For more than forty-six years, Zimbabweans have gathered each April 18 to mark independence. Yet too often the occasion has been hollow: politicians deliver speeches, crowds ululate, and little tangible benefit reaches ordinary people. Many Zimbabweans are grateful for liberation from colonial rule, but gratitude alone is not enough. Independence also brings responsibility, and that responsibility has been largely ignored. The nation appears divided between those who boast of past achievements and those who feel disappointed and discouraged by present realities.
Both positions can be argued with some merit, but their conflict reveals a deeper polarization between good and evil. Debate is healthy only when responsibility is understood and accepted as the guiding principle. The tragedy of democracy occurs when the misinformed majority takes power because the knowledgeable sit back. Under healthy conditions, the winner should represent what is good and the loser what is evil.
Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, offering hope to a people long denied self-governance. What has followed can serve either as a storehouse of lessons or as material for nostalgic self-congratulation by a self-centered few. Winners should be those who advance development; losers are those who pursue destruction for the benefit of a minority at the expense of the majority. Whether Zimbabwe has progressed or regressed is best left to analytical observers.
The aim here is to propose axiomatic principles and workable solutions. The past forty-six years are useful chiefly as lessons, not as objects of nostalgia. If Zimbabwe were where many had hoped it would be by now, the future would not be so uncertain. Nostalgia breeds complacency, and complacency breeds laxity—without planning for the future. Hope returns only when missed opportunities are honestly acknowledged.
The past should be used to correct the future, not to massage old glories. The goal must be to take responsibility aimed at the greatest good for the majority. The hope lies with those who recognize the need for corrective action. The world becomes hellish whenever the greatest good is reserved for a minority. Human beings are created in God’s image, and Jesus came to uplift humanity without favoritism. A person’s goodness is measured by his or her willingness to provide goodness to others.
Development depends on responsibility, which means addressing what is wrong to bring happiness to the majority. There is no greater law than advancing goodness toward fellow human beings. False preachers often avoid empowering the poor because they fear losing their own prominence when the condition of the poor improves. As Jesus warned:
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:12-15 NIV).
Jesus’ purpose was to cultivate responsibility—both to promote survival and to suppress degradation. Responsibility does not mean blaming others for what is wrong; it means actively addressing what is wrong for the benefit of the majority, whether through education or developmental programs. Many of humanity’s problems are caused by treacherous politicians who rise to power through manipulating public ignorance.
In politics, people are often led into corruption without being held to mandatory standards of service. Too much trust is placed in politicians, while the principle of responsibility implied by independence is neglected. Every person is inherently political, in the sense of being called to improve the survival and well-being of humanity. Christians, above all, should be more concerned about the troubles of others than politicians are expected to be.
The apostle John wrote:
“Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” (1 John 3:13-17 NIV).
Applying this Scripture requires sacrifice, not blame. Responsibility is not about law-keeping; it is a reversal of how we live. It demands that we address the problems affecting our fellow human beings, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. Jesus himself described this as fulfilling the Law. When an expert in the Law tested him, Jesus answered:
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. ‘How do you read it?” He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”; and, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this, and you will live.” But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:25-29 NIV).
Jesus had given an answer that contains everything essential to Christian life. If it were practiced universally, the problems of humanity would be largely eliminated. There is no need to search for hidden doctrines. Jesus said plainly, “Do this and you will live.” Anything that distracts from this active love is a betrayal of His teaching.
All human problems are addressed when each of us focuses on solving the problems of our neighbor, who in turn focuses on solving ours. The opposite invites the very conflicts that lead to death. This is the core of taking responsibility for one’s environment. To make the meaning clear, Jesus told a parable:
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his donkey, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ ‘Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?’ The expert in the law replied, ‘The one who had mercy on him.’ Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise’” (Luke 10:30-37 NIV).
The Good Samaritan did not blame the victim for traveling at the wrong time, nor did he curse the robbers. He simply took full responsibility. He sacrificed his own schedule and resources to save a life. Was he rich? That question can only be asked by those who have not yet grasped the meaning of responsibility. He had not budgeted for the emergency.
He could easily have been the one attacked. The question of whether he could afford the unplanned expense was answered not by his bank account but by his compassionate heart. He committed himself to covering even future costs for a stranger. His focus was on the responsibility at hand, not on whether the injured man could later repay him.
He needed no instructions. He was an independent person whose happiness was tied to the well-being of others. The question before us, as we approach another independence celebration, is this: Are we independent enough to accept full responsibility for our environment? The actual meaning of responsibility is accepting accountability for the wrongs in our environment, rather than shifting blame to others.
