Online Reporter
Dr Alexander Rusero
Recent remarks by Primary and Secondary Education Minister, Torerayi Moyo in Parliament, announcing that the Zimbabwe School Examinations Council will become the mandatory examination body for all schools by 2027 have ignited predictable controversy.
At the centre of this reaction lies a familiar anxiety that removing the dominance of Cambridge Assessment International Education amounts to lowering standards.
This argument is not only flawed; it exposes a deeper crisis of consciousness, one rooted in colonial hangovers and epistemic dependency.
The issue at stake is not merely about examinations. It is about power, who defines knowledge, who validates it, and whose worldview shapes the intellectual formation of Zimbabwe’s next generations.
The perception that Cambridge Examinations Body represents a “gold standard” is not a neutral judgment. It is a product of historical conditioning. Colonial systems did not simply occupy land; they occupied the mind.
They constructed hierarchies of knowledge in which the coloniser’s frameworks were elevated as universal, while African knowledge systems were marginalised, if not erased.
To insist today that Cambridge must remain the benchmark is to reproduce that hierarchy. It is to suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that Zimbabwe cannot trust itself to define excellence. That is not quality assurance; that is epistemic submission.
No nation that aspires to genuine sovereignty outsources the certification of its intellectual capital. The United Kingdom does not rely on external examination bodies to validate its learners.
Neither does China, India, or Brazil. Why then should Zimbabwe continue to anchor its educational legitimacy in a foreign institution? An appendage of a former colonial?
Education is never neutral. It is the most powerful instrument through which a nation reproduces itself, its values, priorities and worldview.
Every curriculum carries an ideological imprint. Every examination system reinforces what counts as knowledge and what does not.
A dual examination system, where ZIMSEC coexists with Cambridge, creates a fractured epistemic environment.
It sends contradictory signals, one rooted in national aspirations, the other in inherited colonial frameworks.
In practice, Cambridge is often positioned, especially in elite private schools, as the superior pathway, while ZIMSEC is treated as a fallback option.
This hierarchy is not accidental. It mirrors colonial social stratification, where access to “international” standards becomes a marker of privilege. The result is an education system that reproduces inequality while undermining national coherence.
If Zimbabwe is serious about nation-building, it cannot afford this duality. A unified examination system is not just an administrative reform; it is a statement of ideological clarity.
Forty-six years after independence, the argument that ZIMSEC is somehow inadequate is both outdated and unproductive. Like any institution, it has faced challenges, issues of leakage, administration and perception. But these are not unique to Zimbabwe; examination bodies worldwide grapple with similar concerns.
The appropriate response is not abandonment, it is investment and reform. ZIMSEC must be strengthened through robust quality assurance mechanisms that ensure credibility and consistency; technological integration to minimise leakages and enhance efficiency as well as capacity building for examiners, moderators, and administrators
These are the practical interventions that address real concerns without resorting to the illusion that quality must be imported. To continue privileging Cambridge instead of fixing ZIMSEC is to choose dependency over responsibility.
At its core, this debate is about epistemic justice, the right of a people to define, produce, and validate their own knowledge systems. Zimbabwe cannot achieve meaningful development while its education system remains externally validated. Knowledge sovereignty is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for innovation, policy coherence and cultural confidence.
An education system anchored in local realities is better positioned to address national development priorities, integrate indigenous knowledge systems into formal learning and foster critical thinking grounded in lived experience rather than imported abstractions
Cambridge, by design, cannot serve these purposes. It is structured around contexts, histories, and priorities that are not Zimbabwe’s own. At best, it offers a generic global curriculum; at worst, it perpetuates intellectual alienation.
One of the most persistent arguments in favour of Cambridge is that it offers “international recognition.” This claim deserves scrutiny. First, recognition is not an inherent property of a certificate, it is constructed through diplomatic, academic, and institutional agreements.
There is nothing preventing Zimbabwe from ensuring that ZIMSEC qualifications are globally recognised through strategic partnerships. In essence, ZIMSEC has always been competitive for admissions to further education or secure employment abroad.
Second, the notion that international validation is the ultimate goal reflects a deeper insecurity. Education should first serve national development. Global mobility is important, but it should not come at the cost of local relevance and autonomy.
Countries that have invested in their own systems such as Finland or South Korea did not achieve global respect by outsourcing their standards. They built credibility through consistency, investment, and confidence in their own institutions. Zimbabwe can do the same.
Much of the resistance to ZIMSEC’s centrality is not about evidence; it is about sentiment. There is a lingering nostalgia for colonial structures, often disguised as a concern for “standards.” This nostalgia manifests in subtle ways, mainly through the belief that anything foreign is inherently superior and the assumption that local institutions are incapable of excellence.
These attitudes are undermine national confidence and stall progress. They also perpetuate a form of psychological dependency that is incompatible with true independence. Discarding Cambridge is not an act of isolationism; it is an act of self-definition.
The call to make ZIMSEC mandatory by 2027 is therefore both timely and necessary. But it should not stop there. Zimbabwe must be bold enough to fully transition away from Cambridge.
This does not mean shutting doors to global engagement. It means redefining the terms of that engagement from a position of agency rather than subordination.
A clear roadmap should include phasing out Cambridge examinations across all schools; aligning university admissions with ZIMSEC qualifications; strengthening international recognition of ZIMSEC through bilateral agreements and investing heavily in curriculum development and assessment innovation.
Such a transition requires political will, institutional discipline, and public buy-in. It will not be without challenges. But the alternative, continued epistemic dependency, is far more costly.
Zimbabwe stands at a critical juncture. The decision to centre ZIMSEC is not just about examinations; it is about the kind of nation Zimbabwe chooses to be. Will it continue to measure itself through the lens of its former coloniser? Or will it assert its right to define excellence on its own terms?
ZIMSEC must not only be mandatory, it must be embraced as the authoritative expression of Zimbabwe’s educational vision.
Cambridge, having served its historical role, no longer aligns with the country’s aspirations.
Its continued presence sustains a false hierarchy that Zimbabwe can no longer afford. True independence is not declared; it is practiced. And in education, that practice begins with reclaiming the power to certify one’s own knowledge.
2027 should mark not just a policy shift, but a decisive break from the past, and the confident emergence of a sovereign epistemic future.
Dr Alexander Rusero is the Head of Department of International Relations College of Social Sciences, Theology, Humanities and Education at Africa University and a board member of Zimpapers (Pvt) Ltd.
