Zimbabwe's Future
Ian Smith Still Believes in Zimbabwe's Future

3rd August 2001

Ian Smith, former prime minister of Rhodesia, has worked his entire life for freedom and democracy in his native land, which has been renamed Zimbabwe.

In 1923 the African nation of Rhodesia, a protectorate but never a colony, was granted independence by Great Britain in all respects except foreign policy. Ian Smith, a native Rhodesian and a World War II hero, sought to bring his country into full independence under a democratic constitution fortified by a bill of rights similar to that enjoyed in the United States. Rhodesia had no apartheid laws and had allowed people of all races on the electoral roles since 1923. But the British Foreign Office was prepared to turn the country over to Marxist leaders who disdained democratic structures.

Smith had worked in the Rhodesian Parliament to increase lands allotted to the tribal-trust areas and became prime minister in 1964. The next year, Rhodesia declared total independence from Great Britain in the spirit of 1776.

Smith worked to bring white and black leaders together under Western constitutional principles. Under fully democratic elections in 1979, with expanded participation of black voters, Rhodesians elected Bishop Abel Muzorewa as Prime Minister, and the country's name was changed to Zimbabwe - Rhodesia. However, one leader, Robert Mugabe, a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, boycotted the elections because he could not win on a level field. As a result of the Marxist boycott, Western leaders asserted that Muzorewa's election was not fully representative. In tense negotiations at Lancaster House in London, Muzorewa, Smith and others negotiated protocols for a new election, based on the assumption that there would be no intimidation. Though that promise was betrayed, the Western powers hailed Mugabe's ''victory.'' In the last 20 years, Mugabe has consolidated his power, jailing opponents, banishing a free press, killing local leaders and even resorting to ''ethnic cleansing.''

Insight: When did the Smiths come to Rhodesia?

Ian Smith: My father came to Africa in 1897, so he was one of the pioneers. He lived there all his life as a farmer and was one of the leading men of the community, which was called Selukwe.

Insight: Is that where you grew up?

IS: Yes, and I am still working that farm today. I went to school in that little town. I went to Rhodes University in Grahamstown [South Africa], where the 1820 settlers landed, and was only there a couple of years when World War II broke out. Then I was a pilot in the Royal Air Force from 1941 right up to the end of the war. I was shot down over enemy lines in the Po Valley over Genoa [Italy].

I landed in the Ligurian Alps and was there for five months, fighting with the Italian Partizani against the Germans. I decided to come back because the winter was coming on and the Germans were coming down out of the snow line. We had to cross the alps above the snow line and walked for 23 days toward France because the American invasion force had come in.

It wasn't easy. But eventually I brought the team over. After that I went back to flying Spitfires on the German front.

Insight: And after the war you returned home?

IS: Yes.

Insight: Was the Smith family considered a large landholder?

IS: My farm is the standard size of farms in that area. Farms were divided throughout the country in keeping with the type of agriculture in the area where they were established. In the low veldt areas, where it is dry like Texas, there were big ranches, 20,000 up to 50,000 acres. And then, when you came to Matabeleland, they were down to 10,000 acres. In the midlands, where I am, they were down to 6,000 acres. Then when you went into the higher rainfall areas of Mashonaland, they went down to under 3,000 acres. The plan was to let a man live there with his wife and bring up his family in decent conditions and give employment to black people.

Insight: The charge often is made that the white settlers came in and took all the best land and left the indigenous tribes with very poor, worn-out lands.

IS: There's no substance to that, but that is a common story by people who just wish to malign the white people. The British [government] simply said, ''You leave all the black people where they are presently living.'' And it was divided pretty well equally. About one-third was tribal-trust land for the black people, about one-third was allocated for commercial farms and one-third was state land in between that could be used for different purposes: forest lands and game parks and future expansion of lands for the black people. I happen to know a great deal about this because I was appointed to a select committee in [the Rhodesian] Parliament to examine the question of allocating new lands to the black people and examining the various soils in the country.

Insight: Were there no black people already farming in the areas now farmed today by white farmers?

IS: When the white man first came, there was nobody on those lands where they settled because those fields weren't so good. They are rated very poorly as Class I - that is, the heavy red soils. The black people told us - and I was on the select committee - they said, ''We are not interested in those lands. The white farmers with their tractors and heavy implements can plow those lands, and they can have them. We want the soft alluviums.'' And it so happens that the soft alluviums are the best soils of the country. So it is a complete misconception to say that the white man took the best lands. In fact, it is quite the reverse. 

Insight: What kind of farmland is in the tribal-trust areas?

IS: Those soils are graded much higher as about Class III or IV. Class I is the heavy red soils, but to farm that you have to have tractors and implements. And there is a disadvantage also because, if a drought hits, the alluviums hold the water better. In a dry year, you get much better crops on the light soils than on the heavy soils. But the truth is, the black people chose the lands that they are on. And subsequently when they asked for more land, the select committee decided to give it to them. We gave them the land for which they asked.

Insight: But today Robert Mugabe says that 4,500 white farmers own 70 percent of the country's best farmland. He has encouraged squatters just to take over farms.

IS: It really has nothing to do with land. Mugabe today controls 4 million acres of vacant government land that already has been paid for. Why doesn't he give it to these chaps? The government originally had 9 million acres, bought and paid for, but they gave a lot out to the comrades and Cabinet ministers who just took the best land - they stole it, just walked onto it. They still haven't paid for it. And the answer is, it's got nothing to do with land. The object is to intimidate voters to vote for Mugabe. In the recent elections for Parliament, in Matabeleland alone, 30 people - black people, not white people - were murdered in broad daylight. They were members of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the main opposition party, and MDC supporters. Not one suspect has been arrested.