After attaining independence in 1980, what responsibility did each Zimbabwean exercise? The results suggest many assumed independence meant abandoning responsibility, leaving treacherous politicians free to misuse national resources. Blaming others for the wrongs in our environment is the clearest symptom of irresponsibility. Even as conditions worsened, many continued to blame others unreservedly while still claiming to be God-fearing.
People call themselves Christians and prayer warriors, yet they exercise no practical responsibility and even blame God for deteriorating conditions. Consider a son who marries and gains independence from his parents. He must leave their home and establish a new household with his wife. Released from parental oversight, he is free to do as he pleases. But he soon learns that independence carries a price: responsibility.
If he fails to accept it, he may be forced to return to his parents’ house—humiliating, perhaps, but unavoidable. Irresponsibility can be cruel. As a nation, we may find ourselves in a similar position, effectively inviting back our former colonial masters. It has become common to hear older generations say life was better under Ian Smith. That sentiment is a symptom of irresponsibility. Under whose responsibility was Zimbabwe after independence?
The answer settles many misunderstandings. This world operates by cause and effect. Those who say “God is in charge” while doing nothing are using piety to justify irresponsibility. That points directly to the source of our problems. The Good Samaritan took responsibility; he did not merely pray for the injured man. We do not know what the priest and the Levite thought as they passed by. As religious people, do we assume they prayed for him?
Does that sound familiar in our Christian environment? How do believers interpret Jesus’ command: “Go and do likewise”? Independence does not blame God when things go wrong; it takes responsibility by doing what ought to be done. James wrote: “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them” (James 4:17). The principle applies to everyone who claims to be independent. When things go wrong, the independent person bears responsibility. James also warned:
“Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?” (James 2:15-20 NIV).
The hollow celebration of independence for the past forty-six years should have been discarded long ago in favor of responsibility. Blaming sanctions for our troubles is another symptom of failure to take responsibility. A national clean-up is needed—not only of streets but of mindsets. Every citizen must accept responsibility before the next independence celebration. Celebrations should be accompanied by concrete achievements born of responsibility, because life is given to us today in order to correct the future. Past mistakes must be avoided, but the greater task is to craft better ideas for the future.
Independence can be enjoyed only when we understand the discipline of responsibility; without it, independence cannot endure. The delusion of accumulating personal wealth through corruption is disastrous. Survival is found in recognizing that independence exists to instill responsibility. The blame game, however much it has created polarization, is a sign of failure. We all failed as a nation, so there is no need to blame Robert Mugabe or anyone else. In 1980, at independence, responsibility was bestowed on every Zimbabwean—including those not yet born.
Unfortunately, many assumed independence simply meant placing black faces in leadership while continuing to blame God when things went wrong. Jesus used the parable of the Good Samaritan to show that responsibility must be exercised without blaming anyone. Many people think leaving everything to God is piety, but it is actually irresponsibility. God was not impressed by the priest and the Levite who avoided the injured man.
Though not portrayed as a devout believer, the Good Samaritan outclassed the religious leaders. The lesson is clear: there is no independence without responsibility. The sooner our mindsets change, the better. The greatest law remains to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Zimbabwe can become a blessed nation overnight if everyone is encouraged to practice responsibility for the survival and well-being of future generations. There is no need to remain in confusion.
Common refrains within Christian circles often echo phrases like, “Let us pray for God to change the minds of our leaders,” or “This is an evil world—let us pray for divine intervention.” Others, desperate amid prevailing circumstances, commit to regular all-night prayer vigils. Yet, this crucial discernment is precisely what eludes many devout individuals—the realization that meaningful correction must begin with their own direct actions.
This oversight is vividly exposed by the parable of the Good Samaritan. The scriptures record no instance of the Samaritan pausing to pray for the injured man’s healing; rather, he immediately tends to his wounds and transports him to an inn. He neither prays for the medical expenses nor promises to launch a fundraiser for future bills. The injured party was a stranger to him—and yet, this lack of relationship did not deter him. For the Good Samaritan, taking full responsibility meant discarding every conceivable justification for inaction and confronting the pressing problem head-on.
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilisation, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from the current state of economic depression into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, relieving those who have witnessed the strings of unworkable solutions, leading to the current economic and social decay. Most Zimbabweans should find the book to be a long-awaited providential oasis of hope, in a simple conversational tone.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99