White, Black, Grey

If men were reasonable creatures, there would have been universal rejoicing at the Rhodesian “internal settlement” agreed to by white Ian Smith and black Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, and Jeremiah Chirau. Not that it is an ideal solution: a negotiated agreement is always a pis- aller, a compromise among diverse, in part conflicting aims and interests. However, this Salisbury accord is as good as reasonable creatures could expect to emerge from so sticky a morass. Moreover, its terms satisfy, generally speaking, what the many parties, local and global, to the Rhodesian confusion have professed to be their criteria for a satisfactory solution.

For better or worse, the most actively publicized of these criteria has been “one man, one vote.” The accord embraces this criterion fully en principe (as the French are fond of saying); it was Ian Smith’s capitulation to this principe that made the Salisbury negotiation possible. Under the terms of the accord, there will be a temporary restriction in applying the one-man-one- vote principle. Although everyone of 18 years or more will from the beginning have the right to vote, 28 seats in the new one-hundred-seat parliament will be reserved for whites, which means that during those transitional ten years white votes will count more than black votes. Reasonable persons, having in mind the post-independence history of the new African nations and noting that the three black nationalist leaders are willing to accept it, might judge that this temporary brake on all-out one man, one vote makes good sense. If Zimbabwe can integrate the expertise, money, energy, and international connections of the Rhodesian whites into its new structure, no one can doubt that its citizens, both black and white, are going to be a lot better off than if the whites pull an Angola.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

If men were reasonable creatures, there would have been universal rejoicing at the Rhodesian “internal settlement” agreed to by white Ian Smith and black Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, and Jeremiah Chirau. Not that it is an ideal solution: a negotiated agreement is always a pis- aller, a compromise among diverse, in part conflicting aims and interests. However, this Salisbury accord is as good as reasonable creatures could expect to emerge from so sticky a morass. Moreover, its terms satisfy, generally speaking, what the many parties, local and global, to the Rhodesian confusion have professed to be their criteria for a satisfactory solution.

For better or worse, the most actively publicized of these criteria has been “one man, one vote.” The accord embraces this criterion fully en principe (as the French are fond of saying); it was Ian Smith’s capitulation to this principe that made the Salisbury negotiation possible. Under the terms of the accord, there will be a temporary restriction in applying the one-man-one- vote principle. Although everyone of 18 years or more will from the beginning have the right to vote, 28 seats in the new one-hundred-seat parliament will be reserved for whites, which means that during those transitional ten years white votes will count more than black votes. Reasonable persons, having in mind the post-independence history of the new African nations and noting that the three black nationalist leaders are willing to accept it, might judge that this temporary brake on all-out one man, one vote makes good sense. If Zimbabwe can integrate the expertise, money, energy, and international connections of the Rhodesian whites into its new structure, no one can doubt that its citizens, both black and white, are going to be a lot better off than if the whites pull an Angola.