The politics of writing and teaching secondary school history in independent Zimbabwe: silenced voices in textbooks and the classroom

Politics of the history curriculum in Africa

According to Bentrovato (2017), one of the biggest challenges facing societies emerging from violent conflict is writing history textbooks. Often, this task is side-lined because post-conflict societies become more concerned with other issues such as tribunals, reparations and official apologies and, for politicians, the question of power. Rarely are the issues of history textbook writing referred to, yet they constitute the cornerstone to reconciliation and integration because history textbooks are essential in conveying official knowledge as well as beliefs, values and norms and, at the same time, contribute to conflict and inter/intragroup hatred or integration. Often, however, as argued by Bentrovato (2017), history textbooks represent the views of the victors. The way textbooks are written thus determines how history is taught. It is such views that teachers may take to the classroom as representing an objective history. We were more interested in what goes on in the classroom. In particular, we needed to grasp how the defeated have been represented or silenced. Whenever there is a regime change, such as South Africa’s transition to a republic in 1961 or the attainment of freedom in 1994, the (history) curriculum also changes (Bertram and Wassermann, 2015). The writing of textbooks and the development of syllabuses is thus an extremely political affair. Bertram and Wassermann (2015) pointed out that in South Africa, the Inkatha Freedom Party burned copies of the Grade 12 history textbook because it portrayed their leader, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, unfavourably.

Distorted history has plagued Africa, sometimes leading to ethnic cleansing. It was one of the causes of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (Moshman, 2015). After a brief suspension of the teaching of the subject in Rwanda, a guide for teaching secondary school history was produced in 2006 (Freedman et al., 2006). When change occurs in the political order, the curriculum follows. Rwanda is a clear manifestation of the phenomenon under discussion. Under Belgian colonial rule until 1959, the history school curriculum was tilted in favour of the Tutsi ethnic group. That favouritism and the distortion of history had its roots in the 1926 removal of all Hutu chiefs and their replacement by Tutsis (Bianchini, 2009). Under colonial rule, history textbooks made clear the differences between the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa ethnic groups who were often misrepresented as different races. Following the 1959 Revolution, the curriculum favoured the Hutus and, to date, there has yet to be another realignment. After the genocide, a moratorium on the teaching of history was in place for about 10 years. Similarly, in apartheid South Africa, the history curriculum emphasised Afrikaners more than Black South Africans (Hues, 2011; Van Eeden and Van der Walt, 2000). History teaching and writing has consequences on ethnic and race relations in Africa. Depending on how the subject is taught, it has the capacity to promote, distort or worsen already existing relations.

From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe: writing and teaching school history

We established that in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), school history teaching legitimated the White minority regime. As observed by McGrath (1993), Rhodesian texts portrayed Whites as subjects and Blacks as objects in the process of civilisation. History emphasised the civilising mission of Whites in southern Africa. McGrath (1993) goes on to emphasise that the secondary school history teaching stressed Shona–Ndebele ethnic group rivalry and the role of Whites in bringing peace through the process of colonisation. The rising by both groups against the colonisers in 1896–7 was described as a rebellion (McGrath, 1993). African history teachers had the burden of using dehumanising descriptors against those who opposed the imposition of colonial rule and praising traditional African leaders who collaborated with Whites as progressive. Such collaborators were subsequently rewarded by the Rhodesian regime through being elevated to senior positions in traditional leadership and receiving land grants at times (Beach, 1986). The same was found in South Africa where White settlement was praised and made to appear natural, while Africans were destined to be subjects (Joubert and Britz, 1975). In the classroom, rebellious and defeated Africans were castigated through textbooks and the official curriculum, while in African homes the same were often praised and glorified for their heroic resistance to the imposition of colonial rule. There were contradictions between the official and the unofficial versions of history. It is therefore not surprising that when the liberation struggle started in Zimbabwe, rural teachers were sometimes attacked by guerrillas because of their alleged support of Rhodesians through teaching the official syllabus (Mohamed, 2020).

