As the title says. This might be very implausible But what i want to know is the effects. Maybe in the late 60s
Last edited:
WI: Rhodesia Allows Moderate Blacks/Natives in power
- Thread starter Slime_blob
- Start date
Rhodesia won't be called an ethnostate. Probably the UN removes the sanctions. It could in theory survive to 2021.
Hmm so would Zim/ RHodesia be better, the fact that they have a literate native population maybe at least 60 - 80% of Africans went to primary school during the Minority rule.
And what would happen to the radicals like ZANU or ZAPU would the movement die
Frankly, it would still be around. Mugabe is the type of person who wants to eject the white majority rule.
Land, land, land.
Land reform was an indispensable necessity of ANY alternative to the Smith regime. The fact that Mugabe fucked it up on a grand scale (and, by the way, that wouldn't have happened if Blair hadn't reneged on commitments made to help fund a realistic and non-violent land reform) doesn't change that fact.
But any alternative to the Smith regime and what came after is only possible with very early one-man-one-vote. And that was never going to be conceded by any white settler government. The only thing that could have done that would have been if somebody in London had had the sense to say "alright, if you won't play nicely with the other boys and girls, mummy will take the ball away".
Land reform was an indispensable necessity of ANY alternative to the Smith regime. The fact that Mugabe fucked it up on a grand scale (and, by the way, that wouldn't have happened if Blair hadn't reneged on commitments made to help fund a realistic and non-violent land reform) doesn't change that fact.
But any alternative to the Smith regime and what came after is only possible with very early one-man-one-vote. And that was never going to be conceded by any white settler government. The only thing that could have done that would have been if somebody in London had had the sense to say "alright, if you won't play nicely with the other boys and girls, mummy will take the ball away".
Chris Nation
Banned
Thats what happened. They declared UDI. Are you suggesting Vulcan bombers over Salisbury?
You'd have to start way, way early to make such a move work, as you're certainly not getting that with a white population of max 270,000 (which was about Rhodesia's peak white population) and with Ian Smith around. The Rhodesian Front was created and UDI happened entirely because of the idea of sharing power was unacceptable to them.
And as was pointed about above, land reform would be absolutely necessary. A small minority cannot own the overwhelmingly majority of land in a nation and not have it be a source of trouble at some point.
And as was pointed about above, land reform would be absolutely necessary. A small minority cannot own the overwhelmingly majority of land in a nation and not have it be a source of trouble at some point.
What the Rhodesians could have and should have done, was to :
- either create autonomous regions for the various native peoples (a.k.a. Bantustans) and make them reasonable
- or just say, like yeah, were Rhodesia-Zimbabwe, so we will be gradually teaching the natives about representative democracy, with, lets say 20% of the Black seats in the first election, then 25% in the next, and so forth , until Black-White MP ratio reached 50:50.
- Alternatively, they could have said, like, look Rhodesia is multiethnic country, and you know what, we will have a bicameral system, with the Upper Chamber having each ethnic group allowed to veto any harmful bill , so effectively the Rhodesians would technically allow majority rule, but would use their vetoes to block any harmful legislation.
And the Africans would see through your proposed sham democracy and fight against it, as happened historically.
I wouldn't say that would be absolutely the case. Quite possible, yes, but not a certainty. A lot would depend on the circumstances and whether race relations in general are improving in Rhodesia. Get the general state of race relations moving in a positive direction and get support from other powers and it may well be possible.
If race relations are better, why are white people proposing a sham democracy?
Because they would have next to no political power otherwise due to being enormously outnumbered, and its not hard to see in post-colonial Africa why that could be a serious issue for them.
Similar as it would require a very great change in a group's fundamental mindset.
The White Settlers weren't interested in committing genocide but they were intent on retaining power and privilege based on race and exploitation of the majority African peoples.
Difficult to see how they would behave much differently when threatened with major rule as the price of independence.
Maybe they could have applied to become another state of the old Union of South Africa?
Chris Nation
Banned
This is perhaps the most interesting POD in Southern African history. Rhodesian settlers rejected the option to join South Africa in 1922. If they'd joined, the British government would almost certainly have made the pre-1931 arrangement wherein the British High Commission territories in Southern Africa (Bechuanaland, Swaziland, and Basutoland) were effectively South African protectorates (run by the Governor-General of South Africa) formal. There were serious considerations of doing this anyway, even after the Statute of Westminster.
In such a scenario, the English South Africans retain a far greater level of political power. The National Party likely doesn't win in 1948. However, the United Party would likely remain pretty conservative, instead of metamorphising into a quasi-liberal party in the late 1950s.
The addition of millions more Africans into South Africa, combined with a slightly more moderate (and more Anglo) government make it hard to predict how this turns out.
The British government is certainly far less enamoured with any suggestions of boycotting, divesting, or sanctioning South Africa. South Africa itself is likely far more powerful in such a scenario.
Last edited:
From all I've read over the years the people that ran Rhodesia post WW 2 didn't even want working class Europeans and DPs, they liked their society the way it was, no pesky trade unions or multiracial blocs, or striving whites trying to climb the ladder and muddy the demographics, it would take quite a shock in the fifties to get them to allow Blacks with rights, even though it was doable, African society is in general pretty conservative socially, the Rhodesians could have created a House Lords type Assembly, multiracial, with Chiefs, Veterans, Farmers and Ranchers and landowners, but again, why would they?