This is a study of how certain value loaded political terms are used in Zimbabwean Parliamentary debate. Before 1980 it is argued that aspects of lexical choice and an individual's sociopolitical position were extremely closely related, especially in the case of "white Rhodesians". There was also a marked lack of ambiguity in the use of value loaded terms at this time. In contemporary Zimbabwean House of Assembly, however, terms which became popularized when the new government came to power in 1980 are used with considerable ambiguity and contestability in order to further specific strategies. Though correlations between the choice of lexical units and individuals' positions in the social structure have been identified as "sociolinguistic variables" (Downes 1984, 75), it is argued that an analysis of this type of correlation should lead us to an analysis of how these lexical units or "terms" are used by individual speakers in a micro-political process. I hypothesize that the ambiguity and contestability which encompass certain key terms used in the Zimbabwean House contribute to their being used as strategies to achieve individual or party goals. I show that the terms are manipulated by individuals in various contexts, and that the normative connotations of terms, that is what the terms "ought" to mean, is not consistent with the ways in which they are used. This, in turn, has an effect on how people think the terms should be used. This process of language change exposes the interface between language usage and social life. Though not reducible to a single "correct" interpretation, it does provide rich material for the analysis of culture.