It was a mixed bag. There were good things and there were bad things. It should have been done more slowly and more efficiently: Rhodesia is an example of the only place where this almost happened. Ian Smith, had he closely followed the early Canadian model could have kept Rhodesia on the right track.
He could have achieved his vision of an 'equal partnership' between blacks and whites simply by adopting a model of parliament with a Senate consisting of wealthy land owners who served for life; and a House of Commons elected in completely free elections, without basis of race. As long as he gave them enough power, he could have packed the Senate with 'his people' as a check on black nationalists. It could have been augmented if they straightened out the independence issue and the UK recognized their independence within the Commonwealth; and the Queen appointed him or one of his cronies as Governor-General. When there was a problem, he could have used the Senate and the stronger then usual Governor-General to keep things in order; and slowly work their way to a more usual model of government.
This is an interesting proposal, but I would wager that the chances of Mugabe and Nkomo accepting this as being close to zero. It's a good approach, but by the time Smith was willing to talk about sharing power, Mugabe and Nkomo were dead-set on majority rule and that Thatcher was not about to side with another bunch of racists at a time when she was getting hammered for her attempts to stop the world from landing on South Africa.