From the Rear or the Front? The Historical Nuts and Bolts of Zanu Pf Succession Politics

By Takura Zhangazha*

A decent number of previously publicly unheralded war veterans of Zimbabwe's national liberation struggle have recently been interviewed by internet based journalists. 

(Kindly crosscheck CITE Zimbabwe, Zimbeat or , Chimurenga Files or SlyMedia YouTube accounts for examples of these interviews.)

These include those war veterans that were with the then Zimbabwe Peoples Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) and those that were with the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA). 

As politically controlled by PF ZAPU and ZanuPF respectively. 

In some instances others interviewed made impassioned reference to the Zimbabwe Peoples Army (ZIPA) which was an attempt at a unitary combination of both liberation armies. 

In most of the interviews one can easily discern a dichotomy or division between the historical understanding of what was then referred to as fighting from the 'front'. Or fighting from the 'rear'

There were those that fought at the battle front from the mid-1970s and those that were considered the nationalists that fought from the diplomatic rear. 

Neither could do without the other. But simultaneously there was a question of who is more legitimate to lead Zimbabwes struggle for liberation. 

Or at what stage do cdes from the diplomatic rear (nationalists) make way for cdes from the military front (guerillas) in leading the same said struggle? During its actual and real-time occurrence. 

While the politics, as a general Maoist dictum was meant to lead the gun, within the liberation movement both separately and as a united military front under ZIPA, there was a general assumption by commanders of the thousands of trained guerillas that the nationalists were not pulling their weight in the capitals of Lusaka- Zambia, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania and Maputo- Mozambique. 

The key evidence of this was in a dichotomy of diplomacy versus the war in and of itself after Herbert Chitepo's assassination in 1975 and the now legendary Mgagao declaration in Tanzania of the same year.

Inclusive of the jailing of Josiah Tongogara by the Zambian government and his subsequent release at the instigation of the more influential members of the then Frontline States. 

All in order to carry on the more military version of the struggle under ZIPA which eventually collapsed due to ethnocentric divisions as allegedly instigated by cdes who were at the rear and not the war-front (crosscheck cde Dzinashe Machingura's memoir on this). 

This historical thread remains somewhat whispered or deliberately unsaid in Zanu Pfs contemporary succession politics. 

They still have a 'rear' and a 'front' historical cadreship as they had when the late Robert Mugabe was still in power. 

But also more critically that when the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) emerged in the late 1990s, it was to help them by default to blur up those 'rear' and 'front' divisions within Zanu Pf in order to protect what they considered the revolution. As they understood it. 

Hence we had not only the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) but also the violence that accompanied the 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2018 elections. 

It was arguably the military 'front' that once again came to the defence of the nationalists 'rear' in the aforementioned elections.

Moreso when we had Mugabe's now infamous 'asante sana' speech in 2017. As our military had asked all of us to 'remain calm' when they took control of the country with popular support.

Albeit and arguably politically briefly. (For some cdes this was/is more permanent.)

What was however demonstrated and clear was the centrality of the historicity of the 'rear' and the 'front' of defending a 'revolution'. Again. 

Meaning as their political civilian leadership faltered, the politised military once again, in its self-assumed historical role remained key in holding the national revolutionary ship steady. 

So when you look at Zanu Pf succession politics as they are occurring now, you have to bear this historicity of their party in mind. It is 'unignorable.' 

If this was the United States of America (USA) I would call it our own version of a Military Industrial Complex (MIC) without the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. 

But with a clear partisan intention of not relinquishing power to anyone deemed inimical to the original intentions of what they still consider to be a national revolution. Ideological warts and all. 

And there's the contemporary rub.

Zanu Pfs ideological ambiguity within a fluid contemporary capitalistically multi-polar global political economy is beginning to creep into their national political character. 

Where, as a ruling party they are embracing neoliberal and ironically state capitalism and cronyism they have reignited their own internal contradictions about liberation struggle values and narratives about 'zvigananda'. 

