Source: Rhodesians were builders, and ZANU-PF, the spoilt prodigal son
Tendai Ruben Mbofana
Jesus told his disciples a story of a son who demanded a share of his inheritance from his father.
After receiving what must have been a generous fortune, the son left home for a faraway place, where he squandered his entire inheritance on a frivolous lifestyle until he was left with nothing.
Reduced to living with pigs, which he tended for a living, the son eventually decided to return home to beg for forgiveness and seek reinstatement in his father’s household.
This parable resonates deeply with the journey Zimbabwe has taken, particularly when viewed in stark contrast to its more prosperous colonial past.
To fully appreciate the implications of this comparison, we need to draw key lessons from the biblical parable of the prodigal son.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The actions of the prodigal son were not uncommon in those days, and neither are they uncommon today.
Who has not encountered instances of children inheriting their parents’ wealth only to waste it away until nothing remains?
The fundamental issue lies in the contrast between those who build wealth and those who inherit it.
The parents, often self-made and from humble beginnings, are the ones with the determination, hunger for success, and passion to build a legacy.
For them, every brick laid and every success achieved is the result of personal sacrifice and hard work.
On the other hand, the children, born into privilege, rarely share their parents’ vision, passion, or attachment to the wealth and infrastructure they inherit.
For them, it represents an easy source of money and comfort, devoid of the struggle and meaning their parents experienced.
When the parents pass away, the inheritors lack the drive to maintain, let alone expand, the legacy.
They squander the inheritance on frivolous pursuits, leaving nothing behind for future generations.
This analogy is strikingly applicable to the Rhodesia versus Zimbabwe debate.
Rhodesians, despite their settler-colonialist origins, were builders.
They came to a land they considered backward and undeveloped, compared to where they had come, with the intention of transforming it into a modern, industrialized society.
Like the parents in the parable, they were dedicated to realizing this vision and invested their resources, energy, and expertise to create a prosperous nation.
When the Rhodesians arrived in what would become Zimbabwe, they encountered a largely agrarian society with minimal infrastructure by Western standards.
Viewing this as a blank slate, they set about constructing a country that could rival the standards of Europe.
Using the natural resources they acquired—gold, coal, iron, asbestos, and more—they laid the foundations of a modern industrial and mining base.
The revenues generated were reinvested into the country, leading to the construction of impressive infrastructure, including roads, railways, cities, power plants, waterworks, schools, hospitals, and even sporting facilities.
Rhodesia became a self-sufficient and economically robust nation.
This was especially so after the imposition of economic sanctions by the United Nations after Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in 1965.
Agriculture flourished through the establishment of irrigation schemes, dams, and commercial farming enterprises.
Industries were established to process raw materials, adding value locally and creating jobs.
Towns and cities were meticulously planned, with efficient public transport systems, clean water, and reliable electricity.
Sports thrived, with facilities that could rival any around the world.
The Rhodesians’ attachment to the land they had claimed was evident in their passion and pride in what they built.
For them, Rhodesia was not just a colony; it was home.
Their commitment to its development was not merely a matter of governance but a labor of love.
This stands in stark contrast to the post-independence era, where those who inherited the country were more akin to the prodigal son.
Zimbabwe’s leaders at independence in 1980 inherited a nation brimming with potential and already equipped with the infrastructure and resources to support continued growth.
However, like the prodigal son, they had no personal investment in the country’s development and viewed it as a cash cow for personal enrichment.
For the new leaders, the vast wealth of the country—gold, diamonds, platinum, lithium, and black granite—was not a resource to be reinvested in national development but a means to amass personal fortunes.
They looted state coffers and mismanaged industries, while neglecting maintenance and further investment in infrastructure.
Roads, railways, power plants, waterworks, schools, and hospitals, all built by the colonial regime, were allowed to deteriorate.
Even national pride in sports dwindled, with the national soccer team forced to play home matches in foreign countries due to the deplorable state of local facilities.
This lack of vision and responsibility among Zimbabwe’s post-independence leaders stemmed from a sense of entitlement.
Having fought for liberation, they believed they were owed the spoils of victory without the corresponding duty to build on what was inherited.
The Rhodesians, for all their faults, had a vision for the country and a determination to make it a reality.
In contrast, Zimbabwe’s leaders squandered the inheritance they received, leaving the nation in a worse state than they found it.
Examples abound to illustrate this decline.
The once-thriving agricultural sector, anchored by commercial farms, has collapsed, leading to chronic food insecurity.
Industries that once processed local raw materials now lie dormant, and Zimbabwe has become a net importer of basic goods.
The healthcare system, once the envy of the region, is in shambles, with hospitals lacking basic supplies and trained personnel fleeing the country in search of better opportunities.
Education, once a cornerstone of Zimbabwe’s success, has suffered as schools crumble and teachers strike for better wages.
Comparisons with other countries further highlight Zimbabwe’s fall from grace.
Botswana, a neighboring country with only one notable natural resource, diamonds, has managed its wealth prudently, investing in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
Today, Botswana boasts a stable economy, low corruption levels, and a high standard of living.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe languishes at the bottom of global development indices, plagued by corruption, mismanagement, and poverty.
Maybe Botswana managed to succeed where Zimbabwe failed largely because our neighbors didn’t inherit much at independence, and as such, were determined to make their country work.
The parallels with the prodigal son’s story are evident.
The Rhodesians, like the father in the parable, built a legacy through hard work and sacrifice.
Zimbabwe’s post-independence leaders, like the prodigal son, squandered this inheritance on self-indulgence, leaving the country impoverished.
However, unlike the biblical son who eventually sought redemption, Zimbabwe’s leaders have shown no remorse or willingness to change course.
The greatest tragedy of this prodigal son narrative is the impact on future generations.
The inheritance that should have been preserved and expanded for their benefit has been squandered.
Young Zimbabweans are growing up in a country with crumbling infrastructure, limited opportunities, and little hope for the future.
They are the ultimate victims of the squandered legacy, condemned to inherit a nation bereft of its former glory.
Zimbabwe’s story serves as a cautionary tale for other nations.
It highlights the importance of visionary leadership, responsible governance, and a commitment to national development.
It underscores the dangers of entitlement and the consequences of prioritizing personal gain over the collective good.
In conclusion, the comparison between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe is a tale of builders versus squanderers.
The Rhodesians, for all their flaws, were dedicated to building a nation they could be proud of.
Zimbabwe’s post-independence leaders, by contrast, have acted like the prodigal son, squandering the inheritance they received and leaving the nation in ruins.
Unless there is a radical shift in leadership and governance, Zimbabwe risks becoming a cautionary tale of a nation that had it all but lost everything.
The question now is whether Zimbabwe will find its redemption, like the prodigal son, or continue down the path of self-destruction.
Only time will tell.
- 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/
COMMENTS
Yes Tendai. In my youth, the Rhodesians “made things happen “, and we actually benefited from their initiative and enterprise even though our cheap labour was often at the core of their success ! Our living conditions were better then than now. Even the “Liberation War” sanctions imposed on Rhodesia did not stop them doing whatever was needed to keep going. A good number of my people left the new Zim. at Independence – clearly they could see what was in store, and those are the people ( Black Rhodesians some would say ), who had the education, skills and mindset to continue and develop what the Rhodeaians had established. Now – in “free Zimbabwe “? – not a chance.
My Zimbabwe was the happy, confident new country of the 80’s.
My fellow teachers used to make fun of the Zambia kwacha which suffered +25% inflation in 1985. Little did we know what selfish leaders like Mugabe and Gono had in store for their fellow Africans. Zimbabwe is a sad story, Shona people deserve better.