I don’t think they had the same rigid system SA did, but the country was ruled by whites with most land owned by whites, so blacks lived as serfs from what I understand. One difference was probably that Rhodesians were British-descended, while many of the whites in SA were Dutch-descended. After winning the Boer War, Britain made sure not to alienate the losers; they needed them to keep the grip on the country.
They worked and ate and raised families. Now they are raped, killed, burned, starved (because those farms that had been built up from nothing over generations by white settlers were taken over by Mugabe suck-ups and family members and they didn't plant, they can't, even if they cared to lift a fat finger because there is no seed, no machines, no livestock -- it was all destroyed or eaten). Now, if they're lucky, the black captives of brutal dictator thug Mugabe can escape across the border to South Africa.
They’re not serfs unless they’re legally tied to the land, unable to leave and ply their trades elsewhere. And to whomever happens to be the lord of the land at that time. Make no mistake, serfdom is slavery. It’s not chattel slavery, it’s not indentured servitude, but it’s a kind all its own I suppose.
Not that you wouldn’t know all that already, mate.