united approach by the Shona and Ndebele became a great source of inspiration during the Second Chimurenga from the mid-1960s.

Rhodesia

In 1898, the British officially designated the colony as Rhodesia following the enactment of the Rhodesia Order in Council, which served as the colony’s primary governing instrument until 1923. That year marked a pivotal shift as white settlers were granted responsible Government, initiating a settler-dominated political framework rooted in land segregation, racially exclusive governance, and entrenched socio-economic privileges for the white minority. Racial separation became institutionalised across all dimensions of colonial governance, including the legal, economic, and political spheres. The full-scale institutionalisation of racial hierarchies defined the colonial state’s identity and operational ethos.

An early challenge for the colonial state was how to rule the Shona and Ndebele populations in an exploitative way, but without provoking another uprising. This became what has been termed “the native question”. The early colonial urban centres that emerged became contested spaces, sites of struggle, as they embodied the tensions of racial domination, spatial segregation, and socio-economic exploitation. These urban areas, marked not only by race but also by class, gender, and ethnic divisions, presented early challenges for colonial administration, particularly in managing the rural-to-urban influx.

Amid a demographic imbalance in towns such as Bulawayo, where in 1897 white males outnumbered white females by six to one colonial anxieties about racial purity and control manifested in legislation. The Immorality Suppression Ordinance of 1903, for instance, criminalised sexual relations between black men and white women, imposing five-year prison sentences on the former and two years on the latter, while white men engaging in similar relations with black women faced no legal consequences. Such laws reinforced colonial moral codes and protected the perceived sanctity of settler prestige and racial boundaries. Supporting this racial order were instruments like the Southern Rhodesia Native Regulations (1910) and the Native Affairs Act (1927), which empowered officials to enforce colonial norms under the guise of maintaining civility.

One of the most defining and enduring features of colonial rule in Zimbabwe was the systematic dispossession of African land and the forced transformation of Africans into a landless labouring class a process known as proletarianisation. Settler agricultural ambitions were grounded in two primary objectives: maximum output at minimum cost. To achieve this, colonial authorities restricted African access to fertile land, undermined indigenous agricultural production, and introduced heavy taxation that compelled Africans to sell their labour at exploitatively low wages to settler farmers and mining companies. 

These exploitative dynamics were codified through repressive legislation such as the Masters and Servants Ordinance, the establishment of the Rhodesia Native Labour Bureau, the Pass Laws, and the Native Regulations Ordinance. The compound system, in particular, granted mine owners near-feudal powers, mirroring the coercive labour regimes of earlier slave economies.

By the 1920s and 1930s, the colonial state increasingly aligned itself with settler interests at the expense of the African population. White commercial agriculture was promoted through the deliberate erosion of African peasant production, initiating a trajectory of underdevelopment in African reserves. This dispossession began as early as 1894 with the appointment of a Land Commission, and by 1905, sixty reserves occupying a mere 22% of the colony had been demarcated, notably the arid Gwai and Shangani reserves allocated to the Ndebele. With the failure of settler mining ventures, land became the colony’s most prized asset. State efforts to bolster white agriculture included the establishment of an Agricultural Research Station near Salisbury.

The policy of land segregation was formally entrenched in 1930 with the enactment of the Land Apportionment Act, which divided land into White Areas, Native Areas, Native Purchase Areas, and Forest Areas. Africans were denied individual land ownership, with land in Native Areas held under communal tenure, while land in White Areas was secured through private title deeds. 

The onset of the Great Depression further threatened settler prosperity, prompting state interventions through legislation such as the Maize Control Act, Cattle Levy Act, Reserve Pool Act, and the Market Stabilisation Act all aimed at suppressing African agricultural output and increasing African dependence on wage labour. Rather than acknowledging the impact of these policies and structural land shortages, the colonial state attributed the decline in African agriculture to so-called indigenous inefficiency and poor farming practices.

African responses to early colonial exploitation varied, encompassing outright resistance, strategic accommodation, and adaptation. Some engaged with Christian ideologies, while others utilised petitions to demand the return of expropriated lands, particularly those seized from the Ndebele. By 1923, African political mobilisation had evolved into more organised forms, exemplified by the establishment of the Southern Rhodesia Bantu Voters Association, a largely elitist body, though it featured a dynamic Women’s League that led a successful beer hall boycott in 1934. 

