During a two-proposition referendum held in 1969, the proposal for severing all remaining ties to the British Crown passed by a majority of 61,130 votes to 14,327. Rhodesia declared itself a republic on 2 March 1970.
Impact of UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence)
The years following Rhodesia's UDI saw an unfolding series of economic, military, and political pressures placed on the country that eventually brought about majority (black) rule, a totality of these factors rather than any one the reason for introducing change. In 2005, a conference at the London School of Economics that discussed Rhodesia's independence concluded that UDI was sparked by an existing racial conflict complicated by Cold War intrigues.
Critics of UDI maintained that Ian Smith intended to safeguard the privileges of an entrenched colonial ruling class at the expense of the impoverished black population. Smith defended his actions by claiming that the black Rhodesian majority was too inexperienced at the time to participate in the complex administrative process of what was, by contemporary African standards, a reasonably industrialised state.
Ian Smith was a pragmatic visionary. The first Rhodesian-born Prime Minister, he saw what was, what is, and what could be. He managed to hold the line until 1980, when out of allies, friendly support, international pressure, and covert intrigue from abroad, negotiations led to a vote resulting in the 'election' of ZANU's Robert Mugabe.
Like South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was operational for the first 20 years. Without a solid middle class with the necessary technical and managerial skills, infrastructure started breaking down. With no maintenance or replacement possible, the current regime became the focus of the public's ire. To divert attention, and 'blame the colonials', in 2000, white-owned farms were seized and 'redistributed' to former ZANU.
Thus we are here, 24 years later, reading about poor, unfortunate Zimbabwe, who had it all, then blew it. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying no one could see it coming.
I do question though, for the Africa continent, in its entirety, is there one country, just one, run by an crazed ignorant dictator or not, that could be considered a success by modern standards today?
Ian Smith was a pragmatic visionary. The first Rhodesian-born Prime Minister, he saw what was, what is, and what could be. He managed to hold the line until 1980, when out of allies, friendly support, international pressure, and covert intrigue from abroad, negotiations led to a vote resulting in the 'election' of ZANU's Robert Mugabe.
Like South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was operational for the first 20 years. Without a solid middle class with the necessary technical and managerial skills, infrastructure started breaking down. With no maintenance or replacement possible, the current regime became the focus of the public's ire. To divert attention, and 'blame the colonials', in 2000, white-owned farms were seized and 'redistributed' to former ZANU.
Thus we are here, 24 years later, reading about poor, unfortunate Zimbabwe, who had it all, then blew it. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying no one could see it coming.
I do question though, for the Africa continent, in its entirety, is there one country, just one, run by an crazed ignorant dictator or not, that could be considered a success by modern standards today?