Their properties and interests spawn the world. The decisions they make are premised to ensure protection of their interests.
The Herald
By Alexander Kanengoni
THERE is obviously nothing much to expect from the recent quasi-election victory of the Conservatives in the United Kingdom especially when they are in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats but a fleeting look at history reveals a rather interesting story.
Let me begin with the formation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1953 during the nascent stages of the rise of African nationalism.
Winston Churchill, a Conservative, was the prime Minister then. The Federation, which Kenneth Kaunda aptly described as a relationship between horse and rider, was intended to forestall the rise of African nationalism and entrench British interests.
The point here is the Conservatives took the problem head-on and did not try to wash it off their hands, as we shall see the Labour Party consistently doing. The Conservatives formed the Federation to entrench British interests.
When they realised they could not stem the rise of African nationalism and the demand for independence almost became violent, they agreed to dismantle the Federation in 1963.
Although the actual dismantling was presided over by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, another Conservative prime minister, it was Harold MacMillan, who was also a Conservative, who had set the tone in his famous "Winds of Change" speech in Cape Town in 1960.
Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia subsequently became independent in 1964 and 1965 and became Malawi and Zambia respectively. At the same time in 1965, Ian Smith revolted against the British and declared his own independence. This time, it was the Labour Party under Harold Wilson that was in power.
Wilson threatened to use force to dislodge Ian Smith but he never did it. Instead, it was to the United Nations where he sped to try and dump the Rhodesia crisis and wash his hands clean.
He called for non-recognition of the rebellious government and lobbied for international sanctions to be imposed on the breakaway colony. A series of fruitless meetings to resolve the crisis were held with the British but Ian Smith remained defiant. Perhaps he could see the sympathy the Labour Party had for him.
In 1969, he came up with a draft constitution that he took to the traditional chiefs who he claimed were the legitimate leaders of the blacks for endorsement. The Chiefs Council, chaired by Chief Jeremiah Chirau, as expected, endorsed it.
In the draft constitution, white interests remained entrenched. The voters' roll remained qualified with an A, B and C rolls based on property, education and remuneration. All the whites were on the A roll, a few blacks on B and the rest on C.
There were some blacks that would not even qualify to vote. One vote in roll A was equivalent to five votes in the B roll and 10 in C. Using that design, it would be almost impossible to get any black into Ian Smith's parliament.
Smith took the draft to the British as a settlement proposal that he claimed had the blessings of the blacks. It so happened that in 1970, the Conservatives stormed into power under Edward Heath, sweeping aside the Labour Party.
There is no assumption that Labour might have endorsed the proposal but at least, the Tories had the sense to put the draft to a referendum rather than merely accept Ian Smith's claim.
In 1971, Edward Heath sent what was known as the Pearce Commission to establish whether the blacks really accepted Smith's draft constitution. I was at Kutama High School then and I remember the grey-haired and studious looking members of the commission coming and asking our opinion.
We felt important because someone had realised we too mattered. Our answer was a vehement NO! It didn't require anyone to have gone to school to see that we had no place and future in the draft constitution. It could only require the Rhodesia Front's handpicked chiefs to endorse such a document.
Meanwhile, dark clouds of the liberation war were massing on the country's horizon. We had worked out clearly our own solution to the Rhodesian problem.
I don't believe the Tories did it out of any love for us. As Dr Stan Mudenge pointed out in a recent interview, it was more out of the desire to protect their interests here. Unlike Labour, the Conservative Party is a party of the propertied.
Their properties and interests spawn the world. The decisions they make are premised to ensure protection of their interests.
Ian Smith tried something more. Against the backdrop of an intensified war, he cobbled another arrangement in 1978 with Chief Jeremiah Chirau, Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Ndabaningi Sithole and called it the Internal Settlement.
Labour was in power then under James Callaghan. As usual, the party engaged Smith in a series of fruitless talks in Geneva and Malta. Besides the United Nations, the Labour Party had roped in the Americans and Henry Kissinger, the American Secretary for State, was shuttling between Rhodesia, South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania and England to work out a deal. As usual, the Labour Party watched from the sidelines with folded hands.
Ian Smith was desperate for recognition of his internal political settlement. Bishop Muzorewa, who had been elected as prime minister of the country now they called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, travelled the world to solicit support for the deal.
Mixed signals began to come from the Western capitals regarding the deal. In the USA, some Republicans were prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. And in London, too, the Labour Party seemed to have found the perfect opportunity to rid themselves permanently of the Rhodesian problem.
Ian Smith could smell whiffs of victory in the air and for the first time since UDI, he was allowed to visit Washington and London to argue his case. As he made presentations in America and England, the arrogance that the brutal guerrilla war had chiselled away from his voice over the years returned.
He had been given the strongest indication that they might after all recognise his internal settlement.
Then, once again, something happened in the UK in 1979 similar to what had happened in 1970. The Labour Party was swept out of power and Margaret Thatcher came in.
At the Commonwealth Conference in Lusaka towards the end of that year, she hammered out the framework of an all-party conference that included the nationalists to be held at Lancaster House in London.
The Lancaster House Agreement was the result of that conference and elections were held in February 1980 and independence was attained on April 18 the same year. Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF won the elections and he became the first Prime Minister of an independent Zimbabwe.
There is absolutely no suggestion that we got our independence from the benevolence of the Tories but it must be accepted that unlike the Labour Party, they were prepared to roll their sleeves and take responsibility of the problem.
Perhaps Labour Party's hypocrisy is best summarised by that infamous letter Claire Short wrote to Kumbirai Kangai disclaiming ownership of the Lancaster House Agreement on the basis that the Tories negotiated it. President Mugabe himself is on record as saying that if the Conservatives had been in power between 1996 and 2010, our relations with the British might not have degenerated to this woeful extent.
And once our relations began to nosedive a decade ago, Tony Blair, just like what Harold Wilson did in 1965, rushed to the United Nations, the USA and the European Union and called for sanctions thus internationalising the problem that was technically bilateral. The Americans imposed the punitive ZDERA and the Europeans responded in equal measure from their headquarters in Brussels.
I have always argued that the fundamental disagreement between the British and us at the moment is interpretation and implementation of the terms of the Lancaster House Agreement regarding the land issue.
We negotiated the agreement with the Conservative Party as the Labour Party, in their usual bid to run away from the problem, rightly pointed out through Claire Short's letter.
The Conservatives have a solid history of taking our issue head-on. I don't think it's expecting too much of them to act differently from Labour regarding our turbulent disagreement.
Just as it was in 1979, when we had clearly determined the would solve our problem through the war, we have got the inclusive Government and the Global Political Agreement as the way to resolve our problem.
And yet there are other issues beyond our control. We want sanctions to be removed and the British, under Labour, were instrumental in the imposition of those sanctions.
It might be misplaced to expect the Tories to act differently but historically, they have always been the people to look us in the eye and do things we least expected. Certainly not, because they love us, but because they will be thinking of themselves more.
We will see.
No comments:
Post a Comment