A term that was also used as a value based reflection of the difference between the 'rear' and the 'front'. 

Or those that were benefitting versus those that were directly suffering in the military liberation struggle. 

Even further, as exemplified by those that were in the now proverbial comfort of Lusaka/Maputo versus those that were at Nyadzonia or Chimoio. 

Except that in the now, the so called nationalists have a numerical and economic advantage.

 They have greater control of younger, materialist Zimbabweans. 

From young(ish) urban land barons who are beneficiaries of the FTLRP, miners, bankers, small scale traders, tourism operators, tenderprenuers through to educationists and health care professionals.  

Inclusive of those that are also somehow highly politically ambitious such as your Tagwirei's and Tungwarara's with their legion of fans.

 Some of whom are also now either in Parlaiment or local councils already. 

In tandem with owning football clubs and running cultural and musical shows in a new celebrity and 'mbinga' culture. 

They can win, at least monetarily, any future general harmonised election for Zanu Pf.

 Inclusive of eventual if not already existent co-option of the opposition political parties via money or politicised protection. 

But the war veterans have a riposte to this based on security sector issues.

In this we revert to their ruling party's historical contestations of the 'rear' and the 'front' of their revolutionary war. 

Neither has historically been able to do without the other. In their own party's context. It is just that the nationalists won the long duree post independence round under Mugabe as crossed over to Mnangagwa. For now.

So whatever is being said about 2030 or will be said about its scheduled 2027 national elective congress and the 2028 constitutionally scheduled Zimbabwe general elections, it is necessary to understand Zanu Pfs positioning on these matters. 

With a key question to its next leader being ,

"Are you historically operating from the 'rear' or the 'front'?" 

Either way #Songambele

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity 

Zimbabwean Journalism is Important to Our Progressive National Being: Respect It.

 By Takura Zhangazha*

A colleague shared with me some social media posts about allegations of the dire state of salary and working conditions of journalists at one of Zimbabwe’s most respected private print and now multi-media company, Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) based in Harare, Zimbabwe. 

It owns the newspapers the Newsday, the Zimbabwe Independent and the Sunday Standard.  Together with a reputation that crosses our national borders as a beacon of free expression in Zimbabwe.  

Other national media companies such as the Zimbabwe Newspapers Group (Zimpapers) also have their reputations (they own not only the Herald, Sunday Mail, Chronicle and Manica Post) among a multiplicity of other radio, newspaper and television stations. Including a new journalism training college.

Not to leave out the Associated Newspapers Group of Zimbabwe group (ANGZ) which owns another private flagship newspaper, the Daily News, the weekly Financial Gazette and an online television station.

There are also other private television, radio and print media houses inclusive of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) but for the purposes of this analysis and defense of journalism the previously aforementioned above cited examples will be enough. 

Now there is a generally unwritten code about journalists and media workers not writing about each other unless there are clear court, ethical, criminal or discrimination issues.  Or in cases where there is the deliberate criminalization of journalism as a profession.

But the social media post the cde shared with me had not been an unknown rumour within media circles about AMH and others I cannot mention due to the fact that the information has not been made as public.

It has been a rumour about the ongoing unfair labour related treatment of journalists and media workers at not only AMH but also in part across the national media industry.

As a clear example, it basically turns out that allegedly journalists working for AMH have not had regular payments of their salaries for at least ten (10) or so months.  With some social media reports also alleging recent extraordinary acts of protests at this state of affairs but also some labour related arbitration processes. 

Having worked in the media and with journalists and media workers (logistics, graphic designers, finance, media freedom advocacy, unionists), in various capacities, I am of the strong persuasion that journalists and media workers are correct not only at AMH but any other media institution in Zimbabwe to air out their views publicly.

Not only about their working conditions, salaries and labour rights but also the state of freedom of expression in Zimbabwe.  As they all come together in the national democratic public interest. Without a default censorship of poor working conditions as well as politicized editorial policing.

