I think it is an absurd idea. Molefhe's belief is a result of a dangerous misreading of both the liberation history of Africa and authentic socialist traditions. Molefhe heretically mentions Mugabe in the same breath as the beloved martyrs of African liberation such as Patrice Lumumba and Amilcar Cabral. Molefhe states that Mugabe, speaking at ZANU Congress, made a statement to the effect that he was a socialist. Mugabe can only be believed when he says he is "catholic" not socialist. Molefhe offers us a sanitised Mugabe when he writes, "He [Mugabe] was socialist amongst a gang of the ruling elite that was soon tempted to abandon socialism for personal exploitation of the gains of the nationalist struggle for majority rule."
In the Zimbabwean anti-colonial struggle, a robust attempt was made to adopt and adapt Marxist lexicon in the political discussions and rhetoric of a movement pursuing the limited goals of national self-determination and the moderate re-distribution of resources. Robert Mugabe, in his Our War of Liberation: Speeches, Articles, Interviews 1976-1979, states "The Party has accepted scientific socialism as its guiding philosophy...We...have a duty to read and study what the fathers of that theory actually said. We also have to examine that theory in the light of our history and environment of our country." The above statement is a textbook example of paying lip service or spouting what you do not practice. The Mugabe administration even fell into the habit of referring to each other as comrades. There is an excellent 1983 book written by A. Astrow titled Zimbabwe: A Revolution That Lost Its Way? Astrow argues that it is the absence of genuine socialist politics in the struggle for liberation that allowed a group of educated African petty bourgeoisie, to misdirect a movement that had the potential for greater liberation.
