Britain's wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill once described the British colony of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as "the most loyal colony" because it contributed more to the war effort proportionate to its population than any other nation.

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 in Africa that followed have led to dictatorships, anarchy, economic and political upheaval. Yet to this day, the popular idea among western liberals is that Africans threw off the chains of imperialist exploitation. The great irony is that tens of millions since independence have fled the African continent for refuge in countries of the former colonial powers!

In his 1992 book Africa Betrayed Ghanaian writer George Ayyitey summed it up well: "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 … Economically, politically and  culturally, Africans today are worse off than they were at the time of independence in the 1960s."

Sadly, Africans still are!

Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is a prime example of a nation is chaos! The recent (November 20, 2007) death of former Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith is cause for reflection on Africa's past, present and future. It raises a question never addressed in the mass media: Why did Rhodesia work when Zimbabwe doesn't? 

Ian Douglas Smith was the last white prime minister of Rhodesia. To many he was considered to be simply a rebel and a racist who led his country into a brutal civil war. Born in 1919, he fought for Britain by serving in the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain. He became his country's first native born prime minister.

Fearful that his nation would suffer the fate of others in post-colonial Africa, Mr. Smith led his governing Rhodesian Front party to a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from Great Britain on November 11, 1965.  UDI was universally condemned.  Economic sanctions were imposed on the country. Eventually a seven year guerrilla war together with international pressure forced the rebel regime to hand over control of the country.

A British sponsored election led to the establishment of the independent nation of Zimbabwe in 1980 with Robert Mugabe as its leader. He remains in office today.

When Ian Smith severed the link with Britain in 1965, his motivation was fear of African majority rule. He and his colleagues had seen the chaos and confusion that followed independence in countries to the north and wanted to avoid the same fate. They understood that dictatorship, corruption, and tribal conflict would follow.

It wasn't just a black and white issue. Under Smith, 78% of the Rhodesian military was black and remained loyal. Rather than acting like the colonial relic described by his critics, Smith raised concerns that have still not been resolved to this day.

Like all leaders, Ian Smith had his faults. But this study in contrasts is sadly typical of many African countries where leaders lord it over their people. Jesus Christ explained "that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them" (Matthew 20:25). He also commented concerning leaders faithful to Him: "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant" (verse 26).

What the world conveniently overlooks is this: 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 those conditions with 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 independence in 1980.

In short, Rhodesia worked! Zimbabwe doesn't! Why?

Rhodesia is one of the biblically prophesied "multitude of nations" (Genesis 48:19) that in modern times has spread freedom and prosperity around the world from the British Isles.