Labour activism also gained traction through organisations such as the South Africa African Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU), which advocated for workers’ rights. Another key development was the emergence of independent African churches, which broke away from missionary denominations in efforts to reassert African spiritual autonomy and contest colonial cultural domination.

The Influence of the Second World War 

The Second World War fundamentally changed the dynamics between colonisers and the colonised across the British Empire in Africa, including in Southern Rhodesia. Thousands of Africans actively participated and contributed to the war effort, both directly on the battlefield and indirectly through the production of essential foodstuffs and minerals. 

On the frontlines, African soldiers fought alongside white counterparts under conditions that, for the first time, offered a semblance of equality. This experience exposed African servicemen to the fallibility of the colonisers, thereby dismantling entrenched myths of white invincibility and superiority. Equally transformative was their exposure to contemporary global discourses on self-determination, human rights, and equality, which sowed the seeds of a new political consciousness. In the post-war period, Zimbabwe witnessed significant socio-economic and political shifts, most notably a transition in African political sentiment from appeals for fairness and inclusion in colonial governance structures to demands for full political autonomy and self-rule. 

In response to the economic disruptions caused by the war, the colonial administration adopted a range of policy measures aimed at stimulating industrial development. The colonial administration shifted the country’s heavy dependence on agriculture and mining to a diversified economy. 

This period saw a strategic move towards diversifying the economy, reducing the colony’s dependence on agriculture and mining through the promotion of a modest, yet growing, manufacturing sector. Despite these ambitions, the scale of industrialisation remained limited; by the late 1940s, Southern Rhodesia had only 382 industrial establishments, employing approximately 20,439 African workers.

A critical post-war development was the dramatic increase in white immigration. In 1948 alone, approximately 17,000 white immigrants arrived in Southern Rhodesia, significantly enlarging the settler population. This influx not only expanded the skilled labour force and consumer market but also exacerbated racial tensions. 

The settlement of new white populations in areas designated as “European Areas” frequently led to the displacement of African communities, deepening socio-spatial inequalities and accelerating African discontent. These tensions contributed to the emergence of militant African nationalism, as displaced populations and urbanised Africans began to coalesce around more radical visions of liberation.

The growth of the manufacturing sector further intensified the need for a stable, urbanised African workforce. Consequently, colonial policies forcibly displaced over 100,000 Africans from rural areas to urban centres. This mass urbanisation reshaped the demographic and cultural composition of Rhodesian towns and cities. Previously, these urban centres had been predominantly inhabited by migrant workers from neighbouring territories such as Nyasaland (modern-day Malawi), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique). The influx of indigenous Africans brought new cultural dynamics and intensified the politicisation of urban spaces.

The post Second World War era also witnessed a significant rise of an African middle class of educated African professionals such as teachers, nurses, lawyers and entrepreneurs. However, this group’s aspirations often diverged from those of the broader African population. The resultant tensions between the educated elite, urban workers (both indigenous and migrant), and the rural populace led to a complex and sometimes fragmented anti-colonial movement, as each group sought to advance its own socio-political interests within the broader liberation struggle.

Similarly, differences also existed within the dominant white settler community. The whites who had been in the country for a long time wanted to maintain the status quo of exclusive white domination, while the post-war immigrants tended to have liberal political views and attitudes towards Africans, whom they felt had to be accommodated to avert the growth and threat of militant African nationalism.

 Accusations of partiality to Africans cost Garfield Todd the premiership in 1958, effectively marking the end of liberal tendencies and the ascendancy of exclusionist right-wing policies that resulted in the formation of the Rhodesia Front in 1962, the party that was to declare independence in 1965 unilaterally.

The Rise of Nationalist Groups

African political activity in this period manifested itself mainly in trade unionism. The Rhodesia railway Employees’ association agitated for better conditions for workers, its efforts culminating in the Railway Workers’ strike in October 1945, signaling the workers’ determination to improve their lot through organised action.

 In the following years, other workers organisations, notably the Federation of Bulawayo African Workers Union led by Jasper Savanhu, the African Workers Voice Association under Benjamin Burombo and the reformed Industrial and Commercial Workers Union under the leadership of Charles Mzingeli, were established. Burombo’s Voice Association appealed to both rural and urban constituencies. Mopore strikes were experienced throughout the country over these years.