We requested a written outline of the way Africans were viewed and imagined in the school system from a former Rhodesian who received his schooling in Rhodesia and went on to serve as a member of the British South African Police from 1967 to 1979. We did that to gain knowledge of why there is silence over some historical events and in the teaching of Zimbabwean history. We established that the current government of Zimbabwe is operating through reverse racism by presiding over an equally parochial history as its predecessor, the Rhodesian regime. The respondent, who preferred to be called Anderson, indicated how the teaching of history prevented White Rhodesians from fully understanding and appreciating the majority of the African population who had been defeated in the wars of 1893–4 and 1896–7. During the Second World War, Anderson’s father was a British army officer serving in India, where he was exposed to the ‘benefits’ of colonialism, particularly servants. After the war he immigrated to Rhodesia and settled in Avondale, a suburb of Salisbury (now Harare), in a middle-class detached home with an acre of land. The African cook and houseboy, Takudzwa, lived in a kia at the bottom of the garden as did the various ‘garden boys’ that were employed from time to time. Anderson’s mother was not very good with (Black) servants. For Anderson, it never crossed his mind that Takudzwa might have his own family, culture or home. Periodically, Takudzwa would want to go home – which annoyed his White employers – but home was some sort of other place he went to for a pressing reason such as a funeral, wedding, land preparation, harvesting or, as Anderson’s parents thought, just to take a break from work. From orientation at home, there was this general dehumanisation of the African. White children were therefore brought up in an environment where they simply wished away Blacks and could not accommodate them as fully human. The usefulness of the African lay in doing menial and ‘dirty’ jobs which people of the White race would not undertake. When Takudzwa went on leave to his ‘home’, Anderson and his brother had to do their own cooking, tidying up and other mundane routine house chores. Takudzwa’s time off was really an inconvenience, and that is when the two boys certainly missed him.

At school Anderson and his brother were taught the British General Certificate of Education (GCE) examination syllabuses, where they learned about Great Britain, Europe, America, India and the colonies, the conquering work of Cecil John Rhodes and the ‘benefits’ he brought to the ‘uncivilised’ Africans. They learned nothing about Indigenous African culture, languages, history or traditions, but were subjected exclusively to government and White public opinion that insisted upon the inferior capacities and status of Black Africans. Citing the BSAC (1975) Reports on the Native Disturbances in Rhodesia, 1896–97, Anderson emphasised that White children were raised with the belief that Africans in Rhodesia were a ‘warlike and backward race that needed to give up their old habits and accept their natural place in the peaceful and industrial organisation of a settled civilised community’. In Anderson’s sixth year of primary education, a retired district commissioner offered to teach learners at his school the Shona language from his newly written curriculum. This is a language spoken by more than 80 per cent of people in Zimbabwe. Anderson decided that he wanted to have a rural outdoor career and was the only volunteer to do the subject out of the entire school. This showed what little importance the local language and culture played in the White colonial lives. His teacher had taught him to speak Shona fluently and helped him gain some understanding of Shona culture and traditions. Anderson went on to take the GCE ‘O level’ Shona examination but failed. Nevertheless, this education would prove invaluable when he joined the British South Africa Police. Anderson was raised as a proud colonial Rhodesian; passed four British GCEs and three Matric exams in a colonial and commonwealth educational system that paid scant attention to the history of Africa or the lives and experiences of Black Africans. The curriculum did not include Shona or Ndebele languages or anything about African history, politics and culture; African aspirations were simply ignored. Fortunately, Anderson took the opportunity to learn Shona. He certainly assumed that White Rhodesians were more civilised, educated and moral than the native peoples. To him, and everybody he knew and respected, it was self-evident that Whites were the only people capable of ruling and governing the country. His understanding of life was limited to the city of Salisbury, which was his world.