 I however understand the idea of the media as a ‘business’.  Almost as though that for Zimbabwe’s media to survive it must be ‘corporatized'. 

As is the case emerging now in the United States of America  (USA) and the global north or east.  Wherein we have oligarchs that can determine national discourse that is preferential to their political and economic interests without accountability to the working conditions of journalists and media workers. In tandem with their right to free expression.

This is where the media industry is viewed from the narrow lenses of assuming it is for monetary and political profit (advertising, clicks, likes, views, winning partisan elections). But not for the public interest purpose of promoting democracy, public accountability and most importantly, freedom of expression. 

This is where the public’s support for journalists also becomes important.  In an almost dual way.  Where journalistic rights and stable working conditions are protected and they do their public interest job well, the Zimbabwean public will appreciate their profession more. 

Where a public perception is allowed to fester that journalists are pushing ‘brown envelopes’ the public will lose, or in our case, may have lost respect for journalism as a profession. Let alone media ownership and assumptions of the media as industry to simply be a money as opposed to a national freedom of expression consciousness machine.     

Journalism and the media may have been made to appear as though it is simply about the money.  That is not true. 

It is a key cog in any free country’s progressive consciousness.  And note that I deliberately mention ‘progressive consciousness’ and not ‘propaganda’.  As is now largely the case in the global north, Russia and China.

Our journalists form a cultural backbone of our country.  Or at least they should.  Where they are at fault, they can be corrected without the general criminalization they have faced since our national independence in 1980.  

It becomes worse when media owners decide that they can and should exploit them in relation to their salaries and spend copious amounts of time without paying them or ignoring their union’s demands for cost of living adjustment negotiations and better working conditions.  

I will conclude with the centrality of the media, journalists/journalism as both a profession to our national independence. 

In its various forms and roles it was central to how we came to perceive of ourselves as Zimbabweans.  

Where we assume it is abstract we are missing its significant historicity.  

Where we mistreat journalists and media workers in relation to not only their salaries or working conditions then we are lost as a country.

I know that the journalist unions including the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists (ZUJ) and the Zimbabwe Graphic and Allied Workers Union (ZIGAWU) are trying their best at getting media owners, parliament, our courts and central government to understand this key point. 

While at the same time defending their members from unfair labour and working conditions.   

However we have to contend with the fact that if you treat journalism and the media as insignificant to the past, present and the future of the country then you may be missing the point of why you own a media house, a private business or are in government/parliament or local council.

And wrongly assume that journalism is about marketing, public relations or social media influencers.  That is not journalism. 

Journalism is a key profession. In its independence and its functions to promote freedom of expression and access to information in the public interest.  Pay the cdes fairly.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity

 

 

A Presentation to the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) Marxism 2025 Conference.

 "A World in Crisis, World in Revolt: Solidarity with the Peoples of Palestine and Sudan."

A Presentation to the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) Zimbabwe Marxism 2025 Conference.

Venue: Briggs Zano Working Peoples College Campus, Waterfalls, Harare.

Date:  Saturday, 06 December 2025

By Takura Zhangazha*

Dear Cdes,

Thank you for inviting me to this important annual Marxism conference.  I am happy to say I know that you hold it annually with various presenters and themes. 

So it is a personal recognition pleasure to be here and be part of an organic ideological debate.

 I am a Marxist myself and I have a deep appreciation of Marxism in its variations. 

An issue I will return to later in this presentation.

Though it is sad to say, it is now a rare occurrence to have these honest discussions within the context of not only Zimbabwean politics but also global developments and identity debates. 

Hence I am sure the leaders of ISO-Zimbabwe chose the topic under serious consideration. 

That of how to look at a ‘world in crisis, a world in revolt”  With a particular emphasis on Sudan and Palestine.  

And this is understandable for many cdes who are like us based in what is referred to as the Global South.  We have witnessed the genocide in Palestine and Sudan in some sort of reality and also via mainstream and social media.  

