THE MYTH OF UDI
During the political spectaculars that have erupted since November 1965 when the Smith regime declared UDI. attention has been focused on the so-called 'five principles' laid down by the Tory Government in 1964. Now, when the UDI crisis has reached its squalid finale the same hogwash about these 'five principles' together with revelations of Lord Goodman. also the hammer of the London printing workers.— remain at the centre of political debate. Denis Healey and the Labour Party rightly argue that the settlement doesn't satisfy even the terms Home himself laid down; the Tories insist that flexibility, even in such shallow principles as they hold, is a ruling class prerogative. The point however is that the argument is completely irrelevant as far as the African masses of Rhodesia are concerned. The place these bogus 'five principles' have led in politic discussion is nevertheless no accident, for it has helped to obscure the whole past history of racist white settler rule backed by British imperialism. UDI it was argued was the decisive turning point in the fortunes of the African majority in Rhodesia. But for the "wicked Rhodesian rebels" imperialism would have 'prepared' the black Rhodesians for self government in accordance with the pattern of Britain's withdrawal from the rest of Africa. UDI was in fact a godsent opportunity to strengthen the myth of latter day British colonial policy as a combination of paternalistic aid to 'emergent' countries, and firm leadership in world affairs, through the Commonwealth framework.
But in the Rhodesian context a further myth followed. It was that sanctions were designed to alter the situation of the African. In fact sanctions were specifically designed to return Rhodesia to legality—that is to say, business as usual—in the interests of British capitalists their Rhodesian friends, the political stability of Africa and British standing there, as well as farther flung diplomatic interests. That African interests took no place in the scale of priorities of both Tory and Labour governments was evident from constitutional proposals of Wilson during the 'Tiger' and 'Fearless' talks, which were less "liberal" than those of the 1961 Rhodesian Constitution.
Had UDI not been declared the situation of the African masses could only have continued to deteriorate, as it had done since the beginning of imperialist exploitation of Rhodesia. The idea that British imperialism would have been able, even if willing, to force a movement in favour of the Africans when in the face of outright "rebellion" it was powerless, is completely wishful thinking.
Nevertheless this liberal ideology found a reflection in those layers to the British left which huffed and puffed for more sanctions, and even for military intervention to 'crush' the Smith regime. At bottom it reflected ignorance and a dearth of thought on the left as to the nature of the Rhodesian regime.
IMPERIAL CONQUEST
On the 13 September 1890, the 'Pioneer Column' of the British South Africa Company ceremonially hoisted the British flag over the new settlement of Fort Salisbury. Rhodes, an ambitious speculator had cajoled and bribed around British ruling class circles to secure the Royal Charter for the BSAC which enabled him to claim the Rhodesias for the Crown. He pulled off a veritable coup in gaining the backing of the City of London and Joseph Chamberlain for his dream of a British Africa from the Cape to Cairo. Behind Rhodes' dreams lay the interests of British imperialism during the scramble for Africa in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. What was at issue was the defence of the British world-wide freedom to trade wherever there was profit to be made. As Lenin pointed out imperialism involved the struggle for territorial 'spheres of influence' to exclude or anticipate rivals.
The path for Rhodes' company was not as smooth as he hoped and there followed seven years of bloody warfare between "settlers and natives". The outcome of the Matabele War was in the end disastrous for the Africans. The land they needed to carry on their traditional economy of cattle rearing was seized by white farmers. Where they remained to try and eke out an existence the land was sold out from under them to white settlers who demanded labour services as a condition for the Matabeles remaining on the land. In return they gave no security of tenure. The African could be evicted at any moment. In other words the colonised had less security in exchange for their labour services than under feudalism.
The last rising of the Matabele came in 1895 when they took advantage of weaknesses of Rhodes' political position as a result of the calamitous 'Jameson Raid'. Unlike the earlier war where the Matabele had used the fatal military tactic of direct confrontation with the better armed white enemy, this time they fought in small guerrilla units and relied more on rifle power than the traditional assegais. But again strategy and leadership was wanting, though the Company was forced to call in Imperial aid to pacify the country, eventually starving the resistance into a piteable surrender.
The defeat inflicted on the Africans in this period was fairly decisive, and doubtless contributed to their passivity during the First World War when the European population was considerably depleted, and could have been wiped out without too much difficulty.