This indicates that, in Rhodesia, the teaching of history hinged on sustaining the colonial system. Textbooks which were official mouthpieces at school were designed to serve the same. As victors, White colonialists did everything in their power to suppress and undermine the history of Africans whom they had defeated in the 1893/4 and 1896/7 wars. European colonisers’ purpose of teaching history in African schools was to inspire learners’ admiration of the grandeur of European and distant heroes and their achievements (Moyo, 2014). This would in turn blind their self-consciousness as Africans and yet make them treat Europeans with unmitigated respect. History teachers in the colonial period were not allowed to teach a sense of self-awareness or self-definition in order to solve the child’s primary identity problem: Who am I? Where did I come from? And what am I supposed to be doing on this earth? Rather, they taught ‘museum history’; a purely academic play on distant names, distant places and events (Sengai and Mokhele, 2020). The only good African was the collaborator, one who for a variety of reasons decided to cooperate with colonialists. As can be easily noted, history was distorted and prevented African learners from appreciating the history of their country and the continent as a whole.

At independence, the new government of Zimbabwe undertook the mammoth task of writing a history which included the voices and perceptions of those who had been defeated in early colonial wars and placed victory culminating in independence as a continuation of the struggle which started in the 1890s. The government therefore enunciated a clear and unequivocal ideological stand which educationists attempted to translate into the curriculum (Ndebele and Tshuma, 2014). This led to innovations in the history syllabus that meant a radical revision of previous approaches. First to come under attack was the idea that learners should study about others before themselves, their heroes, their culture or their past (Mungazi, 1991). As Freire (2005) puts it: ‘No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant to the oppressed by treating them as unfortunate and presenting for them to emulate models from among the oppressors’ (p. 54). The oppressed must wage their own struggle in their quest for redemption. Barnes (2007) identifies three periods in the development of the secondary school history curriculum in Zimbabwe from 1980 to 2002. In the first 10 years of independence, the colonial school history syllabus was maintained. The first new syllabus (2166) was introduced in 1990, and was termed the nationalist syllabus. The previous Eurocentric narrative was therefore replaced with a nationalist narrative. In 2002, a radical version of the nationalist syllabus termed ‘patriotic history’ was suddenly produced (Ranger, 2004). Patriotic history, which involved the building of a true Zimbabwean spirit within the learners, was embodied in syllabus 2167, which was also gradually phased out in 2018.

While it is known that the history curriculum strongly reflects the ideology of those in power, what goes on in the classroom partly depends on the capacity of the government to provide the necessary resources and environment for teachers to implement it. The curriculum also reflects on its developers. As such, a change of government is normally followed by changes in school history (Cole and Barsalau, 2006) to project victors in a positive light. Zimbabwe provides a classic case of that. With the attainment of independence in 1980, those who were formerly defined as rebels, terrorists, barbarians and sell-outs assumed political power. The new prime minister, Robert Mugabe, from ZANU PF, emerged victorious; hence his image as a terrorist leader had to be corrected in the curriculum of the newly independent country. It was against that background that a book on the liberation of Zimbabwe by Martin and Johnson (1981) was commissioned, published and distributed to every secondary school. The book glorified the role of ZANU PF in the liberation struggle and downplayed that of PF ZAPU, while at the same time taking a swipe at Rhodesians and their backers. The same applied partisan approach appeared in Frederikse’s (1982) book, None but Ourselves: Masses vs. Media in the Making of Zimbabwe, which equally over-glorified the war and the coming of independence from a ZANU PF point of view. The book is a noted documentary history that uses interviews, songs and media artefacts to contrast official Rhodesian propaganda with the perspectives of the Zimbabwean masses during the liberation war. Books which questioned the liberation struggle and the (mis)handling of the nation following the attainment of independence were banned. A good example is The story of my life by Joshua Nkomo (1984), which was first published in the UK while he was in exile. Given that at the time, (text)books were the exclusive source of learning material in schools, the censoring and banning of certain books and promotion of others only helped to sustain a skewed understanding of Zimbabwe’s history among secondary school learners.