We are also witnessing the war in Ukraine and its neo-imperialist import based on the historical global cold war in which the world was ideologically divided between socialism and capitalism.  

With capitalism claiming victory and now trying to prove this historical point of it being the sum total of an ‘end of history’ as had been previously prophesied by western academic acolytes and apparatchiks.

As is now well known and discussed we have not reached any form of any ideological end- game where neoliberal capitalism as linked to neo-liberal politics prevails. Or ends 'history'.

Instead we now know, in 2025, that we probably have a new realignment of global ideological traits. 

These new ideological battles center around almost complete ‘free market’ neo-liberal capitalism (via Trump) and its increasingly more visible alternative of direct ‘state capitalism’. The latter as defined by China, Russia and the oil oligarchies of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar. 

All of this in a new battle for control of mineral resources that are now commonly referred to as ‘rare-earth minerals’ in an age of tremendous technological advancement via Artificial and other intelligences we are yet to find out about.  

So what we have, cdes, is a mixture of history repeating itself (i.e the vestiges of the global cold war/colonialism), technology as a new key global competitive ‘rush to arms’ and the nascent cultural wars that we are now confronted with about dealing with individual and collective societal realities /possibilities. The latter being mainly via the rising importance of social media in cultural consciousness.

So when we talk about Palestine or Sudan we have to understand our ideological and time- based contextual placement. Even as Africans

We are now in a period where being African and a people with struggle history is being belittled.  Even though we were assisted and also assisted the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in our collective anti- colonial freedom struggles.

Or where with Sudan we had to recall the fact of its liberatory civilization, its civil wars and where it evidently requires Africa’s solidarity today. 

Even though this is the subject matter of today as advised by ISO, we have to contend with a newer global reality.  

This being the globally funded attempt at wiping out our own historical reality and our own national/ African continental consciousness. 

And I may sound like I am on repeat. 

If you are a progressive African, you are of the left.

 No matter your version of what you consider the same said ‘left’ to be.  Be it Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyite, Nkrumaist, Nyerereist or Machelist ideological narratives. Or whether you are Trumpian by persuasion.

But that being on that left means a search for an historical economic and social justice.  

Now what I know is that we cannot re-invent the past.  As organic as it was and is. 

Where as Nkrumah said, we neither look east, north, west or south,  we still have to look forward!

We now have to understand that our revolutionary imperative is to look to the future and our role in it. 

Both by way of biological and generational epoch age. But more significantly by way of ideological clarity for posterity. 

Cdes, we are at a global crossroads where our choices are increasingly limited.  We can choose to go left or right.  But we can also choose to combine both and go forward.

Where we say the world is on fire we must know what the fire is about.  Beyond Palestine and Sudan. As painful as that may be to consider.

The world is on fire because of its hunger for new progressive ideas.  And these are beyond privatized financialised capital. 

These are ideas of equality with the people and for the people. A rallying point that we cannot run away from.

So as you claim a new car, urban residential property  proximity to political power, remember where you are coming from and why?

 As you do when you go to you own rural home.  There are no narratives of arrival only. But there are also  narratives of false consciousness.  

These matters are beyond the immediately material. They are also about what you think about the future of not only your person but more importantly your country and your continent.

The cdes in Palestine, Sudan and beyond in countries such as Venezuela, South Sudan, Western Saharawi, DRC still require your socialist solidarity. One in which they, like the rest of us,  require a life of peace, equitable prosperity and belief in a progressive future. 

As we used to say in our anti-colonial struggles- “Aluta Continua”  “The struggle” continues comrades”

Warts and all. 

We must remain optimistic that a better world for all can become a reality.

Ndatenda. Siyabonga. Twalumba. 

*Takura Zhangazha spoke here in his personal capacity

  

 

 

An African in Defense of Venezuela

By Takura Zhangazha*

This write up will be brief.

