The deceased leaders of Southern Africa: heroes, populists or villains?

Until 1961 there were technically no restrictions on the entitlement of native Africans to vote, but a high property qualification ensured that few were able.  This was altered in 1968, when blacks were limited to voting for 15 Assembly members while Europeans were entitled to elect 50.

Like apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia strictly enforced curfews and imposed a pass system to restrict the movement of Africans.  Most prime farmland had been appropriated by whites, and senior positions in public administration were reserved for whites.

In 1980, after a civil war that cost 30,000 lives the black majority took over, and Robert Mugabe became President.  Ian Smith gave in, mainly because South Africa ceased its support, and because the independence of Mozambique opened up a new military front.

Mugabe was initially feted by the international community, though his image became tarnished as the country slipped into violence, autocracy and economic chaos.  (Mugabe, while showing distain for his former colonial masters seemed to nevertheless ape them in his use of pomp and ceremony, and in the way he adorned his mansion with things European.  Shortly after independence Mugabe and his ruling party perpetrated the Gukurahundi, a program of mass killing of mainly minority Ndebele people.)

Ian Smith was a colonial through and through.  He was born in Southern Rhodesia of British immigrant parents, and was a strong supporter of the Empire and white rule.  He joined the RAF in WW2 and was shot down several times, suffering disfiguring wounds to his body and face.  He remained Prime Minister of Rhodesia for almost all of the 14 years of international isolation that followed UDI.  He considered Rhodesia as having been betrayed by Britain, and dedicated much of his 1997 memoirs, The Great Betrayal, to condemning Mugabe and several UK politicians.  Many people now believe that outcomes (even for blacks) would have been far better under Smith and continued white minority rule.

South Africa’s economy has not done well under black majority rule and unemployment has now reached about 36 per cent (46.6 per cent if hidden unemployment is added).  Covid delivered a major recession, and the country is dogged by inequality, crime, and corruption.  South Africa had functioned well in the early years of ANC rule but, as corruption engulfed its ranks (especially under Jacob Zuma), the country increasingly failed to deliver basic services to poor black townships.  Among the blacks, only the elites prospered.  (The black elites are said have looted the country to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.)  In 2021 Zuma's jailing on contempt of court charges sparked the worst street violence in a generation, claiming 354 lives and destroying thousands of businesses. 

Current President and ANC leader, Cyril Ramaphosa, was elected on a platform to clean up the corruption but to date has made limited headway.

Overall, it would seem that decolonisation in Africa has hardly been an economic or social triumph.  There have been regular coups in African nations, and the extent of economic and social problems is reflected in large numbers seeking asylum and a better life in Europe.  This is partly because many African countries were never unitary nations in the first instance.

Botswana is the most commonly cited success.  It is considered the most stable democracy in Africa, though it has been dominated by a single party since independence.  Botswana has transformed itself into an upper middle income country (ranked 78thin the world based on GDP per capita).  It has the advantage that about 85 per cent of its population is made up of the same ethnic group (Tswana).

Ghana is sometimes also mentioned, though its first president, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah was deposed in a coup in 1966, and a series of alternating military and civilian governments followed from 1966 to 1981.

One of the lessons of Africa is that the accepted paradigm in the West, that democracy should be implemented across the globe, is too idealistic.  The reality seems to be that western-style democracy has rarely prospered outside the developed world.  It has struggled in Africa, and in Central and South America.  In Asia, democracy has mainly been successful in Japan, India, South Korea, and Taiwan.  Less perfect democracies have persisted in Malaysia, PNG, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.

South Africa and Zimbabwe would be far better off today, if there had been a much longer transition to black majority rule.  Given that an instant transition to black majority rule was being pushed by Western countries (especially Britain), could black leaders have been reasonably expected to settle for anything less?  There have been few cases of political figures (especially resistance leaders) turning down the prospect of political power.