Once Zimbabwe became independent in 1980, it became necessary to change the secondary school syllabus. The change meant that teachers (both Black and White) had to revisit their approach to the teaching of history. It meant decolonising the teaching of history. In 1982, there was already a new Zimbabwe Junior Certificate (ZJC) history syllabus whose centre of focus was Zimbabwe. Textbooks were written by local historians such as Needham et al. (1984), Prew et al. (1993) and others. The O level syllabus 2160, which was based on the UK system of O level examinations, which were set and marked by Cambridge University Examinations Syndicate, continued for the first 10 years of independence (Moyo and Modiba, 2013). At this level, learners continued to sit for the Cambridge syllabus. The A level syllabus which was used in Rhodesia largely remained the same in terms of content, particularly in the European paper. The only notable change was the introduction of Paper 5, which covers the history of Zimbabwe in 2004. Schools still had the choice of writing that paper or that of the history of tropical Africa, both of which are now being offered by the Zimbabwe School Examination Council following the completion of the localisation process in 2003. The history of tropical Africa paper was deemed by teachers to be better for preparing learners for university education due to its emphasis on essay-writing skills. All these changes, or lack of them, had implications on the teaching of history, particularly of those labelled negatively and hence silenced by the ruling party, ZANU PF. Between 2001 and 2002 there were three different syllabuses on offer. At the beginning of 2003, the history paper on world affairs since 1919 being taught at O level was criticised by the then president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, allegedly for teaching the history of imperialists who had been defeated in the liberation war. The teachers presiding over the syllabus were described as sell-outs bent on undermining the gains of independence. Minister of Primary and Secondary Education Aeneas Chigwedere was tasked to put a stop to the teaching of that syllabus.

Writing and teaching about losers in contemporary Zimbabwe

Our interviews showed that secondary school history teachers carefully choose their teaching topics because they are wary about antagonising the ruling ZANU PF government, as doing so brings dire consequences. They are prepared to skip certain sections of the syllabus or leave out others altogether in a bid to avoid being reported to ZANU PF officials in their area for clandestinely campaigning against the ruling party. Doing so can lead to physical attacks or being transferred to remote schools devoid of facilities. Teachers generally avoid teaching the history of post-independence Zimbabwe to ZJC and O level learners. Their argument, as put forward by one teacher, is that they fear for their lives as they might arouse unwanted attention from their parent ministry or fall prey to the ruling ZANU PF Party (interview with Maxwell, 8 November 2022). This confirms the view that teaching contemporary history in Zimbabwe is tantamount to teaching contemporary politics, thereby causing most teachers to avoid it (Barnes, 2007; Sengai and Mokhele, 2020). Through behaving in this way, teachers have become what Fatah et al. (2024) call risk avoiders or those who refrain from teaching about a violent past. With regards to the history of PF ZAPU, one respondent, Maxwell, argued that there is a general absence of officially accredited documents or books in schools. As such, teachers hesitate to teach that component. Due to the tense political atmosphere often prevailing in Zimbabwe, learners themselves fear that if they are to criticise the government in public examinations, they might be failed. As such, they find it far safer to avoid answering questions which may elicit responses critical to the government. Further, it would simply be too risky to attempt answering questions from topics which their teachers had avoided teaching.

The other challenge with the teaching of history in Zimbabwe emanates from the partisan nature of the history curriculum during the first four years of secondary school. There is so much readily available approved educational material on the contribution of ZANU PF to the liberation and the development of Zimbabwe. For example, Martin and Johnson (1981) published a book on Zimbabwe’s war of liberation. The foreword was penned by the then prime minister Robert Mugabe and the book was distributed to schools. The contribution of ZIPRA was deemed to be complementary, which means that, in reality, it was not central. Since then, it has been difficult for PF ZAPU and ZIPRA to be relevantly included. The scenario was complicated by the post-independence struggle between the ruling ZANU PF and PF–ZAPU which became a genocide against Ndebele-speaking people (CCJP, 2007). Given that while PF ZAPU fought for independence, but was sidelined in the curriculum, its fate during the early years of independence was similar to those who had opposed Mugabe during the war and sided with the minority regime, because they were all branded as sell-outs. Macmillan (2017) has pointed out that the history of the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa and PF ZAPU alliance has similarly been neglected. In the early years of independence, it was considered unpatriotic to write a history of the liberation from the perspective of those who were defeated unless it was in praise of the ruling party.

