by Ian Smith
In spite of the fact that there was no contest, because of the withdrawal of Muzorewa and Sithole, Mugabe decided that the election must go ahead, come what may. The fact that a few additional millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money would be squandered, was of no concern. What was of importance was that he could demonstrate to the world the mass support which he enjoyed from the electorate. In his eve-of-poll TV address to the nation he was visibly angered by his opponents’ withdrawal, and resorted to the use of abusive language. Needless to say, no opportunity was permitted for any response. Many employers in industry, commerce, farming and mining encouraged their employees to vote, and provided the necessary transport. In addition there was the usual insidious pressure from party workers, and the youth wing using its subtle means of intimidation.
The final result shows that one-and-a-half million voted out of a potential five million, A mere 30 per cent when they had worked for, and expected, a minimum of 50 per cent. So there is much disillusionment, and they are busy trying to find a scapegoat. The field is wide open for them, especially as they are aware that no one will be given the opportunity to challenge their claims.
However, the principal objective has been achieved. For the next six years Mugabe will be in the same commanding position, and this means that five years hence he will be able to ensure that ZANU(PF) win the general election, thus ensconcing themselves in power for a further five years, with their comrades and fawning sycophants retaining their position of privilege.
I probably will not be around to suffer the indignity, but my heart goes out to the people of Zimbabwe, confronted by such a desperate and degrading situation.
Let us analyse some of the misconceptions about the history of the country now having to live under such a regime. A constant misrepresentation is that our black people were previously denied access to the franchise, and therefore had no say in government. Because of our proximity to South Africa, with their apartheid system, which did deny their blacks the vote, a surprisingly large number of people from the outside world fell for this canard. The truth is that there has never ever been a race classification for our voters’ roll. We are not informed, obviously, that when our black people emerged from the tribal culture to become politically aware in the 1960s, they were warned by the African nationalists not to register for the vote if they wished to avoid attracting the displeasure of the party. Otherwise they would be on the receiving end of a midnight petrol bomb in their house, or some other similar disincentive.
When one is confronted with accusations that large numbers of our indigenous people did not receive adequate education, the true reasons for this are never disclosed. The fact that when the pioneers arrived in the country, as recently as 100 years ago, there was no written language and no schools. The process of bringing our black people into the education system was long and tedious. For the first half century they were reluctant participants. As has already been mentioned, at the break-up of the Federation in 1963 our black people enjoyed the best educational facilities on the African continent. The tremendous impetus to education by the present government since 1980 was made possible because of the foundation and infrastructure they inherited. Moreover, let us not overlook the aggravating factor that after the Pretoria agreement of 1976 the terrorists initiated a new campaign of destroying schools in the tribal areas — educational institutions, used exclusively for our indigenous tribespeople. Books, desks, tables, chairs and all equipment were piled in the centre of the classroom and set alight. Everything associated with the white man and his civilisation had to be eliminated — hundreds of schools were burnt to the ground. I met the headmaster of one such school, who informed me that when he pleaded with the terrorists that they were destroying an asset which was being used for the welfare of their children, the reply was the butt of a rifle on the side of his head. He pointed to an ugly scar. Many thousands of our children were thus denied the opportunity of education they had previously enjoyed — hardly the fault of the ‘previous white racists’.
When the people complain that they lack the necessary finance to purchase their basic requirements, they are informed that this has been brought about because the white man cornered the economy, to the exclusion of our black people. They are not told that there are more black millionaires than white millionaires in Zimbabwe, with government ministers and their comrades living at a lavishly high level, enjoying five-star treatment in their constant world travels. There is no mention of the fact that government’s communist philosophy has frightened away investment, resulting in massive unemployment that has escalated over the past fifteen years. Moreover, in keeping with the incompetence and corruption associated with communism, the economy has collapsed. Inflation and interest rates, which were below 3 per cent in the days of the previous ‘racist regime’, rose to a peak in excess of 40 per cent last year. The Rhodesian dollar was on a par with sterling, worth 100 pence, while today the Zimbabwe dollar is worth five pence. It is difficult to find a black Zimbabwean these days who will not tell you that his standard of living has deteriorated since the advent of ‘freedom’ fifteen years ago. There are frequent reports of starving people roaming the countryside in search of wild fruits and seeds to eat in order to maintain life.
When the peasant farmer complains about the unavailability of land, he is told, indeed the whole world is told through ZANU(PF)’s ongoing campaign of misinformation, that his government is having problems with white racist farmers reluctant to part with their land. The truth, of course, is the very opposite. I can take you to a farm which was productive and earning foreign exchange, taken over by government a few years ago, which is now lying unoccupied with derelict and ransacked buildings. There are many such cases, involving more than a million acres. The problem is that our government lacks the ability to process their plan. They openly admit this, and our Farmers’ Union have offered assistance and are co-operating in order to deal with the problem, as are individual members of the white farming community. It is totally evil, indeed sinister, that ZANU(PF) is happy to twist the truth in order to gain political support and win votes. The fact that they are provoking racial hatred, and damaging investor confidence, is of no concern to them. One thing above everything else is uppermost in their mind: power, and the need to preserve it at all costs.