From the First World War until 1923 Rhodesian politics was dominated by the attempt to establish an autonomous state firmly in the control of the white settlers. British imperialism on the other hand has been cripplingly weakened by the War during which the tendencies in world capitalism that had been threatening to destroy her industrial and trading supremacy were accelerated. Consequently, it was forced to rely more on the white regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia to protect its interests. This was the context in which these regimes gained more or less complete autonomy. As a result the Rhodesian settlers gained the unique position of a self-governing colony within the Empire. The white farmers rejected the idea of unity with South Africa under the influence of the remaining prosperity of the post-war boom.
COLONIAL STRUCTURE
The basis of the colonial structure of Rhodesia which developed in the early twentieth century and which crystallised between the wars was first and foremost the white rural bourgeoisie of small and medium mine owners and farmers. The character of this exploiting class was unlike that of nearly all other African colonial territories where the tasks of imperialism were taken on completely by the large international companies. Its national character committed it to the development of the country in the long term, whereas the interests of imperialist corporations tended to be much less permanent. Thus the white farmer bourgeoisie were the key class in the colonial structure.
Similarly the formation of the white working class was strikingly different to that of other settler colonies in that it did not preceed industrial development but was a consequence of it. Therefore from the very beginning the white working class lived in a high wage economy and by the end of the thirties, together with the small manufacturing petty bourgeoisie constituted the bulk of Rhodesian whites.
The problem for the white farming bourgeoisie up to the Second World War was to expand the internal market for their produce while harmonizing the interests of the other white classes, and international capital. Industrialisation, while the answer to this problem and approved by international capital, could not be achieved by the proletarianisation of the Africans. Firstly this would create a dangerous competitor to the white rural bourgeoisie in the form of a class of African capitalist farmers. Secondly, a black proletariat would create unwanted competition for the white workers. The solution was found in a series of major racist Acts designed to reduce the threat of African competition in every area. The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 effectively divided the economy into non-competing racial groups. As well as confining the Africans to the worst land, specific measure were taken to ensure that Africans had little or no access to markets, or means of credit for improvements. This effectively blocked the emergence of a black rural bourgeoisie while ensuring a supply of cheap farm labour for the whites because of the resultant impoverishment of African farming.
Side by side with this came the exclusion of African labour from the industrial market by the Industrial Conciliation Acts of 1934, and the Native Registration Act of 1936. Under these laws Africans were specifically excluded from the definition of employees. If Africans were employed, however, they would have to be paid the same rate as whites. Under these laws of course, no employer would employ an African where a white could be found. The white workers also had extraordinary power to regulate the terms of apprenticeship and control immigration thereby creating a situation of labour scarcity to keep up wages. To complete the system dubbed 'separate development' legislation to set up a structure of education for whites was passed while not even a 'parallel' structure was built for blacks. Not only were Africans excluded from skilled employment; they were prevented from gaining such skills.
White power was therefore consolidated in this period by pushing the Africans into a state of semi-destitution.
CONTRADICTIONS OF RACIST CAPITALISM
After the Second World War big changes took place in the Rhodesian economy. The first important structural change was the emergence of a black proletariat slowly severed from the relative security of the land, more class conscious, and with strong social and political roots in the peasantry because of their common exploitation. Secondly, came the growth of manufacturing capital whose share in National Income rose from 9% in the thirties to 15% in the early fifties and over 18% in the early sixties. For this sector new outlets were needed and it came to depend more on the growth of purchasing power of the African workers. import substitution and European migration provided the initial growth of the manufacturing sector but the question of the African market could not be put off. At the same time the demand for labour in all sectors of industry was by no means satisfied by European migration. The interests of international capital, which had gained a hold in every industrial sector now no longer coincided with that of the white rural bourgeoisie. In agriculture the white farmers had changed the main crop to tobacco, which also meant a switch to the external market, and together with import substitution tended to offset for a time the slow growth of the market for agricultural products internally, even if in the long term the condition for rapid growth remained the expansion of African purchasing power.
These changes in class interests were reflected in post war Rhodesian policies. Even before the War as early as 1948 Premier Huggins had seen the threat of the growth of a black proletariat, as well as its necessity, and had called for the creation of an African middle class as an insurance against the mass of Africans. After the War a series of reforms were initiated to encourage the growth of African middle class and rural bourgeoisie, as well as proletariat.
