Discussions about whether life was better in Rhodesia compared to independent Zimbabwe often reveal deep-seated frustrations and a troubling nostalgia for a racist colonial past. My take on this debate is surprisingly neutral. Having experienced the last years of Rhodesia as a boy and actively participating in Zimbabwe’s political awakening in 1980, I’ve observed the dynamics of both eras.
By Brighton Musonza
While Rhodesia’s economy and governance were built on racism, post-independence Zimbabwe has equally entrenched a system where the elite benefit at the expense of the masses, brutalising any dissenting voices along the way.
To glorify the Rhodesian experience, especially by those who never lived through it, is both disproportionately unfair and a troubling display of insecurity and inferiority complex that perpetuates the harmful stereotype that Black people are incapable of achieving greatness without white leadership.
A more thoughtful and balanced perspective would critically analyse the issues in question, breaking them down into distinct components and holding ZANU PF accountable for its numerous failures over the years.
However, this should not come at the expense of romanticising a blatantly racist regime that was condemned globally, placed under United Nations economic sanctions, and systematically disenfranchised Black people by denying them the right to participate in the electoral process. Blacks were subjected to land dispossession through the Land Apportionment Act, and restricted to low-paying jobs, with limited access to quality education and healthcare.
Zimbabwe’s independent government, despite its flaws, represented a step toward justice, inclusivity, and self-determination for the country’s black majority. To compare the two systems without acknowledging the structural racism and oppression of the Rhodesian regime would be to overlook the fundamental moral and political transformation that independence brought to Zimbabwe.
The Foundations of the Rhodesian Economy
The myth of Rhodesia’s self-made economic success must be dispelled. Ian Smith and the minority white settlers did not build Rhodesia’s economy; it was propped up by British and South African capital and infrastructure. The transport systems, mining equipment, and industrial foundations were largely imported from the United Kingdom and other global partners.
For example, the famous Salisbury United Bus Network (later ZUPCO) and Swift Transport Services were owned by Rhodesia United Transport Ltd., controlled by British companies such as United Transport Co. Ltd and the British Electric Traction Co., Ltd. These systems were not organic Rhodesian innovations but extensions of British imperial interests.
Industries like the Rhodesian Iron and Steel Company (RISCO, now the defunction ZISCO) depended heavily on foreign capital and expertise. In 1959, through the British government providing underwriting financial support, RISCO underwent a massive upgrade, importing furnaces and coking ovens from Europe, a second-hand plate mill from Ireland, and commissioning a blast furnace from Japan’s Kawasaki Steel Industries.
This reliance extended into long-term trade agreements, such as RISCO’s repayment plan to Kawasaki by exporting 360,000 tonnes of pig iron and 600,000 tonnes of iron ore annually for 50 years starting in 1963. Companies like the Rhodesian (Zimbabwe) Sugar Refineries were entirely owned by British corporations, such as Tate & Lyle.
Even the financial system was skewed to serve a privileged minority. The Rhodesian banking sector operated on a Pareto principle: 80% of credit generated in the financial system was generated from and the lending was directed towards large-scale commercial farmers who made up just 20% of the economy’s financial participants. These farmers were predominantly white with collateralisable claims of title on the land, while the Black majority was deliberately excluded from accessing capital or financial support.
Institutions like Rhodesian Acceptances Limited (RAL), later RAL Merchant Bank, were embedded in Anglo-American mining interests and the British banking system, perpetuating economic apartheid.
As Rhodesia was placed on the United Nations sanctions; it hugely benefited from sanctions bursting with countries like West Germany and Portugal. Germany was not a member of the United Nations and so it did much of the support. Hence the country ended with so many Germany cars like WV displaced British cars and French cars like Peugeot also came into the country through the smuggling ring. This is how Germany car company Giesecke+Devrient was contracted by the Rhodesian government to print the Rhodesian dollar. There was even a VW auto-assembly plant in Mutare.
Both West Germany and East Germany were not members of the United Nations until 1973; seven years before the Zimbabwean independence..
Portugal, under the Estado Novo regime led by António de Oliveira Salazar, was itself an outlier in the global political landscape. It governed colonial territories in Africa, such as Mozambique and Angola, and shared Rhodesia’s opposition to decolonization movements. This alignment made Portugal a willing partner in Rhodesia’s efforts to circumvent sanctions.
Mozambique, in particular, played a pivotal role as a gateway for Rhodesian goods and trade. The port of Beira became a crucial hub for smuggling Rhodesian exports, such as tobacco and minerals, while importing essential goods like oil, machinery, and other industrial supplies. These exchanges were often conducted discreetly to avoid attracting international scrutiny.
