The Northern Rhodesia general election of September 1962 (followed by by-elections in December for unfilled seats) was the last to be held under the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It took place under a new constitution that gave all Africans the vote and greatly expanded African participation in the legislature, but still reserved 15 of 45 constituencies for a mostly-white "upper roll" of voters.
The election was fought primarily by three parties: Kenneth Kaunda's United National Independence Party (UNIP), Harry Nkumbula's Zambia African National Congress (ANC), and the mostly-white, pro-federation United Federal Party (UFP). The UNIP got 60 percent of the vote, but due to the gerrymandering created by the upper and lower rolls, won just 14 seats. The UFP won 16 seats on 21 percent of the vote, while the ANC won seven seats on 17 percent. Eight seats were left vacant because no candidate received a sufficient number of crossover votes.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Prior to the election, the ANC, which was a "moderate" party supporting a gradual transition to self-rule, formed an electoral pact with the UFP. However, as confirmed by David Mulford in his book on the election, this pact was highly controversial within the party, and was rejected by more than 125 delegates. After the election, IOTL, Nkumbula decided to rescind the pact and form a government with UNIP instead, becoming a junior partner in a cabinet led by Kaunda.
But what if Nkumbula had held to the pact instead, forming a "national government" with the UFP? The UFP was willing to give Nkumbula the post of prime minister, but it wanted half the cabinet, and it would have been the de facto senior partner due to its greater number of seats.
1. What effect on the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Malawi was already a lost cause by this time, but an ANC-UFP coalition would keep Northern Rhodesia in, at least temporarily. However, the Rhodesian Front was already in power in Southern Rhodesia by this time, and given their absolute opposition to even the diluted majority rule that was being implemented in Northern Rhodesia, my guess is that the UDI crisis would still take place. At that point, the federation would end by default, albeit a couple of years later than OTL.
2. What would happen to Northern Rhodesia's legal status after 1965? There would be no more federation, and Britain wasn't interested in keeping it as a colony. Would the British government of the time consider the 1962 constitution enough of a majority-rule charter to grant independence, or would it push through a new constitution similar to the OTL 1964 one? A new charter would be opposed by both the UFP and ANC - but supported by a large majority of African voters.
3. How long could this state of affairs last? Kaunda and the UNIP would justly feel robbed, and the national government would have a terrible time meeting the expectations of both its white and black voters. The black voters would want land reform and universal suffrage, and while Africans in Northern Rhodesia weren't dispossessed to quite the same extent as in Southern Rhodesia, they were still land-hungry, and I doubt the UFP would countenance anything nearly enough to satisfy them. Nkumbula would want to show some progress, but he'd be held back at every turn.
There are several possibilities. The utopian one is that, as the crisis in Southern Rhodesia gets worse and as the ANC makes noises about crossing the floor, the Northern Rhodesian UFP has a "come to Jesus" moment and supports real progressive reform. Another one would involve the ANC getting fed up and actually crossing the floor to join Kaunda. A third would see the government hang on until 1966, at which point the UNIP would probably scoop up most of the African votes that went to the ANC in 1962 and win a majority despite the electoral rules. And the anti-utopian option is for Kaunda, enraged at his stolen victory, to join Mugabe in the bush, and for Northern Rhodesia to go UDI and erupt in flames like its southern neighbor.
Any thoughts on which of these is the most likely, or how else it might play out?
The election was fought primarily by three parties: Kenneth Kaunda's United National Independence Party (UNIP), Harry Nkumbula's Zambia African National Congress (ANC), and the mostly-white, pro-federation United Federal Party (UFP). The UNIP got 60 percent of the vote, but due to the gerrymandering created by the upper and lower rolls, won just 14 seats. The UFP won 16 seats on 21 percent of the vote, while the ANC won seven seats on 17 percent. Eight seats were left vacant because no candidate received a sufficient number of crossover votes.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Prior to the election, the ANC, which was a "moderate" party supporting a gradual transition to self-rule, formed an electoral pact with the UFP. However, as confirmed by David Mulford in his book on the election, this pact was highly controversial within the party, and was rejected by more than 125 delegates. After the election, IOTL, Nkumbula decided to rescind the pact and form a government with UNIP instead, becoming a junior partner in a cabinet led by Kaunda.
But what if Nkumbula had held to the pact instead, forming a "national government" with the UFP? The UFP was willing to give Nkumbula the post of prime minister, but it wanted half the cabinet, and it would have been the de facto senior partner due to its greater number of seats.
1. What effect on the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Malawi was already a lost cause by this time, but an ANC-UFP coalition would keep Northern Rhodesia in, at least temporarily. However, the Rhodesian Front was already in power in Southern Rhodesia by this time, and given their absolute opposition to even the diluted majority rule that was being implemented in Northern Rhodesia, my guess is that the UDI crisis would still take place. At that point, the federation would end by default, albeit a couple of years later than OTL.
2. What would happen to Northern Rhodesia's legal status after 1965? There would be no more federation, and Britain wasn't interested in keeping it as a colony. Would the British government of the time consider the 1962 constitution enough of a majority-rule charter to grant independence, or would it push through a new constitution similar to the OTL 1964 one? A new charter would be opposed by both the UFP and ANC - but supported by a large majority of African voters.
3. How long could this state of affairs last? Kaunda and the UNIP would justly feel robbed, and the national government would have a terrible time meeting the expectations of both its white and black voters. The black voters would want land reform and universal suffrage, and while Africans in Northern Rhodesia weren't dispossessed to quite the same extent as in Southern Rhodesia, they were still land-hungry, and I doubt the UFP would countenance anything nearly enough to satisfy them. Nkumbula would want to show some progress, but he'd be held back at every turn.
There are several possibilities. The utopian one is that, as the crisis in Southern Rhodesia gets worse and as the ANC makes noises about crossing the floor, the Northern Rhodesian UFP has a "come to Jesus" moment and supports real progressive reform. Another one would involve the ANC getting fed up and actually crossing the floor to join Kaunda. A third would see the government hang on until 1966, at which point the UNIP would probably scoop up most of the African votes that went to the ANC in 1962 and win a majority despite the electoral rules. And the anti-utopian option is for Kaunda, enraged at his stolen victory, to join Mugabe in the bush, and for Northern Rhodesia to go UDI and erupt in flames like its southern neighbor.
Any thoughts on which of these is the most likely, or how else it might play out?
) then I think three is the most interesting.