Some topics, according to an interview with one teacher from Matabeleland province, are too sensitive to teach (interview with Sailas, 4 November 2022). They include gukurahundi, which was a move to destroy PF ZAPU and ZIPRA in the 1980s. It left an estimated 20,000 Ndebele-speaking people dead (CCJP, 2007). Any attempt to speak in support of gukurahundi in the classroom is equivalent to endorsing a genocide and therefore immoral. At the same time, criticising the killings is a direct attack on the government which perpetrated the genocide and has intelligence personnel all over the country, capable of sniffing out such ‘enemies’, particularly in the run-up to elections. Some of the teachers were victims of gukurahundi, hence they may not be impartial in their analysis because they are still emotional. Secondary school classes in the Midlands and Matabeleland provinces of Zimbabwe are often composed of Ndebele- and Shona-speaking learners. It is therefore very difficult to teach the history of the Ndebele, ZAPU and gukurahundi without clear guidance from government. Joshua Nkomo, who was the leader of PF ZAPU, does not appear in the history of Zimbabwe from 1982 until the signing of the Unity Accord in December 1987. Muzondidya and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2007) maintain that, during the 1980s, there was a ‘politics of silence’, which was defined by the refusal to teach what was deemed to be ‘ugly history’ (p. 277), hence the silence on PF ZAPU history. The reason for side-lining Joshua Nkomo was very simple – he was defined as the father of dissidents (Mahomva, 2021) during that time and that phase is dark. Excluding others or speaking badly about them was intended to entrench a ZANU PF version of history in schools and create a strong support base for the party. Another complication to the teaching of history is that some teachers are known members of the opposition parties, hence they have to be always careful of what they teach. That makes it difficult for them to handle the history of Zimbabwe after independence. Teachers are also afraid of giving learners recent examples of what is happening around them, such as corruption, rigging of elections and so on. Such topics are not fully documented in government-approved school textbooks and referring to them is life-threatening for history teachers.

What compounds the shortage of liberation war history reading material in schools is the unwillingness of former combatants to write books or auto/biographies of their experiences. More than four decades after the liberation struggle, former ZIPRA guerrillas are still hesitant to tell their stories. As such, there are no detailed accounts on the downing of the two Viscounts in Rhodesia by ZIPRA guerrillas in 1978 and 1979. Since it is not all written down, the contribution of PF ZAPU to the independence of Zimbabwe is only partially represented. Some of the former ZIPRA guerrillas are now well placed in government and the ruling party. There is a feeling that writing about their experiences is like biting the hand that feeds them. Methodologically, one of the nightmares is to get former ZIPRA cadres to speak. Even if the information is needed for academic reasons, there is a great feeling that the same information can be deployed against them. Of late, however, the ZIPRA Veterans Trust has started working on writing about the war of liberation as well as post-independence experiences, though nothing has yet been released into the public domain. Vincent Ndlovu, a former ZIPRA veteran, recently wrote his own life history. The book is a litany of lamentations against the ruling ZANU PF and how PF ZAPU cadres were badly treated during demobilisation and gukurahundi (Ndlovu, 2021). The same also applies to another former ZIPRA commander, Sibhona (2018), who wrote on ZIPRA and Umkhonto we Sizwe. Having been published in the UK, and with censorship of such works, the books are not readily accessible to the average teacher, let alone the learners.

