What if the Crown-Colony of Southern Rhodesia had never issued the Unilateral Declaration of Independance, and stayed a British colony, though also stayed hostile to the idea of majority rule?
As I recall, the Rhodesian Constitution was technically not racially discriminatory, but instead discriminated based on wealth, so most of the votes went to the richer whites... also, the Constitution required the support of both the colony and Britain to be amended, so if the whites remain hostile... International pressure will be harder to put on SR if it means sanctioning the UK too, as most countries will not want to do that. I'd assume Britain would try to put pressure on Rhodesia as well, and keep it's NIBMY (No Independance Before Majority Rule) policy as well.
As I recall, the Rhodesian Constitution was technically not racially discriminatory, but instead discriminated based on wealth, so most of the votes went to the richer whites... also, the Constitution required the support of both the colony and Britain to be amended, so if the whites remain hostile... International pressure will be harder to put on SR if it means sanctioning the UK too, as most countries will not want to do that. I'd assume Britain would try to put pressure on Rhodesia as well, and keep it's NIBMY (No Independance Before Majority Rule) policy as well.