After all, they fought a war for ‘freedom’, so they say. Are they not now entitled to reap the rewards, the fruits of their struggle? They called themselves ‘freedom fighters’. We referred to them as ‘terrorists’ because they deliberately used terror to intimidate the people. The record shows, without any shadow of doubt, that our terminology was correct. Let me give a few examples.
British missionaries were operating a hospital and casualty services at a place called Elim in the eastern districts near Umtali. Most of their patients were black people who lived in the area. It was well known that they had no political affiliation — their work was humanitarian. One night Friday 23 June 1978, a gang of terrorists arrived at the mission, and murdered them all — mostly women and children — freedom fighters!
With the passage of time both terrorist organisations obtained heat-seeking missiles from their communist allies, and were given the necessary instruction. On two occasions in 1978 and 1979, as I have related, they succeeded in shooting down civilian aircraft flying from Kariba to Salisbury. The second crashed, killing everyone. The first crash-landed in a remote part of the country, and some passengers and crew survived. Before our security forces could arrive the terrorists were on the scene and murdered everyone they could find, including women and children — freedom fighters!
The third case I will mention took place towards the end of 1978 when we were busy working with the internal black political leaders bringing in the new constitution that would ensure a black majority government. It was well known that we were succeeding in our objective. One night terrorists came in to a village north of Salisbury, where it was common knowledge that the residents supported one of the leaders eng
aged in the negotiations with us. They lined up all the men, in the presence of their wives and children, and shot them in cold blood. They then ordered the families back into their houses, and warned them to leave the bodies where they were until the dogs had devoured them — freedom fighters! Fortunately, our security people arrived early in the morning and restored law and order. One could go on giving a multitude of examples of how they murdered and mutilated, in a most barbaric way, black Zimbabweans who were not their supporters.
The tragedy of Rhodesia hinged to a large extent on timing. As Sir Godfrey Huggins, the then Rhodesian Prime Minister, told us at the end of the Second World War: ‘We can have our independence tomorrow if we want it — it is there for the asking.’ But he opted for Federation in preference. Then, when the British government decided in 1962, unconstitutionally, to break up the Federation, if Sir Roy Welensky had made it clear that the Federal Government would not agree until Rhodesia’s independence had been finalised, there would have been no argument. He was Prime Minister of the whole Federation, all three territories, with the Federal army and air force under his control. Once that opportunity slipped, and the Federation was dissolved, our bargaining power was obviously reduced. And the situation deteriorated even further when the Labour Party won the British general election in 1964.
We believed that our system was correct — evolution as opposed to revolution. And there is no doubt that the majority of our black people agreed with us. Sadly, the free world, which concurred at first, subsequently changed their minds and by so doing denied us the opportunity to put our belief to the test. Once again referring to Sir Godfrey Huggins, he informed us that the British government had told him that Rhodesia was the success story of the Commonwealth. We had succeeded in Africa where they had failed. History proved the veracity of this belief. Africa to our north was in chaos, and with the passage of time degenerated into disaster. Africa is the continent of coups, assassination of political leaders, governments mesmerised by their communist mentors and thus riddled with corruption, incompetence, nepotism and top jobs for comrades irrespective of ability, experience, training or professionalism.
By contrast, Rhodesia was an oasis of peace and contentment. Visitors to our country invariably commented on ‘the happiest black faces we have ever seen’. In the committee meetings dealing with the dissolution of the Federation it was the British civil servants who pointed out how much more we had done to promote the interest of our black people than Britain had done in their two territories of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Proportional to population we had provided double the amount of facilities in the fields of education, health, housing, recreation and culture than Britain had to our north.
The commissioner of police in his annual report consistently referred to the fact that Rhodesia was the only country in the world, from which statistics were available, where the crime rate was decreasing. Moreover, proportional to population we had a smaller police force than any other known country. However, I am simply emphasising and reiterating the dreadful injustice to which Rhodesia had been subjected.
But all of these truths were of no concern to international politicians preoccupied with appeasement. As Harold Wilson said to me in one of the discussions we were having together here in Salisbury at ‘Independence’, the official residence: ‘For you and me to come to an agreement is no problem. What we have to do is produce an agreement which I can sell to the rest of the world, and in particular to the OAU.’ When I commented: ‘That bunch of communist dictators!’ his reply was straightforward: ‘You cannot divorce yourself from the world we live in.’ I thought aloud to him: ‘Perhaps it’s the politicians we have to deal with, rather than the world we live in!’
As he departed, he said he hoped we would go on trying to reach agreement, as it would give him much satisfaction to solve the Rhodesian problem. It was not the only occasion I felt a certain amount of warmth towards Harold Wilson. He was not one of those dedicated to socialism ‘at whatever the price’!