Nationalists who had different views from ZANU PF are only presented as the worst examples of a lack of patriotism. Such nationalists include Abel Muzorewa, Chief Jeremiah Chirau, Chief Ndiweni, Ndabaningi Sithole and J. R. D. Chikerema, among others. Their views and ideas about Zimbabwe are not considered at all. Abel Muzorewa, a moderate African nationalist, led the transitional government towards the independence of Zimbabwe. There is often a gap in the teaching of Abel Muzorewa’s government between 1978 and 1980, and the reason is simply that he was a moderate leader with views opposed to Mugabe and, therefore, he was deemed a sell-out. Muzorewa even wrote his autobiography, Rise Up and Walk (Muzorewa, 1978), but, 46 years after independence, that book is only accessible from outside Zimbabwe, particularly in South Africa. Ndabaningi Sithole also authored several books which include African Nationalism (Sithole, 1968) and Roots of the Revolution (Sithole, 1970) but his books have not been made available to schools.

Oral sources are among the most important sources in the study of African history. In Zimbabwe, some of those who fought the second Chimurenga war for or against Whites are still living. It is very easy to invite former Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) cadres to come and share their experiences with learners at schools, but at the same time it is dangerous to invite former Rhodesians for the same purpose. It is even easier if the invited former combatant, whether from ZANLA or ZIPRA, is not a disgruntled member. Cadres openly supportive of the current ruling dispensation can even come without being invited to schools and make presentations, either on the history of the nation or on prevailing political situations. During the run-up to the 2008 electoral rerun in Zimbabwe, after ZANU PF lost dismally against the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), war veterans imposed themselves on schools and taught patriotic history which was openly inclined towards the ruling party. Any school head who attempted to resist was labelled a sell-out. The history which they taught castigated Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition MDC leader, as well as everyone else who challenged Mugabe’s leadership. Tsvangirai was described as someone who got into politics with a clear agenda of selling out. While addressing a rally which one of the researchers attended in 2000, a war veteran of Zimbabwe’s war of liberation described how at one time he was an aide to both Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai during the war and how the latter escaped to join counter-revolutionary forces. Naturally then, it was dangerous during volatile political episodes for a rural teacher to teach anything that contradicted what war veterans were preaching without risking their lives. Again, the solution was to avoid teaching contemporary history. With so little appreciation of history, some learners were used to detect (history) teachers who were critical of the government when teaching. In 2000, we had experience of how learners easily sided with the ruling party against their teachers. Following the victory of the NO vote in the February 2000 referendum, learners ganged up with local village youths to harass teachers at night. A constitutional referendum was held in Zimbabwe on 12–13 February 2000. The proposed new constitution of Zimbabwe, which had been drafted by a Constitutional Convention in 1999, was defeated. The defeat was unexpected and was interpreted as a personal rebuff for President Mugabe and a political triumph for the newly formed opposition party, the MDC. The proposed constitution was notable for giving power to the government to seize farms owned by White farmers, without compensation, and transfer them to Black farm owners as part of a scheme of land reform.

Owing to the denigration of those who at one time opposed the ruling party and fought in support of Muzorewa or Smith, such people cannot garner courage to come out in public and share their experiences for fear of reprisals from ZANU PF. Furthermore, any school head who invites such people risks losing their job. There is a general ignorance not only about nationalist leaders such as Muzorewa and Sithole, but also about their armed forces such as Security Force Auxiliaries, who numbered about 20,000 by the time of ceasefire in 1979 (Kriger, 2003). Caute (1983) disparaged all auxiliaries by likening them to gangsters – and this is exactly what teachers are supposed to teach if they are to be safe. Former auxiliaries simply melted in the population and they are deemed not worth studying. Particularly never to be mentioned were the benefits Muzorewa gave to civil servants in 1979. Even in death, Muzorewa awaits to be forgiven, despite the policy of reconciliation which was pronounced by the then prime minister Robert Mugabe in 1980. In some parts of the country, such as Hurungwe, auxiliaries are known to have opened schools, made dip tanks work and, more importantly, driven out ZIPRA guerrillas (Chakawa, 2015; Padbury, 2022). Such accounts cannot be taught in schools.