Africa and African’s knowledge of the subcontinent of Southern  America is generally limited.  As an African myself, I had to learn that there are historical linkages between us and that sub-continent which we were taught as being “Latin American”. 

Mainly in order to distinguish it from what was considered a more developed, liberal and progressive North America. With the latter being inclusive of the global hegemon, the United States of America (USA).

We would sometimes get slightly confused about the USA.  We would naively assume that every time someone mentioned in class the term America, we were talking about the USA.  

It is via taking on mid-level school history lessons that we began to learn of the broader significance of liberation struggles in Africa and South America as they occurred after the second world war that ostensibly ended in 1945  

So we got to know that there was for example an island called Cuba. We also got to know that there was another island called Haiti, the one that led the first successful slave rebellion against the French in the late 19^th century and inspired millions of others across not only the Caribbean but also in South America, continental Africa, the USA itself.   

All to pursue human equality and freedom from racial/setter colonialism as a universal global goal.

And there are many other lessons to be learnt.  We have had the Brazilian, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile (remember Salvador Allende) examples of a new working people driven progressive politics.  All of which countered American CIA sponsored narratives of how allegedly undemocratic those countries were as defined by a USA neo-imperialist foreign policy. As led by the infamous Henry Kissinger and his successors.

And then in the immediate contemporary, we have Venezuela.

We know for a fact that multiple USA administrations, from Clinton through to Obama, Biden and now Trump have had an imperialistic eye on Venezuela. Not only for its massive oil reserves but also for financial interests in its mineral resources such as gold.

We also know that the USA deliberately undermined the late Comandante Hugo Chavez’s government and that of his successor president Maduro.  This through, as is the case in the global south, via allegations of disputed elections and opposition leaders that in most cases do not hide their open admiration for American style neoliberal celebrity politics and economics. 

But now the elephant in our African solidarity anti-colonial room is the renewed intention by Donald Trump to invade Venezuela physically.  He had previously tried the same via what was called Operation Gedeion where the USA sponsored a group of former Venezuelan soldiers to try and take over Caracas via an ocean landing in 2020. 

That failed.

What has since happened is that in 2025, Trump is accusing Venezuela of being a drug trafficking hub and enabler to the USA.  A point that has been disputed not only by mainstream global media but also expectedly by the Venezuelan government itself.  There is no direct evidence linking the Maduro government to any forms of international drug smuggling.

And yet now they are faced with the USA’s largest warship and aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford in the vicinity of their international waters. And with an imminent threat of a physical invasion by the USA.

Maduro and the Venezuelan military have, and understandably so, tried to shore up their nationalism and regional solidarity to counter the intentions of the USA. 

As Africa, given our experiences of these type of ‘neo-liberal’ invasions in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)- remember who killed Lumumba? Or in Libya and Sudan.  

Before we even mention the intentions of the Trump administration in one of our largest populated countries, Nigeria, over convoluted claims about the alleged mass killing of Christians. 

Or in South Africa where Trump humiliated President Ramaphosa by accusing him of a genocide against Dutch origin Afrikaners as well as the recent announcements he has made about the recent G20 summit.

As an African and Zimbabwean, I have no option but to stand with the people of Venezuela. Mainly because I have been taught about the historical nastiness of imperialism, racism and neo-colonialism. 

But also more significantly because I do not have an inferiority complex that assumes that what the USA or the global north says is ‘democracy’ is what should be considered a given.

 I understand the complexities of global capital and how it intends to run the world for profit at the expense of human life.  This regrettably includes its pillaging via war and globally financialized capital  of sovereign states in contravention of the United Nations (UN) Charter that holds all human beings to be universally equal. No matter their race, religion, language or place of origin.

It is my prayer that at some point as Africans, at least through the African Union and the Southern African Development Community, we see through the veneer of an expected differentiation between ourselves and cdes in South America. And condemn any invasion of Venezuela before it occurs. For the record and for historical posterity.

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity