D
DiscoDancer
Methinks that you are in danger of supporting Ian Smith's assumption:
"Smith and his supporters continued to defend their actions, however, by claiming that the Rhodesian majority was far too inexperienced at the time to effectively manage a developed nation"
This was suggested as a way to maintain and safeguard the privileges of an entrenched colonial elite at the expense of the impoverished African community.
And we now know that that attitude propelled (South) Rhodesia into a near civil war. The guerella warfare almost crippled the Rhodesian economy in the 70's.
Because the defence spending of Ian Smith's government increased to nearly 50% of its GDP during the 'civil' war the new government of Zimbabwe was left with a $500 million national debt.
It may have been the breadbasket prior to the '60's. After the 60's and Ian Smith's UDI it was crippled by economic sanctions (and political and military sanctions). Although SA was a major trading partner, SA was also becoming crippled by sanctions. Although, to be fair, it was more the cultural and political sanctions that brought SA to its senses.
The world was vehemently against apartheid!
It seems that some have not yet woken up to that fact!
Rhodesia managed its economy by the near slavery of its indigenous people (about 92% of the population). Thus its labour costs were unsustainably low. Added to that, only a fraction of the "white" social budget (Education, Health, etc) was spent on 92% of the population. So the majority of the people were unable to feed or clothe themselves properly. (There was a positive policy of under-educating the indigenous population in an attempt to prevent their awareness)
Hence the ability of Rhodesia to export so much of its produce.
Bear in mind that South Rhodesia had about a 7% white population, SA had about 16% white population. (including South and North Rhodesia/Zambia and Nyasaland it comes down to 4% white and 96% black, coloured, Indian.)
Put that into context of the Sunni V Shia muslim conflict in Iraq where Shia muslims are about 60% and Sunni muslims are about 40%. Then cast your mind back to the propoganda by the western countries about the unfairness of the minority ruling the majority.
Again, to be fair, the British Governement insisted on majority rule (as one condition of several) for Rhodesia to become independent. Hence Ian Smith's unilateral declaration.
So next time you wish to compare one situation with another, at least consider most of the influences, not just the ones that suit your conclusion.
BTW, I'm no fan of Mugabe and his violent and corrupt practices. But in the context of their struggle for majority rule, it's easy to see how the hot-headed, impatient, discontented factions of the political parties gain support and rise to power.
Perhaps this is more of the fault of the minority rulers trying to cling to power instead of organising a timely and gradual transfer of government.
