Isn’t it a disgrace that “independent” Zimbabwe has had only two leaders in 46 years yet colonial Rhodesia had eight?

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

The contrast between the political governance of colonial Rhodesia and independent Zimbabwe presents a deeply disturbing reality that the nation must honestly confront. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

When the Union Jack was lowered in 1980, the collective expectation was the birth of a democratic dispensation rooted in the values of accountability, institutional integrity, and the rule of law. 

Instead, 46 years of independence have degenerated into a tragic showcase of power greed, institutional decay, and authoritarian repression that far outpaces the structural mechanics of the regime it replaced. 

For a nation that prides itself on having broken the shackles of colonial subjugation, it is an absolute embarrassment that the current ruling elite has managed to make the political administration of a minority settler state look remarkably orderly and democratically accountable by comparison.

The numbers themselves tell a damning story of political entrenchment versus systematic rotation. 

During the 56 years of Rhodesia’s existence as a self-governing colony and unrecognized state between 1923 and 1979, the country saw a succession of eight different Prime Ministers. 

Even after declaring a republic in 1970, Rhodesia cycled through 4 different presidents in a mere 9 years. 

Power shifted, leadership changed hands, and internal political competition remained dynamic. 

Conversely, in 46 years of self-rule between 1980 and 2026, Zimbabwe has seen a grand total of only 3 presidents. 

Canaan Banana served as a ceremonial figurehead, while the true executive authority has been monopolized by just two men: Robert Mugabe and Emmerson Mnangagwa. 

This stark mathematical disparity exposes a culture where national leadership is treated not as a temporary mandate from the citizens, but as a lifelong personal possession.

This obsession with permanent tenure has completely broken the mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power. 

Independent Zimbabwe has never witnessed a single smooth, democratic transition of the presidency. 

The country’s first executive leader, Robert Mugabe, was only removed from office after a 37-year reign through the barrel of a gun during the 2017 military coup d’état. 

His successor, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is already showing the exact same symptoms of terminal power retention. 

Despite the constitution explicitly limiting a president to two five-year terms—set to expire in 2028—there is a concerted push to extend his stay in office by altering the constitutional framework to a seven-year term ending in 2030. 

At 83 years old, the presidency is still being treated as a personal retirement home, demonstrating a complete disregard for constitutional boundaries and the concept of generational renewal.

What makes this reality truly tragic is the nature of the democracy practiced by the colonial state versus the tyranny practiced by the liberated state. 

Within the white polity of Rhodesia, democratic principles were fiercely protected and strictly adhered to. 

Of course, this system utilized a strict qualified franchise that severely restricted the majority of black people from participating. 

However, the critical comparison lies in how white political opponents treated each other, versus how the black post-colonial leadership now treats its own people.

State institutions operated with a level of independence and professionalism that kept the executive in check. 

White opponents of a sitting government were never subjected to systematic state-sponsored violence, forced disappearances, or arbitrary detentions on manufactured criminal charges. 

Political opposition within that sphere was permitted to operate freely, debate was vigorous, and the judiciary maintained its integrity. 

The contrast with post-independence Zimbabwe could not be more severe. 

Under the guise of a black majority democracy, the ruling party has turned state apparatuses into partisan weapons to crush anyone who dares to dissent.

The tragedy of independent Zimbabwe lies in the fact that the post-colonial leadership has unleashed a level of lawlessness and brutality against its own people that far outclasses the administrative control of the past. 

While the colonial regime maintained a highly segregated and unjust state through rigid legislation and police enforcement, it never committed such brazen acts of lawlessness or massacres outside wartime. 

In contrast, the post-independence era has thrown away even the pretense of institutional boundaries. 

The systematic repression, the lawless abduction of activists, the weaponization of the judiciary to jail political opponents on spurious charges, and the horrific horror of massacres like Gukurahundi are atrocities committed entirely by indigenous leaders against fellow citizens during peacetime.

The state institutions that should protect the citizens—the police, the military, the courts, and the electoral body—have been completely compromised to serve the survival of a singular political cabal. 

The very definition of democracy has been hollowed out, leaving behind a fraudulent facade where elections are mere rituals designed to legitimize an autocracy.

It is a bitter pill to swallow, but the historical record demands that we acknowledge how a supposedly free nation has regressed so completely. 

To argue that white democracy under colonial rule functioned with greater respect for institutional norms, peaceful leadership rotation, and political tolerance is not an endorsement of colonialism. 

Rather, it is a devastating indictment of the failure of the post-colonial leadership.

The liberation struggle was fought to bring about a society where every citizen could enjoy freedom, security, and a voice in how they are governed. 

Instead, the current rulers have proven to be more power-hungry, more intolerant of opposition, and more destructive to the fabric of democratic governance than the administration they overthrew.

Zimbabwe cannot continue on this path of institutional decay and personalized rule. 

The embarrassment of looking back at a colonial past and finding superior examples of administrative accountability and political turnover should shock the conscience of the nation. 

It is time to dismantle the culture of political entitlement that treats the state as a personal fiefdom. 

​Zimbabwe needs a system where power is contested openly, transferred peacefully, and limited constitutionally. 

This must happen without the threat of military intervention or legal manipulation. 

Until then, the promise of 1980 remains a cruel illusion. 

The country will stay trapped under an indigenous tyranny that outclasses its colonial predecessor.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08