Other manifestations of African protest were the revival of the Southern Rhodesia Bantu Congress as the Southern Rhodesia African Native Congress, the Voters League and the creation of the African Methodist Church, which was an African protest against both white religious and political domination. Students also expressed their disgruntlement through strikes, like the famous Dadaya Mission strike in 1947. However, this phase did not entail a ‘nationalist Movement’ as Africans were still generally thinking in terms of improving their conditions under white rule rather than attaining sovereignty and independence.

Mass nationalism eventually began with the formation of the City Youth League in 1955 by such young activists like George Nyandoro, James Chikerema, Edson Sithole and Duduza Chisiza. The League’s new militancy was reflected in the Salisbury Bus Boycott it organised in August 1956 in protest at bus fare hikes by the United Transport Company. This was, however, overshadowed by the incidents in which several women were raped at Carter House in Harari Township (Mbare) as punishment for breaking the strike, revealing the gender tensions in the urban African communities at the time. While black women participated with their male counterparts in the anti-colonial struggle, they also had to deal with patriarchy.

In 1957, the City Youth League and the Bulawayo-based African National Council came together to form the country’s first national political party, the Southern Rhodesian African National Congress (SRANC), later simply called the (ANC) under Joshua Nkomo. The birth of the City Youth League and subsequent nationalist parties at this time has to be seen in the context of the quickening pace of African nationalism in the post-Second World War era which resulted in the landmark and inspirational independence of Ghana in 1957. 

The ANC challenged destocking, the unpopular government-initiated soil conservation policies and the notorious Land Husbandry Act (1951), a loathsome piece of legislation that included reducing the size of African land units, the number of cattle individuals could hold and undermining the chiefs’ traditional control of the land.

In February 1959, the colonial government of Rhodesia declared a state of emergency and banned the ANC under the newly created Unlawful Organisations Act. Party assets were confiscated while over 500 political leaders were arrested. However, the African nationalists, growing increasingly militant, were unrelenting and formed the National Democratic Party (NDP) on January 1, 1960 under Joshua Nkomo. 

A landmark demand by the NDP was majority rule under universal suffrage. The NDP’s militancy, particularly the country wide protests from late 1960 that resulted in widespread destruction of property and some deaths of protestors, led to its banning in December 1961. The nationalists responded by establishing the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), again under Joshua Nkomo. The party was however, soon riddled with serious divisions of an ethnic nature, resulting in its split in 1963 when a new party, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), was formed under Ndabaningi Sithole.

In the meantime, the white community was also experiencing serious divisions. The Rhodesian government under Whitehead proposed a new constitution in 1961 that provided for the widening of the franchise to include more Africans on the voters’ roll. The thinking within the ranks of the liberal whites who spearheaded this new constitution was that it would pave the way for Southern Rhodesia’s independence from Britain in line with developments in other British colonies. These moves were heavily criticised by conservative whites who were against any concessions to African nationalism. These conservatives were influenced by the need to protect their racial economic interests. 

This group won the 1962 elections under the banner of the Rhodesia Front under the leadership of Winston Field, who, however, lost the country’s premiership to Ian Douglas Smith ostensibly for failing to force Britain to grant white Rhodesia independence. Failing to gain independence from the British, Smith opted for a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) on November 11, 1965, setting the Rhodesian white community on a collision course with the black African majority.

Rhodesia under UDI Period

The Rhodesia Front (RF) government’s UDI ‘project’ shattered the African nationalists’ goal of attaining political independence as was happening in most African countries. This goal clashed with the long-held aspirations of the generality of the white section of Rhodesian society to safeguard its privileged position. While the contests over nationhood, a recurrent feature of the UDI era, appear to be between the Africans and the white section of the Rhodesian society, they were in many ways complicated and transcended the citizen/subject binary. 

The political struggles of the period, often crossing the racial divide, were mainly about the social and economic interests of the various groups that formed the Rhodesian society. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Rhodesia Front government to create a sense of nationhood among whites, Rhodesian white society was divided along class and economic interests, among other variables. 

As the conflict intensified, some members of the white population were, by the mid-1970s, preaching a different gospel from that of the Rhodesia Front, admitting that majority rule was inevitable. At the same time, several Africans had, for economic and other reasons, defended white settler hegemony as soldiers in the Rhodesian army, Selous Scouts and policemen. 

