The last prime minister of Rhodesia was Ian Smith. His death on Nov. 20, 2007, should be a cause for reflection on Africa's past, present and future, for it raises a very important question the mass media won't address.

Ian Douglas Smith was born in 1919. He fought for Britain, serving in the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain. He became Rhodesia's first native-born prime minister. Fearful that the nation would suffer the fate of others in postcolonial Africa, Mr. Smith led his governing Rhodesian Front party to a unilateral declaration of independence from Great Britain, on Nov. 11, 1965.

If Ian Smith had ruled his country 50 years earlier, he would have been hailed around the world as a hero. But he ruled in our ongoing age of political correctness. Consequently, he was almost universally reviled. Hardly a positive word was written in published obituaries following the news of his death.

But the press overlooked the following: When Smith was prime minister, the peoples of Rhodesia—both black and white—were well fed, the economy was growing in spite of international sanctions, the educational and health-care systems were the best in Africa, and the press was free to criticize the government (and usually did).

Contrast Zimbabwe today: The people are starving, the country has the highest inflation rate in the world, the educational and health-care systems have collapsed and the press is not free to say anything critical of the president, who has been in power since 1980.

Now, the ruling ZANU-PF party and its leader, Robert Mugabe, are even refusing to leave power after a lost election, something that could never have happened in Rhodesia.

In short, Rhodesia worked. Zimbabwe doesn't. Why is this?

Historical background

Smith himself wrote of the dramatic events that led to the seismic shift in Western thinking toward Africa.

"It was the Suez crisis that first sounded the alarm and brought those of us associated with Britain and the Empire face to face with the hard reality that Britain could no longer call the tune on the international stage. The United States was now in the driving seat, constantly propagating the philosophy that colonialism was inherently bad and that the pace of its elimination had to be stepped up.

"The Americans joined forces with the Russians in this anti-colonialist campaign, albeit for opposing reasons. The Russian plan was for world conquest, the takeover by Marxism-Leninism. As the Western European powers pulled out of their empires, the Russian plan was to move in. The Americans, on the other hand, believed that the presence of the colonial powers was denying them the opportunity to develop in these areas the expertise, skills and economic success of their free enterprise system. Sadly, they seriously misjudged the situation...

"The second point, which should have been obvious to the USA, was that wherever Western colonialism was the vogue and the free enterprise system thriving, with American skills, capital and equipment everywhere—big mining and industrial development, motor cars, heavy transport, earth-moving equipment—all doors were open to everybody, including the Americans. But once the Russians moved in, everyone else was frozen out.

"So the result turned out to be contrary to the United States' expectations. However, there is no way of correcting these mistakes; we have to live with them. This is easy for the Americans: they live 10,000 kilometers away and can go on living their own lives. The problem lies with the people on the spot, who have to go on living with the disaster forced on them" (Ian Smith, The Great Betrayal, 1997, p. 34).

Only three years before the Suez crisis, at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, the prime ministers of the dominions (independent countries) of the British Empire marched in procession behind the newly crowned queen.

Included among them was the leader of Southern Rhodesia, a self-governing colony that was not fully independent, but had played a major role in Britain's wars. Rhodesia was at that time very much a part of the prophesied "multitude of nations" (Genesis 48:19). Britain's wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill had described Rhodesia as "the most loyal colony."

Rhodesia didn't change—Britain did.

Following the loss of the Suez Canal, the British very quickly dismantled their empire, the greatest in history. In 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan addressed the South African parliament and talked of a "wind of change sweeping across Africa."

The rapid changes that followed led to dictatorship, anarchy and economic and political upheaval. The popular idea among Western liberals is that Africans threw off the chains of imperialist exploitation. The great irony is that since independence tens of millions have left the continent and sought refuge in the former colonial powers!

West African perspective

Ghanaian writer George Ayittey summed it up well in his 1992 book, Africa Betrayed.

"In Africa there are two classes of people: the real people (the peasants) and the parasitic elites.

"...Tyranny and intellectual repression reign over much of Africa today... Brutally terrorized by their governments and crocodile liberators, most Africans now live in a cocoon of fear—afraid even to whisper innocuous political comments."

Looking back on earlier conquests, he observed: "...A far more insidious invasion began under black neocolonialism. Educated abroad and having assumed the trappings of foreign cultures and ideologies, a new wave of invaders struck Africa. They were actually returnees, sons of Africa who briefly left to pursue studies overseas or to go into exile. But they came back with a vengeance, to denigrate, to enslave, to destroy, and to colonize by imposing alien ideological systems upon the African people.

"The economic exploitation and political repression of the African people continued unabated. More treacherous perhaps was the continued denigration and, in some cases, the destruction of indigenous African institutions and culture—by the very African nationalists and heads of state who claimed to have liberated Africa. From what?

"Economically, politically and culturally, Africans today are worse off than they were at the time of independence in the 1960s. Three decades of independence from colonial rule have produced nothing but economic misery and disintegration, political chaos, and institutional and social decay."