The Beira Corridor, a vital railway and pipeline connection between Rhodesia and Mozambique’s port of Beira, became the backbone of their economic relations. Despite UN sanctions, the pipeline continued to supply Rhodesia with oil, facilitated by Portuguese authorities who turned a blind eye to international pressure. The corridor also enabled Rhodesia to export its goods, particularly minerals and agricultural products, to global markets via Mozambique.
A Racist Economy
Rhodesia’s economy was beautiful to behold for those privileged enough to enjoy its spoils, but it was deeply racist and exclusionary. It was a demand-managed economy designed to sustain the white minority at the expense of the Black majority. Blacks were barred from accessing certain goods and services, and economic policies ensured that wealth remained concentrated in white hands.
For example, Blacks in urban areas had to prove employment or housing allocation to live in the cities. Those who failed to comply faced brutal “maspakisheni” raids at night. Relatives not in the Municipal tenant record would get bundled into the back of trucks, housed in Municipal flats for overnight and they would get deported back to rural areas. Rural villagers, meanwhile, were forced to pay taxes through exploitative labour on white-owned farms.
The education system reflected the same disparities. By 1970, only 133,951 Black pupils were enrolled in primary education, with just 78,000 completing primary school and a mere 14,000 advancing to secondary school. Most secondary education was provided by mission schools, with only a handful of government schools available for Blacks. In contrast, the white minority enjoyed well-funded schools and opportunities for higher education.
Upon completing Grade 7 or dropping out of school during the Rhodesian era, individuals automatically became liable to pay a tax of 0.25 pence (known as Koroni). To meet this obligation, many were forced to work on farms to earn the necessary funds.
The Kraal (Village Head) served as the tax collector, maintaining detailed records of tax payments. To enforce this system, village heads (maSabhuku) were armed with rifles, for security and symbolising their authority and the coercive nature of the tax collection process.
Post-Independence: A Missed Opportunity
Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980 marked the end of formal racial oppression, but it also marked the beginning of new inequalities. While the government made commendable strides in education and healthcare during the early years, the political elite quickly became fixated on consolidating power and enriching themselves.
The education reforms between 1980 and 1984 were transformative. School enrolment surged, with thousands of new schools built in rural areas. By the mid-1980s, Zimbabwe boasted one of the highest literacy rates in Africa, a legacy that continues to this day.
However, this progress in education was not mirrored in the broader economy or governance. The land reform programme, while necessary to address historical injustices, was executed poorly, benefiting politically connected individuals rather than the broader population. Corruption, cronyism, and economic mismanagement soon eroded the gains of independence.
The Brutality of Both Eras
While Rhodesia’s system was overtly brutal in its racial discrimination, independent Zimbabwe has shown its own forms of brutality. ZANU-PF and ZAPU leaders, upon returning from the liberation war, prioritised their own power and wealth over the needs of the rural masses who had borne the brunt of the war.
The trauma of the liberation struggle was compounded by post-independence suppression of dissent. Instead of investing in documenting the war’s history and integrating it into the education curriculum, the leadership suppressed these narratives for selfish gains. Historians, artists and researchers have not been accorded the chance to present a balanced liberation war history informed by all sources who experienced and participated in the war.
Today, younger generations grow up with little understanding of the liberation war’s causes or consequences. The digital age has exacerbated this knowledge gap, as Rhodesian-era favourable literature and images dominate online platforms; particularly on search engines more, while independent Zimbabwe’s leaders have failed to invest in digital technologies to tell their own side of the story.
Hence, this neglect has allowed a romanticised version of Rhodesia to take root as an instrument of fuelling frustrations among disenchanted youths. Instead, Zanu PF and government supporters have resorted to diging out on negative Rhodesian literature to defend themselves.
Conclusion: A Call for Honest Reflection
The argument that Rhodesia was better than independent Zimbabwe stems from selective memory and misplaced frustrations. While Rhodesia’s economy was stable, it was stable for a privileged few and built on the exploitation of the Black majority. Independent Zimbabwe, despite its early achievements, has squandered opportunities to create a more equitable society. Both eras share a common thread: the elite benefited, while the masses were left to suffer.
As a nation, Zimbabwe needs honest reflection and a commitment to addressing its challenges. This includes tackling corruption, documenting and preserving its history, and creating inclusive economic policies that uplift all citizens. Romanticising Rhodesia or excusing the failures of independent Zimbabwe does a disservice to the nation’s potential. Only by confronting the past and present with honesty can Zimbabwe chart a better path forward.