The RF government put in place several measures as part of efforts to cushion white society in the wake of sanctions imposed on the country following the unilateral declaration of independence. Although these measures were, in the short term, successful, the success was not without its own costs. By the mid-1970s, a combination of factors, chief of which was the intensifying civil war, resulted in an economic decline that adversely affected many facets of Rhodesian society.  

The Liberation War, 1965-1980

The civil war, or liberation struggle, that engulfed Rhodesia during the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) period was a multifaceted and protracted conflict, reflecting the deepening socio-political and economic crisis under white minority rule. As resistance to settler dominance intensified, the struggle evolved into a militant campaign for national liberation, marked by internal complexities often described as “struggles within the struggle.” 

The final phase of the war was characterised by widespread atrocities and heightened violence, ultimately compelling all parties to seek a negotiated settlement at the Lancaster House Conference in 1979. This historic agreement paved the way for the transitional elections held in February 1980, culminating in Zimbabwe’s attainment of independence on April 18, 1980.

Key moments in the early UDI years signaled the escalation of armed resistance. Among these were the Battle of Chinhoyi, in which ZANLA guerrillas directly confronted Rhodesian security forces, and the 1967 Wankie Campaign, which saw joint military operations by ZIPRA and South Africa’s Umkhonto we Sizwe against Rhodesian troops. 

Another significant development was the 1969 Anglo-Rhodesia Agreement, which was perceived by many Africans as a strategy to prolong white rule while offering superficial concessions toward majority governance. The widespread rejection of this arrangement was evident in the overwhelming “No” vote during the 1972 Pearce Commission referendum, designed to gauge its acceptability among the African population.

The intensification of the liberation war was further underscored by ZANLA’s infiltration of northeastern Rhodesia, most notably marked by the December 1972 Altena Farm attack. This event heralded a new phase of widespread armed conflict, with ZIPRA forces also launching incursions from Zambia. By the mid-1970s, much of the country was engulfed in full-scale warfare, reflecting the unrelenting pursuit of liberation and the unraveling of the Rhodesian state.

An important aspect of the escalating crisis was the ‘global’ nature that the Rhodesian crisis assumed. The crisis was not an exclusively Rhodesian affair. The neighbouring countries, notably Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia, and regional powers like Tanzania and Angola, a continental powerhouse, Nigeria as well as Russia, China and the USA, among many others, all played significant roles in the crisis.

Hence the détente period from 1974 that witnessed protracted efforts spearheaded by Kaunda and Vorster to bring about a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia between Smith and the nationalists. However, the efforts of the African countries in particular also extended towards achieving unity among Rhodesia’s nationalist parties. This saw the emergence of several formations involving the nationalists during the UDI period. These included FROLIZI, UANC, ZLC, and ZIPA. These plethora of formations is indicative of the fragmented nature of the nationalist camp in their fight against the Smith regime. 

Manifestations of the disunity are also reflected in the split that rocked ZAPU in 1971, the Nhari Rebellion against the ZANU leadership from late 1974, and the events surrounding the assassination of Chitepo in 1975, among others.

The escalating crisis is further highlighted by how the war became bloodier as the years went by. Serious atrocities were perpetrated by both sides as the war escalated. The Rhodesians carried out both air and ground attacks on mainly ZANU and ZAPU refugee camps in Mozambique and Zambia, respectively. Some of these brutalities involved the covert poisoning of guerrilla sources of water and food supplies. 

Civilians were not spared either. There was the anthrax poisoning of livestock and the movement of thousands of rural villagers into concentration camps euphemistically called “protected villages,” among other atrocities. Equally, the nationalist armies attacked white farmers in their isolated homesteads, assaulted centres of colonial power, and blew up infrastructure.

The liberation struggle in Rhodesia was not solely a confrontation shaped by racial antagonism; rather, it was a complex conflict underpinned by multiple, often intersecting, tensions. These included personal rivalries, class divisions, ideological differences, and ethnic disparities. Crises within the movement were frequently rooted in a combination of these factors, reflecting the heterogeneous nature of African society and the varied motivations that drove individuals to participate in the struggle. While there are the usual ‘heroic’ motivations highlighted in nationalist historiography, there were many who found themselves in the war through coercion and press-ganging.