Leaving Ghana in 1979 for America, he found that Westerners almost worshipped Africa's leaders. "Political correctness" (his own words on page xvi of his prologue) was stopping the world from seeing the realities of contemporary Africa. It still is.

Recent events

The Economist editorialized on Africa in its first edition of this year, in the midst of tribal slaughter in Kenya that followed accusations of a rigged election.

"The mayhem that killed hundreds of people following Kenya's election on December 27th completes a depressing cycle of democratic abuses in Africa's biggest countries. Nigeria held its own mockery of an election last April. Scores were killed and observers pronounced it the most fraudulent poll they had ever witnessed.

"Congo held a more or less peaceful election in October 2006, since when the main opposition leader has been hounded into exile. And the year before that, flawed elections in Ethiopia resulted in the deaths of 199 protesters. Needless to say, the incumbents all won" ("A Very African Coup," Jan. 5, 2008).

After weeks of unrest in Kenya, the leading newspaper in China commented that Western-style democracy is not suitable for Africa. This statement led to much debate on the BBC World Service, which I listened to while driving in Ghana on Jan. 16. The Ghanaian experience proves the Chinese wrong—things are much improved here now compared to what they were under the dictatorships of earlier years, though they are still not back to pre-independence levels.

A revealing anecdote appeared on the Internet following Ian Smith's death. It highlights a sharp contrast in style.

"The first time I saw Prime Minister Ian Smith was as a young boy of fourteen standing outside the Bulawayo Club in Rhodesia. I had heard from my father that the Prime Minister was coming. Expecting some impressive entourage, I was standing by the entrance in 8th Avenue with my cat, Tim.

"I can still remember my surprise as I saw a rather humble Peugeot 404 park in front of the Bulawayo Club and out stepped Mr. Ian Smith. The Prime Minister was completely alone. There was no driver, or adjutant, no bodyguards, or policemen, visible anywhere. The Prime Minister had driven himself alone to the club. He stroked my cat who was sitting on the wall, smiled at me and walked into the club!

"Almost ten years later I was in Harare on Samora Machel Avenue, when Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe drove past. The contrast with Mr. Smith's arrival couldn't have been more acute.

"First came eight motorbike outriders, then some police cars, two armored luxury Mercedes Benzes with tinted windows (so you wouldn't know which one Mugabe was in) followed by another police car and a truckload of soldiers with heavy weaponry. Sirens blaring. All vehicles on both sides of the roads had to come to a complete stop at the side. And this, I was informed, by residents, was how Mugabe traveled every day!" (Dr. Peter Hammond, Frontline Fellowship, South Africa).

Ian Smith, like all leaders, had his faults, but this study in contrasts is sadly typical of many African countries where leaders lord it over their people. Jesus Christ observed that "the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them" (Matthew 20:25).

He added that Christian leaders should not be like this. "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant" (verse 26).

It's not just Rhodesia that has gone backwards since becoming Zimbabwe. The same can be said of many African countries. Africa is the only continent to reverse economically in the last 50 years, and a major contributory factor is bad leadership. As the recent disputed election in Kenya has shown, billions of dollars, pounds and euros have been given in aid, but the money has made no difference to the welfare of the people and remains largely unaccounted for.

Fruitful farmers evicted

An engrossing account of Zimbabwe's terminal decline is given by Zimbabwean-born writer Peter Godwin in his book When a Crocodile Eats the Sun (2007). Frequently returning to his native country to take care of his aging parents, Godwin observed the collapse of the nation following the seizure of white-owned farms built up during the nine previous Rhodesian decades, from settlement in 1890 to 1980.

A small number of farmers had developed the breadbasket of southern Africa. These Rhodesian farmers were primarily descendants of the biblical tribe of Ephraim, which means "fruitful." Before their eviction, they farmed 9 million hectares of land. Today, only about 300,000 hectares are being farmed by indigenous subsistence farmers, who grow just enough for their own needs.

Some African nations, including neighboring Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique and distant Nigeria, have already realized the necessity of external expertise and have invited the ex-Rhodesian farmers to farm in their countries, thereby boosting food production. Sadly, it is unlikely that there will be any change in Zimbabwe's situation until there is a change of government—perhaps even until Christ Himself is ruling this earth.

When Ian Smith severed the link with Britain in 1965, his motivation was the welfare of his country. He and his colleagues had seen the chaos and confusion that followed independence in countries to the north of them, and they wanted to avoid the same fate for all citizens of their country. They understood that dictatorship, corruption and tribal conflict would follow.

It wasn't just a black and white issue—under Smith, 78 percent of the Rhodesian military was black and remained loyal. Rather than being the antiquated relic of governance described by his critics, Smith raised concerns that have still not been resolved to this day.

Scripture offers us a vision into the future when peoples come together under Jesus Christ. There will no longer be animosity between the races. It will not simply be what Britain or America or any other people bring to the table. It will be a table to which all can come—where there is room for all to work together in harmony toward a common goal.

The problems of Africa will not be solved till the day when all nations will look to God and go to Him for the understanding to build lasting bridges of peace and goodwill between people. WNP