It is becoming clear that history as a subject is currently suffering further denigration and subjugation in Zimbabwe. The new curriculum, which was implemented in 2015, has very little space for history. In its place, it has introduced heritage studies as a compulsory subject (MoPSE, 2023). As a subject, history is not taught to most Form 1–2 learners. It is introduced in Form 3. Topics discussed in heritage studies include socialisation, identity, cultural heritage, norms and values, national heritage, rights and responsibilities, and the production and distribution of goods. Such preoccupations demonstrate that where any history is to be taught, it is clearly patriotic history which praises the victors and takes a swipe at the losers. Teachers currently approach the subject of history according to the prevailing political environment. During volatile periods great effort is made to avoid sensitive topics. Education officials caution or threaten teachers who are critical of the government in their teaching of history.

Way forward

It is vital to expose learners to a multiplicity of sources from which they can make their own conclusions. Kropman et al. (2022) have emphasised the importance of using historical sources that deal with a subject matter from a multi-perspective standpoint because it promotes a deeper understanding. As such, school libraries need to be well stocked with a multiplicity of historical material. In fact, there is no way books written by Rhodesians can be subversive if there are alternative voices in the same library. There must be many voices on one event, for example the bombing of Freedom Camp in Zambia by Rhodesian forces in 1978. If only one voice is preferred over others, what is churned out in schools culminates in propaganda. Some of the best historical libraries that exist today are living people with intimate knowledge of some topics, such as the war of liberation. Historians, as well as trained history teachers, have the huge task of collecting alternative voices to the history of Zimbabwe for the purposes of teaching and writing. The experiences of old people, particularly those whose voices have for a long time been silenced, need to be recorded. In the same way, views of opposition politicians and their followers should be included in the teaching and learning of history. For this to happen, the government should provide a free teaching and learning environment for such engagements and current textbooks need to be revised. What is prevailing in schools at the moment is largely ZANU PF-inclined history and some of PF ZAPU history during the liberation struggle.

History teachers need to be more objective and balanced in their teaching of the subject. Topics should not be skipped simply because one is opposed to the ruling party. Goldberg (2020) has reiterated that it is important for educators to deliberate prior to teaching difficult histories. Teachers should be clear, to themselves and to their learners, about why they are entering this challenging experience and what they seek to achieve. Our experience in the teaching and examination of history indicated that when the Zimbabwe School Examination Council introduced the consolidated O level syllabus 2167 in 2003, some teachers were not happy that 2167/2 had maintained the history of China and excluded that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). During Zimbabwe’s war of liberation, China had supported ZANU, which became the ruling party in Zimbabwe, while the USSR had supported ZAPU, which went on to lose the 1980 elections. Some teachers protested against the new syllabus by not teaching Chinese history, alleging that it is difficult and learners easily forget names in that topic. This continued as a trend between 2003 and 2014. Since 2167/2 was not divided into sections, teachers knew that, in one way or the other, their learners would still pass examinations despite the skipping of some sections. However, the best way forward is for teachers to cover the whole syllabus because otherwise critical information will be missed. Learners should be educated on the fact that they will not be punished if they indicate their displeasure at government policies when answering examination questions, particularly those which deal with Zimbabwe after independence.

Since 2017, Zimbabwean newspapers, particularly The Herald, The Chronicle, the Sunday Mail and the Sunday News, have been serialising oral histories from former ZANLA and ZIPRA guerrillas. It would be of great use if history departments in schools could buy every week a copy of each newspaper and make cuttings for use by learners. Most rural schools do not have access to the internet, hence these cuttings may be of fundamental use. Some cadres who, at independence, were praised for their pivotal role in bringing about independence, now suffer from heavy criticism, which is absent in school textbooks. Some of them have been lumped together with Rhodesians and opposition parties. Gleaning through these newspapers can help learners to sharpen their tools of analysis. In fact, events in Zimbabwe have been happening so fast that those without access to internet, social media or newspapers are being left behind.