Rhodesian WI, POD c. 1955: Make South Rhodesian Prime Minister Garfield Todd a political genius.
OTL Todd was a liberal visionary who dreamed of allowing Rhodesia's emerging black middle class to become junior partners in white rule. Understand that this was not a plan for black majority rule! The idea was to co-opt the wealthiest and most educated blacks into governance, giving them a big enough share of power to keep them engaged while leaving the white minority firmly in charge.
But he failed to sell his plan; as of the late 1950s, most white Rhodesians fondly believed that the white 5% could continue to run things forever. His own party turned against him, and he was cast into the political wilderness.
But [handwave] let's say that Todd gets a version of his OTL plan passed. So, by 1964 wealthy and educated blacks constitute15%-20% of the electorate and hold a number of seats in Parliament. Say further that there's still a Unilateral Declaration of Independence against British rule -- but that the blacks continue to hold representation. This may be a bigger stretch than Todd's plan passing in the first place, but I think it's just barely plausible. Heck, some whites would seize upon this as a fig leaf: Britain is trying to enforce a ridiculous scheme for majority rule, instead of the sensible Todd system!
Now, we still get Mugabe and Nkomo turning guerrilla, and we still get the beginnings of a Bush War. OTL, in 1977-8 the Rhodesian Government adopted a desperate last-minute plan: to have a black PM and a black majority in Parliament, but with protections in place for the white minority. Alas, it was rather like the Confederacy arming black soldiers -- too little, far too late. By 1977 Mugabe and Nkomo were winning the Bush War, and they knew it.
But if the whites had tried this ten or even five years earlier, it would have worked a treat. By ~1970 Rhodesia had a large black middle class who'd have been happy to join with the white minority. And in an ATL where there'd already been successful power-sharing for over a decade, I think it's just barely possible this might have happened.
In which case, whoo! Things go great. Joshua Nkomo -- the now-forgotten other rebel leader -- was no fool; once he saw a stable, more-or-less popularly elected government in power, he'd come in from the bush and cut a deal. Mugabe never would, but it wouldn't matter -- cut off and isolated, he'd gradually dwindle into something like Jonas Savimbi, a violent and corrupt guerrilla leader running an ever-smaller movement into fanatical irrelevance.
So: *Rhodesia sees a peaceful, gradual transition to more-or-less majority rule in the middle 1970s, with international legitimization, the reopening of trade and the effective end of the Bush War around 1980 or so.
Is this completely happy and shiny? Not quite. White plantations still take up 90% of the good agricultural land. So there's going to be massive pressure on a majority government to break up the plantations and do land distribution. OTL this was grotesquely botched, for a variety of reasons. But I don't think that's inevitable. The dismount from white economic dominance would be hard, but other colonies (Zambia, Kenya, South Africa) managed it without violence. So [handwave] let's say that they manage some compromise that gives enough land to the landless to prevent an explosion, without utterly trashing the country's agricultural system.
So by 1990, Rhodesia -- now Zimbabwe -- is not only majority ruled, but mostly at peace and pretty prosperous. Per capita income is about as high as South Africa's. Some of the whites have pulled up stakes, but the great majority have stayed behind. (A surprising number stayed behind OTL.)
Knock-on effects around Africa? on South Africa in particular? What think you?
Doug M.