Insight: What political support does Mugabe have today?

IS: It generally is estimated that the MDC, the main opposition party, has the support of 70 percent, if not more, of the people in the country, and if there were a free election that would be reflected in the tally.

Insight: Was this expected when Mugabe first came to power?

IS: The day he won the election, he asked if I could come and see him at a house he lived in just up the road from where I was living. His secretary phoned, so I said sure, and up I went. He was sitting there with a half-dozen of his supporters and he said to me, ''Mr. Smith, I can't get over how fortunate we are, inheriting this jewel of Africa, this wonderful country with its infrastructure, its professionalism, its experience, the working people who keep the wheels turning - and we've got to keep it that way.'' Well, I was taken aback because he spoke to me like a broad-minded Westerner, as opposed to the Marxist-Leninist we had been led to believe he was.

So I said to him, ''Will you say that in public?'' ''Yes,'' he said, ''and I'm going to say it tomorrow morning.'' And he did - he went on radio and television and said exactly that. So it went well, until all of a sudden, early one morning - it was after 18 months - Mugabe announced that the government was now going to embark on its true course and create a one-party Marxist state. He actually used the term 'Marxist.' Nobody could believe it. So I went to see him. Every time I had gone to see him before, he welcomed me, thanked me for coming, for giving him the benefit of my experience, for telling him what the white people were thinking - we had an incredibly amicable relationship. I reminded him that since he came to power I had not raised one word of criticism against him, and I said I had asked my backbenchers to be reasonable, to give him a chance and do the right thing. So I said to him, ''Why are you doing this? You're breaking confidence in the future of the country. I haven't criticized you up to now, but I have to tell you that, if you go on like this, I will have to criticize you in public for the first time since you came to power.'' I could see he was immediately displeased, in fact, incensed. From that day on he has refused to talk to me - and that was 20 years ago. Under a one-party Marxist dictatorship, you agree - you don't disagree.

Insight: How many seats does the opposition have in Parliament now?

IS: The MDC's got just a couple less than Mugabe. I think there were three seats less, but they are challenging some of these seats, and there has been a decision by the high court that there had to be reruns in some of the districts. Clearly massive intimidation has been proved in court. And the judge who gave this decision a few weeks ago resigned the next day because he said he simply couldn't go on being a judge under those circumstances. He feared for his family.

Insight: Where is the political situation heading now?

IS: It just hinges on one thing: Can we get rid of the gangsters? If we can get rid of one man, in particular, and the philosophy of communist Marxism, all will be well.

Insight: What is the next political milestone? When is Mugabe up for election?

IS: Next year. And the issue is whether it will be a free and fair election. One of the good things about our situation is that the position of South Africa has changed for the good. For a long time, people were disappointed in [South African President] Thabo Mbeki. But I think that is unfair. Mbeki is the most important leader in Africa, since he represents the most important country. And we are told that, although on the surface he's spoken kindly about Mugabe, he has made it clear in private that South Africa has had enough. And I think I'm correct when I say that Nelson Mandela, that great statesman who was the new South Africa's first leader, also has made it clear, according to reports that we have, that they have had enough of this man, Mugabe. So it looks as though the net may be closing. Moreover, the majority of the Politburo of Mugabe's own party has told him it is time he retired. And we are reliably told that some of his young members of Parliament are fed up and are prepared to work with the young members of the MDC opposition to remove him.

Insight: Who would replace him?

IS: You can never make that assessment under the communist system - they never have a leader in waiting. But once a decision is made by the Politburo, nobody dares step out of line. That's how it works. Whether it's Marxism, whether it's Fascism, whether it's Nazism, they're all the same. There's no difference. They are all one-party dictatorships, and their main function in life is to stay in power - that's all; you just stay in power. If you allow yourself to be removed from power, then you've bungled it.

Insight: Do you think international pressure can produce a fair election?

IS: Well, it depends on the strength of that power. I think international power can influence it - South Africa especially can help determine the future of our country. And the more the people suffer, the more the opposition to Mugabe grows - because the members of his party, the ZANU-PF, realize that it is their people, their families, who are suffering. And the Matabeles are still against him because of what was known as the gakurakundi, which means ''sweep it clean,'' in the Shona language. That's when Mugabe sent in his North Korean-trained troops in 1982 to clean up his political opposition in Matabeleland. Those troops massacred more than 30,000 Matabeles - just threw them down the mine shafts. They are still digging them out. The Matabeles have never forgotten that. And in the last election Mugabe's party did not win a single seat in Matabeleland.

Insight: What is the future?

IS: Well, it hangs on whether we can get rid of the gangsters and this dreadful legacy of a Marxist-Leninist state. Nobody is going to invest in a country which has embarked on a declared philosophy of Marxism-Leninism. Not even a half-wit would. The whole world has turned its back on that - even Russia, even China. The faults of communism are now openly seen. But Mugabe says he's got a special kind of Marxism which he can work in Zimbabwe. It has to do with philosophy - it has to do with the fact that under Marxism or communism or Nazism or Fascism you have a one-party state to keep you in power.

Insight: If you get rid of the gangsters, can the country be restored?

IS: I think there's more hope with us than others. You know, we were never a colony. We were an independent state since 1923. The Rhodesians realized that they were building a future for their children and their grandchildren. That's why they built a well-balanced, well-developed country with good race relations. We have the best infrastructure in Africa and are the breadbasket of the continent, exporting even to South Africa. It's an incredible country. And that's why we still can make it work. We've gone down a long way, but if we could draw a line against Marxism and gangsterism I believe we could get back to where we were.

From an article published in INSIGHT MAGAZINE
Text by James P. Lucier