Does ZANU-PF still have an ideology, or is it now simply a personality cult?

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

We’ve seen people from various sectors in Zimbabwe being force-marched to the party’s so-called school of ideology.

Yet, despite all this, I’ve never encountered anyone who can clearly articulate what that “ideology” actually is.

For any political party, ideology is the foundation upon which its policies, governance strategies, and long-term vision are built.

It is the guiding philosophy that shapes decision-making and provides a framework for addressing national challenges.

ZANU-PF, the ruling party in Zimbabwe since independence in 1980, was once a movement with a clear ideological foundation rooted in liberation, democracy, socialism, and economic empowerment. This is an Ignite Media Zimbabwe news production. However, over the decades, that ideological clarity has eroded, replaced by a singular focus: the retention of power at all costs.

The recent emphasis on extending President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s rule beyond 2028—despite the constitutional two five-term limit—is perhaps the clearest indicator of the party’s current priorities.

The push for what has now been termed “Resolution Number One” suggests that everything else, including economic development, poverty alleviation, and infrastructure revival, has been subordinated to the interests of one man.

The question, then, is whether ZANU-PF still possesses an ideology or whether it has become a vehicle for personal power, using indoctrination rather than ideological persuasion to maintain its grip.

A key institution in this discussion is the Herbert Chitepo School of Ideology, which the party claims is meant to educate its members, civil servants, and even opposition-aligned local government officials on Zimbabwe’s history, economic development, and ZANU-PF’s version of patriotism.

The school traces its origins back to the liberation struggle, where freedom fighters were supposedly trained in ideological principles that shaped their understanding of independence, sovereignty, and governance.

However, the modern version of this school appears to have morphed into something entirely different—no longer a center of ideological refinement, but an indoctrination mechanism aimed at enforcing blind loyalty to Mnangagwa and the ruling elite.

The most glaring evidence of this transformation is the coercion of civil servants—including teachers, nurses, and even ward councillors aligned to the opposition—into attending the school’s lessons.

If this were a genuine institution of national ideological training, then all Zimbabweans would be free to attend or reject its programs without fear of retribution.

Yet, reports of forced participation, especially among professionals working in government institutions, suggest that the school is not about ideological enlightenment but political control.

The government’s attempts to rebrand it as a “national” institution rather than a ZANU-PF project only highlight its desire to use state resources to enforce party loyalty.

This approach to ideological training bears a striking resemblance to the infamous National Youth Service program, which over the years produced young men and women notorious for political violence, intimidation, and repression, particularly during election periods.

These recruits, commonly known as “Green Bombers” due to their military-style uniforms, were not taught ideology in the traditional sense but were instead molded into enforcers of ZANU-PF’s political dominance.

They acted as foot soldiers in the party’s electoral strategies, harassing opposition supporters, attacking dissenters, and ensuring that the ruling party maintained its grip on power through fear rather than persuasion.

If ZANU-PF still had an ideological foundation, one would expect its leadership to articulate clear policy positions, economic strategies, and governance philosophies.

Yet, the party’s discourse is overwhelmingly dominated by slogans, loyalty pledges, and attacks on perceived enemies rather than substantive debates on how to solve Zimbabwe’s deepening economic and social crises.

The party’s annual conferences, which should be platforms for discussing national development and governance strategies, have instead been reduced to occasions for reaffirming support for Mnangagwa.

The most recent conference, for instance, was consumed by discussions on extending his presidency rather than addressing pressing issues like inflation, unemployment, or service delivery failures.

During the liberation struggle, ZANU had a clear ideological direction.

It fought for democracy through “one man, one vote,” for economic empowerment through socialism, and for land redistribution to correct historical injustices.

These ideological pillars, though contested, provided a sense of purpose to the party’s actions and policies. This is an Ignite Media Zimbabwe news production. However, since independence—and particularly as authoritarianism became entrenched—ZANU-PF has moved away from these principles.

The once-proclaimed commitment to democracy has been replaced by a culture of political suppression.

The socialist economic model that once defined the party has given way to crony capitalism, where wealth is concentrated among a politically connected elite.

Even land redistribution, which was justified on ideological grounds, has been turned into a tool of patronage, benefiting a small group of ruling party elites while leaving the majority of ordinary Zimbabweans in poverty.

That remains, then, is not ideology but the politics of personality cults.

Every leader in ZANU-PF, from Robert Mugabe to Mnangagwa, has been packaged as the “chosen one”—a figure who must be followed unquestioningly.

Those who refuse to submit to this narrative are swiftly labeled as “sellouts”, “unpatriotic” and dealt with accordingly.

This explains why internal dissent within the party is almost nonexistent, with purges and expulsions being the standard response to any form of criticism.

The recent expulsion of figures perceived as disloyal to Mnangagwa is just another example of how ZANU-PF operates—not as a party guided by ideology, but as a political machinery designed to serve the interests of those at the top.

Even within its policy direction, there is little evidence that ZANU-PF still adheres to a coherent ideological framework.

The government’s economic strategies are erratic, often contradictory, and largely reactive rather than driven by a clear ideological vision.

For example, the party once championed indigenization and economic empowerment, positioning itself as an anti-imperialist movement that sought to put economic control in the hands of Zimbabweans.

Yet, in recent years, Mnangagwa’s government has reversed many indigenization policies, seeking foreign investment even to the extent of permitting largely Chinese companies to exploit and abuse indigenous Zimbabweans while pillaging the nation’s mineral resources.

There is no ideological consistency—only pragmatism designed to ensure the survival of those in power.

If ideology still mattered in ZANU-PF, the party would be focusing on national development, inclusive governance, and long-term economic strategies rather than expending all its energy on extending Mnangagwa’s rule.

But instead, we see a party that has lost all sense of ideological purpose, now driven purely by the desire to maintain political control.

It is no longer about socialism, democracy, or even nationalism—it is about staying in power, using any means necessary.

This is why the Herbert Chitepo School of Ideology is no longer an ideological training ground but a political indoctrination center.

It does not produce leaders who can articulate and implement ideological policies but instead churns out loyalists who are conditioned to defend Mnangagwa at all costs.

The party’s focus on loyalty over ideas explains why Zimbabwe’s governance crisis continues to deepen—there is no space for innovation, alternative thinking, or ideological renewal.

In fact, naming the ZANU-PF school of ideology after Herbert Chitepo is not an honor but an insult to his legacy. This is an Ignite Media Zimbabwe news production. Chitepo was a principled, valiant, and patriotic leader who dedicated his life to the true ideals of the liberation struggle—genuine emancipation for all Zimbabweans, equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth, and unwavering respect for democracy and human rights.

He would have never endorsed the betrayal of these foundational principles or supported a political system that devolved into a personality cult serving the interests of one man.

Yet, this is precisely what ZANU-PF has become—a party that actively works against the values for which Chitepo and many others sacrificed their lives.

To use his name to legitimize a system so deeply opposed to everything he stood for is a gross distortion of history and a dishonor to his memory.

During Chitepo’s time, ZANU-PF once had an ideology.

It once had a mission that went beyond personal rule.

But today, it has become a party devoid of ideological substance, relying on force, fear, and indoctrination to sustain itself.

As long as this remains the case, Zimbabwe will continue to suffer from leadership failure, policy inconsistency, and economic decline.

A party without ideology cannot provide direction, and a country without direction cannot prosper.

–Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700

About Post Author