 Even peasant support for guerrilla fighters was not always voluntary, and interactions between the guerrillas and other societal actors were, at times, fraught with friction. For example, some missionaries, despite offering significant support to both guerrillas and rural communities were brutally murdered, illustrating the war’s moral ambiguities.

The liberation war also exhibited a significant gender dimension. Rural women, in particular, played critical roles and made substantial sacrifices. Yet, gender-based violence and exploitation were pervasive. In guerrilla camps, female combatants were often subjected to sexual abuse, while young women known as chimbwidos who supported fighters in operational zones were sometimes raped.

Despite these challenges, women actively resisted restrictive gender roles, asserting their right to participate in combat and leadership, rather than being confined to traditional auxiliary roles such as nurses, porters, and cooks. Thus, for many women, the liberation war represented a dual struggle: one against colonial domination and another against entrenched patriarchal norms. Ironically, within the white settler community, the war also precipitated a degree of emancipation, as women were compelled to take on new responsibilities, including military training, due to the prolonged absence of their male counterparts.

Further complicating the dynamics of the war were generational tensions in rural areas. Youths mujibhas and chimbwidos—gained disproportionate influence due to their direct ties with the guerrilla forces, often undermining the authority of elders. Additionally, young District Assistants (DAs) in protected villages wielded considerable power, frequently armed and entrusted with enforcing state control. 

The spiritual dimension of the war also played a role in these tensions, particularly during the ZIPA (Zimbabwe People’s Army) era, when ideological rifts disrupted longstanding relationships with traditional religion. Chiefs and traditional leaders found themselves in precarious positions, caught between appeasing the Rhodesian Front government and the guerrillas. Ultimately, there was a shift in the balance of power in the rural areas as these traditional leaders generally lost power to the guerrillas.

As the war escalated, the economic and administrative infrastructure of Rhodesia deteriorated. The cost of war, the collapse of civil governance, the failure of the Internal Settlement, and mounting international pressure forced Prime Minister Ian Smith to acquiesce to general elections. Simultaneously, the nationalist movements faced significant logistical constraints, heavy casualties, and immense pressure from African allies, particularly the Frontline States, whose economies bore the brunt of the conflict.

 These conditions culminated in concessions that, while bringing the war to an end, led to a peace agreement brokered at the Lancaster House Conference in 1979 that many nationalists viewed as unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, the agreement facilitated Zimbabwe’s first democratic elections in 1980, which resulted in a landslide victory for Robert Mugabe’s ZANU (PF) party and ushered in the country’s independence.

The political history of Zimbabwe from Independence 

Zimbabwe gained independence from British colonial rule on April 18, 1980, following a protracted liberation struggle against the white minority regime of Rhodesia. Robert Mugabe, leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF), became the country’s first Prime Minister. His government initially promoted national unity and reconciliation among racial and political groups. However, tensions soon developed between ZANU–PF and the rival Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), led by Joshua Nkomo, particularly in the Matabeleland region.

In the early 1980s, Mugabe’s government launched a violent campaign known as Gukurahundi against perceived dissidents in Matabeleland, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 20,000 people.

In 1987, Mugabe and Nkomo signed the Unity Accord, which merged ZAPU into ZANU–PF and effectively created a one-party state. Mugabe also changed the constitution to become executive president, further centralizing power in his hands. His leadership became increasingly authoritarian, with limited tolerance for political opposition.

Throughout the 1990s, Zimbabwe faced growing economic challenges, including high unemployment, inflation, and the effects of structural adjustment programs. Political opposition grew, culminating in the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in 1999 under Morgan Tsvangirai.

In 2000, Mugabe launched a controversial land reform program that involved the seizure of white-owned commercial farms. Although it was intended to address colonial land injustices, the reform was chaotic and led to agricultural collapse, food shortages, and economic decline.

By 2008, Zimbabwe was in crisis, marked by hyperinflation and political instability. The disputed 2008 elections led to a power-sharing agreement between Mugabe and Tsvangirai, creating a unity government from 2009 to 2013. This temporary arrangement stabilized the economy somewhat but did little to dismantle Mugabe’s dominance. In 2013, ZANU–PF regained full control after elections that were again marred by allegations of fraud and intimidation.

In 2017, after internal power struggles within ZANU–PF and pressure from the military, Robert Mugabe was forced to resign, ending his 37-year rule. Emmerson Mnangagwa, a long-time ally of Mugabe, took over the presidency.