alternatehistory.com

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?
Top