The Question of National Heroism in Zimbabwe
At the heart of a growing debate in Zimbabwe lies a fundamental question: who truly deserves to be honored at the National Heroes Acre, and who has the authority to make that decision? This issue has sparked deep divisions among citizens, as the process of determining national hero status is seen as opaque, subjective, and politically influenced.
The law governing this process, the National Heroes Act [Chapter 10:16], was enacted in 1985. It grants the President of the Republic sole legal power to designate any deceased Zimbabwean citizen as a national, provincial, or district hero. However, there are no clear criteria, measurable standards, or independent oversight. This lack of structure leaves the decision entirely in the hands of one individual, raising concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.
This system has led to confusion and anger among many citizens. When someone is declared a national hero, others are left questioning the basis for such recognition. Similarly, when individuals are denied the honor, it sparks outrage and fuels political tensions. Without publicly known standards, these decisions become subjective, often reflecting political agendas rather than genuine contributions to the nation.
One recent example that has drawn significant criticism is the elevation of Sydney Gata to national hero status. Despite allegations of corruption and mismanagement during his tenure at ZESA, Gata was honored with the title. This decision has raised questions about the integrity of the process. How can someone associated with prolonged electricity shortages and economic hardship be celebrated as a national hero?
Contrast this with the late Cde Dickson “Chinx” Chingaira, a revered liberation war veteran and musician whose songs inspired countless fighters during the struggle for independence. His contributions were undeniable, yet he was only recognized as a provincial hero. This raises further questions about the criteria used to determine hero status.
The situation becomes even more perplexing when considering other figures. For instance, Chinx is buried in the same provincial cemetery as Soul Jah Love, a cultural icon for urban youth. While Soul Jah Love’s influence on music is significant, his contributions to the nation’s freedom or transformation are not comparable to those of Chinx. This highlights the need for clear, distinct categories of recognition that are based on merit rather than popularity or political favor.
Many respected figures have also refused to be buried at the National Heroes Acre. These include revolutionary icons like Dumiso Dabengwa, former War Veterans Minister Tshinga Dube, and even former Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko. Their refusal suggests a deep awareness of the political nature of the shrine, which has become a space where loyalty to the ruling party often outweighs genuine service to the nation.
This issue is not new. Even under the leadership of former President Robert Mugabe, controversial hero declarations were made, often reserving the honor for those aligned with ZANU-PF while sidelining deserving individuals perceived as opponents. For example, Solomon Mutsvairo, the composer of Zimbabwe’s national anthem, was only recognized as a provincial hero. If inspiring patriotism does not qualify someone for national hero status, then what does?
Similarly, opposition leaders like Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda were denied recognition despite their significant roles in Zimbabwe’s political history. Tsvangirai, who led a powerful democratic resistance movement, was denied hero status simply because he challenged the ruling party. The same fate befell Chief Justice Enock Dumbutshena, a key figure in the liberation era, who was denied recognition due to his political stance.
These cases underscore a broader issue: the struggle for independence was not solely fought by those with weapons. Countless ordinary men, women, and children—especially in rural areas—played critical roles. They provided shelter, food, and support to combatants, endured violence, and suffered greatly. Yet their stories remain largely unrecognized, leaving them marginalized and invisible in national discourse.
Zimbabwe must re-evaluate its understanding of heroism. Forty-five years after independence, the definition of a hero should extend beyond liberation war credentials. Transformative contributions in education, healthcare, science, justice, human rights, the arts, and grassroots development should also be acknowledged.
To achieve this, the National Heroes Act needs reform. The power to declare heroes should not rest with one individual. Instead, an independent, representative commission comprising historians, legal experts, civil society, and war veterans should assess each case transparently and on merit. The President and ruling party should be completely removed from this process.
In more progressive societies, the process of honoring national heroes is decentralized, transparent, and inclusive. South Africa, for example, uses an independent advisory council to recommend national honors based on merit. In the UK, honours are vetted by independent committees, ensuring accountability. Ghana celebrates a range of contributors to national development, not just politicians or military figures.
Zimbabwe must also establish clear guidelines and disqualifiers. Those involved in corruption, abuse of public office, or human rights violations should be automatically excluded. Financial transparency is equally important. Citizens deserve to know how much is spent on hero burials, allowances for dependants, and the upkeep of Heroes Acre, and whether these funds benefit the broader population.
Until these reforms are implemented, the National Heroes Acre will continue to reflect partisan interests rather than national unity. It is time to reclaim the meaning of heroism—not just for those who carried the gun, but for all who have contributed to building this country.
Post a Comment