The State of Rhodesia Should be Restored

Even if we were convinced that present-day Zimbabwe is the worst state possible in every way, why would that suggest a return to apartheid Rhodesia, of all places? Why not "Democracy should be restored in Zimbabwe", or "Zimbabwe should be more like its neighbor South Africa", or even "Zimbabwe should return to the semi-democratic state directly preceding it, Zimbabwe Rhodesia"? Rhodesia's "flaws" happen to violate basic global principles of justice, and so there's no indication a return to apartheid would be met with a restoration of the rich trade responsible for Rhodesia's early success. There's every indication that a return to apartheid would see the same sanctions, divestment, civil war, and emigration responsible for Rhodesia's economic decline and eventual collapse, and Zimbabwe's inheritance of US$500m in debt, a weak agricultural sector, an uncompetitive industrial sector, and other problems. Contention 1, in addition to forgetting that the downward spiral began on apartheid's watch, is also oblivious to external factors. Mugabe has no control, for example, over the "virtual parliament" so important to the third world. Rhodesia's early success was dependent on foreign investment, which exploitative apartheid made lucrative. Subsequent capital flight and divestment were expected results of political, hence economic, reform. The problem with concluding from this "economic, hence political, reforms should be reversed" is that such a conclusion fails the test of universality: a)"Always reform." Result: Each country has a sensible, democratic economy; the virtual parliament, defeated, is completely impotent. b)"Never reform." Result: Each country has an oppressive, apartheid economy; the virtual parliament, victorious, is all-powerful. Economic democratization thus contributes to a positive feedback loop tending toward the global situation (a), while economic disenfranchisement contributes to the opposing positive feedback loop, which tends toward global situation (b). The more democratic economies are, the less of an incentive capital has to invest in non-democratic economies (their being fewer), hence making democratic economies more competitive, hence attracting even more capital, hence reducing the power of the virtual parliaments of non-democratic economies, hence encouraging further democratization…And so, particularly in a global situation closer to (b), it is entirely inappropriate to evaluate a particular state's economic system by the narrow consideration of its own success; the above model predicts that economic democratization will be, in the current global situation, bad for the national economy but good for the global economy. As the bad affects are concentrated and the good affects dispersed, the latter will not so easily be seen. And yet, there are clear examples, such as the importance of Venezuela to the economically isolated democracy (the U.S. state department admits the Communist Party would win by an overwhelming majority in a free and fair election) in Cuba. Even before the triumph of democracy in Venezuela, Cuba was doing very well by Latin American standards, but in neither case is it anything close to what we'd expect from global situation (a). On the other hand, capital divested from Zimbabwe has to find a home, and it will have one less apartheid state to choose from. Contention 2 is mostly dealt with above, but I'd like to elaborate on an important point brian_eggleston made in the Comments. Mugabe's particular brand of "socialism", though socialistic in its negative aspects (abolition of permanent property, etc.), is abhorred by the entire socialist spectrum for its positive aspects. From a theoretical standpoint, Mugabe (to the extent that he has an ideology at all) can most closely be linked to "barracks communism", which Marx coined in reference to the sadistic wing of the Nihilist movement and which the Soviet Union later used in reference to certain Chinese policies it opposed (Mugabe's faction of the liberation movement was the one supported by the Chinese). Mugabe's initial election is easily understandable when one reflects that a major part of the barracks communist ideology is to be inexplicit or even deceptive about social vision. The population of Zimbabwe is well aware by now, so I doubt anything so reactionary as apartheid would be necessary to end Mugabism. Reinstitution of democracy would suffice, and is a more viable, more likely option than apartheid. Also, the Rhodesian government was actually quite socialistic itself. The problem was that it was a national socialism, and the particular nation was the invasive European minority. Contention 3 is basically more of Contentions 1 and 2, but I should say that it's not at all clear that the Smith government was "much more free". Technical democracy with alleged intimidation, as under Mugabe, is not "much less free" than explicit relegation of the vast native population to a small fraction of the franchise, as under Smith. At no time in Rhodesia was there anything resembling "democracy", so there would at no time be any incentive to subvert it, would there?