But the response of the white rural bourgeoisie and working class, who could see that these policies would harm their interests, tended to create a settlement of compromises which satisfied no one in the end. The Land Husbandry Act of 1951 enabled the creation of an African proletariat by removing the right of free access to land but at the same time denied the right to hereditary transference of land which stopped the growth of an African rural bourgeoisie. Educational reforms were also a failure. To avoid a militant response in the fifties from these white classes a compromise between manufacturing and international capital and agrarian capitalism was made at the expense of the African. The militant response of the African by this time however, brought about the major post war crisis in the relations between the white classes. The national capitalists, the white petty bourgeoisie and the white working class decided it was time to call a halt to the very marginal liberalisation since 1945. They polarised around the Rhodesian Front Party, which obtained power in 1962.
CONDITIONS OF THE MASSES
Despite the doubling of manufacturing output by 1954 when Rhodesia entered the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the growth of industry from 1946 was not reflected in the growth of African industrial employment. Although there was an initial rise African labour in mining in fact fell from 19% to 7%; in construction from 11% to 6%; while in manufacturing it rose only from 11% to 13%.
In Rhodesia income is distributed between the wealthiest 4-6% of the population more unequally than in any other country for which data is available. The additional difference is that this 4-6% in Rhodesia is the whole white population. In 1964 the whites were 3.8% of the population in Rhodesia and took 49.4% of all personal income. In 1968 they were 4.8% of the population and took 56.5%.
The evidence of African economic retardation during the 'liberal' period of the fifties and the Rhodesian Front regime is fairly conclusive. The ratio of white to African incomes remained more or less constant at around 25.
White Income per Head Black Income per Head
1956 £637.8 £24.8
1968 £628.2 £245
But these figures exaggerate the true position of the majority of Africans. What has happened is that African rural incomes have fallen absolutely from £14.6 a year in 1956 to £11.1 a year in 1968, and that the real difference in income is that white incomes are a staggering 56 times higher than black rural incomes.
While white industrial workers incomes are in comparison a modest 12 times the income of black industrial workers, the actual number of black workers is insignificant in the black population.
Number of Black Workers 1968
Mining .......... [illegible]
Manufacturing .... 85,200
Construction ..... 37,900
Total African Population 4,700,000.
Nor are the African urban workers in any sense a privileged layer. They are desperately poor. A report in 1958 showed that only 23.5% of urban African households had incomes equal to an estimated poverty line and that the overall picture was one of great poverty. The extremely high rate of exploitation can be indicated by the fact that in the above sectors of industry average black earnings in 1968 were between £161-222 per year, compared with 12 times that rate of wages paid to white workers.
What emerges in the balance sheet of the conditions of the Rhodesian masses is one of steady and increasing exploitation since 1889 and the occupation of the Mashonaland. First during seven years of bloody warfare by the settlers to crush all resistance, which reduced the Africans to a status which was literally worse than serfdom. Later during the inter-war period the consolidation of the colonial structure meant that the undifferentiated masses of African peasants were forced onto the worse land and remain in an ever increasing rural squalor as the construction of a massive white racist superstructure went on a pace. Thirdly, since 1945 despite the emergence of a black proletariat in embryo its growth has been blocked by the frightened whites. This together with the tightening of the racist land legislation, culminating in the 1970 Land Tenure Act has meant that the overwhelming number of Africans who live from subsistance agriculture, have been absolutely impoverished.
IMPERIALISM AND APARTHEID
UDI produced only a marginal worsening of the African's position, mainly through the shifting of the burden of sanctions onto the black workers in white agriculture and mining. This was a severe blow to the African masses as 25,000 jobs were lost in the first two years of UDI while population rose absolutely. Nevertheless the loss of legal rights and other progressively repressive measures came before UDI after the Rhodesian Front was itself in turn a result a consistent history of imperialist and white settler exploitation of the Rhodesian masses. Thus, the liberal solution of the 'five principles' is sheer cant.
The 'crisis' of the last six years essentially lies in the contradictions of capitalist development in a racist superstructure, which had come to a head in a clash between the national capitalists and white working class settlers, and the needs of Rhodesian manufacturing capitalism and international capitalist interests. This had happened in South Africa a decade or so ago. For national and international capitalism in Rhodesia apartheid has become the only way of even temporarily maintaining stability. It is the only way any expansion at all can be achieved without setting off a massive growth of the African proletariat to threaten the white political power. Nevertheless, by forcing the rural masses to bear the whole of the burden of an ever increasing impoverishment of African farming the formula for long-term economic stagnation is being applied. The racist white regime and its imperialist backers are therefore heading along a road of deadly contradiction. But there is nothing inevitable about its fatality. The struggle to decapitate it has to be well prepared.