Both Alec Home and Duncan Sandys stressed the importance of taking into consideration world opinion. Alec thought that, if we reached agreement along the lines we were discussing, the OAU would react violently, but if the timing was right we could do it. If the Conservatives won the coming election in 1964, within a matter of six months, it could be finalised. Sadly, the Labour Party won. So Rhodesia’s future and history was determined, not on the merits and validity of our case, but on the whims of the British voter, considering their own internal likes and dislikes.
Finally, let me once again refer to what must go down in history as one of the most devious and blatantly dishonest actions of a British government: the failure to abide by the terms of the Lancaster House agreement concerning the 1980 general election. Lord Soames conceded that he had received over one thousand affidavits, many of them endorsed by British observers, confirming massive intimidation by ZANU comrades canvassing while pointing their guns at voters. The agreement specifically stated that any such party would be disqualified. Soames was at pains to describe to us his plan to disqualify ZANU in the worst affected areas. When the time arrived, however, he informed us that he had been forced to change his mind: ‘I have had a message from Peter [Carrington] telling me that any such plan would be unacceptable to the OAU, and therefore it is out.’ When I reminded him that this was blatant dishonesty, and in breach of the agreement, he said, with a clear tone of sadness: ‘I am afraid, Mr Smith, that the principles and standards on which you and I were brought up to believe in, are no longer part of this world.’ I felt it incumbent upon me to warn him that there could be problems with our security chiefs who were given the responsibility to ensure that the agreement was observed and carried out. He simply replied that he would have to wait for that eventuality.
And in all honesty, what had Rhodesia done to deserve all of this treachery? Our opponents had great success in twisting the truth against us. They accused us of being racist, when in fact we were being realists, constantly planning ways and means to improve the lot of all of our people, black and white. The evidence mentioned above demonstrates so clearly how much more we did for our indigenous peoples than did the British government in the territories they controlled. It also points to the comparative peace and happiness of our law abiding people. We are accused of not having done enough to bring our people into our political system. Again, this is not in keeping with the facts. Not only has our voters’ roll been open to all our people, whatever their race, colour or creed, since 1923 when we were granted our first constitution by Britain, but specific campaigns were launched by our government aimed at encouraging our black people to register as voters. It was unsuccessful for a number of reasons. First, the black nationalist campaign of intimidation warned people not to register, or else! Probably even more important, though, was the fact that our tribesman did not understand what we were trying to talk him into, and he just was not interested. Often I was given the reply: ‘Maybe this thing you call the “vote” is good for the white man, but we have our own system which we have lived with all our lives, and our fathers before us, and we see no reason to change. We cannot have two systems, and we prefer ours.’
Many of our senior black citizens will tell you the same today. And I seriously question whether they should be pressed to change, unless there is conclusive evidence that they would enjoy a better life under our system. Surely, it is indisputable that in sub-Saharan Africa today the antithesis is the case: one-party dictatorships riddled with corruption where the rich get richer and the poor poorer. As I mentioned earlier, the Nigerian Nobel Prize Laureate Wole Soyinka gives us the dreadful truth about Africa.
Our Western civilisation evolved over thousands of years, with many trials and tribulations, triumphs and disasters — an evolutionary process which you attempt to revolutionise at your peril. I wonder why the free world is so reluctant to take note of, and learn from the facts before it! With the passing of Rhodesia we were denied the opportunity of putting ou
r philosophy to the test. We must accept that there is no going back now. What we cannot accept is that we should allow people, indeed nations, to succeed in twisting the truth against Rhodesia in order to support and preserve malignant dictatorships. The vast mass of Rhodesians have always been moderate, middle-of-the road conservatives. Extremists, whether to the left or right, never succeeded in gaining support in our politics. When it became clear in the early 1960s that Britain intended to breach the agreement made with our government, we continued steadfast on the same course. Even the British refusal to honour the Victoria Falls agreement on the break-up of the Federation failed to provoke us into recriminatory action. However, the continuing devious manoeuvring of the British government, including their rejection of the settlement agreement signed by Sir Alec Home and myself, influenced some people, including certain Members of Parliament, to advocate the adoption of a reactionary course. They were ejected from our Rhodesian Front Party, and when they opposed us at an ensuing general election, all were subjected to an ignominious defeat by the electorate. All of these actions, which clearly indicate Rhodesian moderation, reason, and fair play to all our people, black and white, are assiduously ignored while the rabble-rousers succeed in branding us as white racists, oblivious of the interest of our black community. In fact, they are the racists, fabricating their case against us for the reason that we are white people living in Africa. Sadly, the broad mass of reasonable people in the world, who, once the position is made clear to them, sympathise with the injustice of the case against us, seem to be reluctant, or are otherwise too occupied, to resort to positive action. The problem is obvious — the extremist, because of his nature, is obsessed with his cause and never tires of working for it. On the other hand, the reasonable man, because of his nature, is moderate in his outlook and approach to life. We must constantly remind ourselves and our friends, and continue to repeat those significant words: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.’
