Rhodesia Condemns by A.J.A Peck
Published by Three Sisters Books (Pvt) Ltd (1967)

IN 1965 Rhodesian politics took a twist as the Ian Smith-led government adopted the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) announcing that Rhodesia, a British territory that had governed itself since 1923, now regarded itself as an independent sovereign state.
Britain was insisting that Africans participate more in the country’s political affairs before independence and was not prepared to give the settlers control of the country.
In response the Rhodesian Front declared UDI rebelling against Britain and as a way to tighten the grip on the country.
In the book Rhodesia Condemns, Rhodesian lawyer-cum-writer A.J.A Peck seeks to highlight the reasons behind the UDI and Britain’s response.
His book is a cry to the international community not to condemn the Rhodesian government.
The writer justifies the move by the Rhodesian Front as a welcome development that would promote the growth of the country.
As expected, Peck argues that there was no place for blacks in the politics of Rhodesia as they were not capable of running the affairs of the country.
To him political issues were too complex for the blackman to comprehend, hence Britain was not supposed to advocate the involvement of blacks in politics.
“In addition, a very large percentage of the adult black Rhodesian populace is illiterate (as in all African countries) and the ordinary African man-in-the-street would simply not understand complex issues involving sophisticated political arguments,” he writes.
Peck goes on to argue that if left to rule themselves, Africans would be under dictatorship or riddled with military coup hence the need for the whiteman to enforce democracy in Africa.
To him, “True democracy does not yet exist anywhere in Africa- Like the unicorn, it is a mythical beast.”
Peck advances the warped thinking of the West that they were and are the champions of democracy and it is only them who can best practise it.
It is for this very reason even today that they continue to meddle in Africa’s affairs under the guise of guiding the continent to being democratic.
Peck cites examples of African countries that had by 1967 attained independence such as Ethiopia, Liberia, Togo, Congo and Algeria to justify his position.
It is not surprising that the writer forgets to mention that rivalry between tribes and ethnic groups was and is still orchestrated by European countries to discredit black rule.
To date, Western countries fund opposition parties to effect regime change in African countries as in the case of Zimbabwe where the MDC formed in 1999 relied heavily on Western funding.
Unashamedly, Peck justifies the need to oppress the rise of black nationalism as it would affect the privileges of the white Rhodesians.
“Black nationalism offers the white man little freedom,” he writes.
“What bothered me most was the fact that Africans are totally unwillingly to accept whites as equals and partners in a free government.”
To him, it did not matter that in Rhodesia at that time blacks were not enjoying any freedom in their country.
Blacks in Rhodesia were treated as third class citizens and this did not matter to the writer all he wanted was for him and his kith and kin to enjoy the stolen heritage.
In an effort to discredit the nationalist leaders, Peck blames them for not representing the true desires of the blacks in Rhodesia.
“Certainly, if the African nationalist parties were indeed the spokesmen for African opinion in Rhodesia, one might as well ask why they should find it necessary to perpetrate innumerable crimes of violence and destruction upon the innocent masses of population,” he writes.
Peck wanted to paint a picture showing Rhodesians as the only ones who had the interests of the blacks at heart and not the nationalists.
His line of thought did not sell as the same nationalists representing the blacks were part of the marginalised group in Rhodesia.
It would not be fair to think that the oppressors had genuine love for the masses than a section of the oppressed.
It is for this very reason the masses supported the nationalists and joined and supported them in the liberation struggle that birthed the country’s independence.
The book fails to achieve its goal as the writer’s efforts went to waste as black nationalism rose, the masses took up arms, defeated the whiteman and Rhodesia fell.
And today, 47 years after the book was published and in spite of British, Rhodesian and European interference in the last decade, Zimbabwe is ruled by a black Government that has not only managed to develop the country, but also empowered the masses.