Rhodesia as full Dominion and then Independent

Let's assume that sometime between 1923-1950 the British colony of Southern Rhodesia is given full dominion status. In 1923, Rhodesia rejected union with South Africa, but gained internal autonomy. It was thus treated like a Dominion in many respects, but Britain controlled its external policy. Because of that when Rhodesia declared its independence, Britain did not recognize it and the rest of the world followed suit. If Rhodesia had been a legal dominion, there would not have been anything that prevented recognition of an independent Rhodesia.

For practical purposes, the history of South Rhodesia would be mostly the same until 1960 or so. There would not have been the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland from 1953-1963, but that was a failure anyway.

ITTL, Southern Rhodesia is already independent when decolonization comes to the British colonies in Africa. It maintains its policy of white minority rule, but unlike South Africa is fairly progressive and does not have apartheid. Black Africans have civil rights, but severe limits on their participation in the political process. However, in theory the idea is that over time "responsible" blacks will be enfranchised and eventually achieve majority rule. Whites make up about 6-8% of the population. However, there is a multiracial electorate and parliament although black participation is minimal. It does include the tribal chiefs as well as other African elites. In Rhodesian minds however, their approach is non-racial while African nationalists are pursuing a purely racial (pan-African) approach.

Since Rhodesia is already independent as a Dominion, there is no UDI and no reason to become a Republic. Although British attitudes towards African majority rule changes, it has no impact in Rhodesia who continue their own policies. South Africa withdraws from the Commonwealth in 1961, but Rhodesia does not. Although they do so the other African crown colonies become independent. When Northern Rhodesia becomes independent and changes their name to Zambia in 1964. Southern Rhodesia officially becomes Rhodesia.

At this point what happens? While they are in a similar situation to Ian Smith's Rhodesia from 1965-1980, there are major differences as Rhodesia is an officially recognized government and country. It can deal in international trade and earn foreign currency. It can open military equipment on the open market. It will probably even receive international development aid for its first decade or so before world opinion turns against it. It will avoid the worse of international political pressure to change its ways for quite some time. It will not have the stigma as South Africa has, and can likely hold out longer than South Africa. It will also be easier for white Rhodesians to develop indigenous black support for the Rhodesian state since it does not have the stigma as a pariah state, and of course is officially committed to allowing black participation in government. There will still be a Bush War, and the surrounding African countries will still be hostile. However, Rhodesia will have official relations with Portugal (who control Angola and Mozambique) and South Africa so the Bush War will probably be contained.

How do things develop? While black enfranchisement is inevitable, the speed and nature is variable. Will Rhodesia leave the Commonwealth as well? Will sanctions ever be implied? How will the economy develop? How long can Rhodesia balance improvement and development of the black majority while maintaining white minority rule? At what point does black majority rule happen?
 
"Let's assume that sometime between 1923-1950 the British colony of Southern Rhodesia is given full dominion status. In 1923, Rhodesia rejected union with South Africa, but gained internal autonomy. It was thus treated like a Dominion in many respects, but Britain controlled its external policy. Because of that when Rhodesia declared its independence, Britain did not recognize it and the rest of the world followed suit. If Rhodesia had been a legal dominion, there would not have been anything that prevented recognition of an independent Rhodesia."

One major problem with Southern Rhodesia's recognition as a dominion is that it had such a small population. New Zealand, its closest peer in size, had a population of 1.4 million in 1921, the Maori making up five percent of the dominion's population. Newfoundland, never quite gaining full recognition as a dominion but being virtually self-governing, had a total population of 260 thousand people (PDF format) in 1921, almost all descended from British and Irish migrants.

Southern Rhodesia at the end of the 1920s had a total population of just under a million, including just forty thousand or so white settlers. This is incredibly small. Why would dominion status be extended to such a small population?

"Since Rhodesia is already independent as a Dominion, there is no UDI and no reason to become a Republic. "

Why not? Admittedly there wouldn't be an Afrikaner majority among Rhodesian whites, but there would still be substantial external criticism of Rhodesia's policies towards its black majority. Why would Rhodesia not receive this criticism, just like its southern neighbour? Why not eventual sanctions?

The big change, as I see it, is that Rhodesia would have already secured recognition as an independent state, something that was lacking in OTL. This will be an advantage, but will it be enough to change things substantively?
 
Southern Rhodesia at the end of the 1920s had a total population of just under a million, including just forty thousand or so white settlers. This is incredibly small. Why would dominion status be extended to such a small population?

I don't think that would be a huge consideration, but Newfoundland only had 230,000 at its Dominion status year after 400 years of European exploration and immigration. Rhodesia was a very different situation. And if the black population were included it pushes 770,000. No matter how you cut it, it would be a very different situation. I would think that the time would either be a few years after So. Rhodesia turned union with South Africa down or soon after WW2. So. Rhodesia would have proved itself during 2 wars, would have already shown 30 to 50 years of progress amongst the tribes and was also totally self-sufficient.
If So. Rhodesia were allowed Dominion Status, I also think you would see less backlash from the Europeans so that the earlier constitutions would be left in place. The earlier constitution did not mention race at all and the 61 that the UK said would be the basis of independence and then reneged opened a clear door to equality of rule and eventual majority rule rather quickly (I think less than 30 years if everyone played ball)...With the White Tribe never much more than 5% OTL and no matter what, I couldn't see it get much bigger than 10% only around 10-15 % of the population would have to participate in the modern economy and have a bit of European education to be the majority of voters. It would probably take a 20% + for one party to be able to garner enough support to form a government as the tribal rivalries would never allow unity behind just one party (unless you are Mugabe and willing to kill as many as it takes). If the SRh was a dominion with something like the 61 constitution say in 1948 or 49 I would think that blacks could have a government easily by the 1980 date that Lancaster House took. The war itself put a huge hitch in the efforts to educate and develop the economy in the TTL's. The terrorists frequently made the hardship they blamed on the government by destroying cattle dipping stations, disrupting schools and medical missions, and as they did later land mine major roads to deter commerce.
Of course, the communists still may have been able to stir up some young educated Africans with get power now schemes and we may still end up with the situation though it may have taken longer since Rhodesia as a more independent state would have not been embargoed as early as in the OTL if a similar Bush War arises. Before Mozambique fell Rhodesia would have had a lot of commerce going on with the outside world and more modern military equipment before the Carnation Revolution. I for one would love to see someone pursue a real timeline on this. But, I am not the man to do so.
Black Fox, go for it. I would be for an after WW2 date.
 
"I don't think that would be a huge consideration, but Newfoundland only had 230,000 at its Dominion status year after 400 years of European exploration and immigration. Rhodesia was a very different situation."

Yes. Rhodesia had one-fifth the population of Newfoundland, and a vastly larger population of natives who were to be marginalized. Southern Rhodesia was immensely less attractive a candidate for dominion status than Newfoundland, never mind New Zealand.

Why would this change?
 
Top