Introduction
The understanding of the historical evolution of the country is the key for the interpretation of the culture of the particular nation. At the same time, the history of the country contains the explanation of the causes and consequences of the particular events. These stages and events should serve the role of the example for the future conduct of population and leadership of the state. In this regard, the evolution path of Zimbabwe as the past colony of the British Empire represents the interesting development story. In 2015 the country celebrated twenty-five years of the independence. This South-African country is relatively new in the international arena, while the majority of the states in the world does not consider it is necessary to enter the close relations with Zimbabwe. In particular, states do not consider that these relations may bring special benefits for the both sides. From this point of view, the states and the leaders of the Western countries pay attention to the lack of the resources in Zimbabwe, while no one dwells on the long and exhausting fight of the population of the country. Therefore, this paper is focused as the stages in the historical development of the country that has led to the receipt of the independence from the British Empire in 1980. That year all countries in the world welcomed the creation of new separate and independent country in the global scale. Zimbabwe managed to get rid of the impact exercised by the British over the local people. Afterwards, the majority of the countries have successfully forgotten about the new country. It has been passing through the ordinary living that can not influence the division of the powers in the world and cause the formation of the global imbalances between the regions. Besides, the overview of the historical evolution of the country towards the receipt of the independence is quite interesting and informative as the country has changed its status within the years of the independence from the progressive country to the state in the deep crisis.
The Overview of the Struggle for the Independence
Only in 1980 country which is titled today as Zimbabwe has managed to get the independence. Until this year the country was the colony Rhodesia under the power of the United Kingdom. Besides, the consideration of the development of the country should be started from 1889. In this year, Cecil John Rhodes, performing the functions of the Prime-Minister of the British colony and one of the provident political leader, was ordered by the Crown to discover the territories of the British Empire which were situated near the river Limpopo. Accordingly, Rhodes gained the power to exercise the control and complete management over these territories without any external interference from the Queen. It should be said that the instruction of the particular persons to discover the new territories on behalf of the Crown was a usual practice for the British Empire. The main idea of such conduct was based on the decision that in case the discovered territories will be found as fruitful and beneficial for the welfare of the Crown, the Queen was in any time stated that this land belonged to her in accordance with the legal reasoning (Maguire, Nyangoni & Nyandoro, 1980, p. 87). In 1889, Rhodes started the discovery of the new lands so that at the end of 1890 the territory was titled as Fort-Solsbery. The entire amount of the population living at these settlements was not significant while after the first half of the twentieth century the situation has been changed. Within the next years, the amount of the people was permanently increasing because of the movements of the population and the people of different villages from place to place. Given this event, Rhodes faced the necessity to increase the expenses related to the formation of the welfare of the region. In addition, the British Empire was not focused on the the development of the territories around Limpopo. Rhodes had to bring it up based on the personal financial resources. In this respect, the people in this region were working at the elaboration of different industries, agricultural sphere and the production of the company belonging to Rhodes. Upon his death in 1902, the settlement received the title Rhodesia as after the founder. Because of the significant size of the territory, the citizens have decided to divide the colony into two parts as the North and the South. For the purposes of this paper the focus should be paid for he development of the South region, while the North has been transformed within lapse of the particular period into the independent country Zambia. With that, the South Rhodesia was regarded as the part of the British Empire based on the legal ground arising from the order given by the Queen to Rhodes. However, it was developing as the separate settlement with autonomy governed by the private business unit (Mlambo & Raftopoulos, 2009, p. 55).
In fact, the United Kingdom recognized in the beginning of the twentieth century that the country should be provided with the independence in the nearest future. Although, the start of the World War I became impediment for the adoption of this decision. Moreover, Rhodesia as the part of the Untied Kingdom participated in the military actions by provision of the military servants for the assistance of the Crown in the war. Furthermore, in comparison to the involvement of the other colonies and territories belonging to the United Kingdom, Rhodesia was regarded as the country that sent the biggest amount of the people for all military actions where the United Kingdom took part. After the finish of the World War I, the population of the settlement have conducted the referendum about the status of the colony. The settlement was considering to change its status for the autonomy or to join the territory of the South Africa (Hill, Yudelman & Clayton, 1966, p. 134). Given the existence of the ambigual treatment towards the population of the South Africa, the majority of the people living in Rhodesia preferred to vote for the first option in order to pursue the status of autonomy. Therefore, in 1923 the South Rhodesia was accepted to the territory of the United Kingdom as the separate autonomy. In this formation, the power was exercised on behalf of the governor which was sent by the Crown to this territory. However, the involvement of this governor was featured as declarative one due to the fact that the population of Rhodesia was adopting the personal legislation (Raftopoulos & Mlambo, 2009, p. 74).
After the World War II, the United Kingdom attempted to change the status of the South Rhodesia by virtue of the creation of new state uniting the North Rhodesia and Malawi as well. However, this attempt failed so that the South Rhodesia had to return to the status of autonomy as the special dominion. Besides, in comparison to the status of the South Rhodesia, the United Kingdom has decided to provide the North Rhodesia and Malawi with the independence. Although, the Queen was a bit afraid of the forthcoming process of the receipt of the independence pursued by the African countries. Despite this fact, the people of Rhodesia did not try to gain the independence with the military actions. The management of the region stood to the idea that the people should be ready for the independent status afterwards the necessary documents should be provided for the consideration to the Crown. Moreover, it should be said that the economic development of the region until 1960 was relatively high as the level of the employment was low. The autonomy created numerous working opportunities for the people coming to the country. At the same time, Rhodesia was regarded as the most fruitful country located in the Africa region. Rhodesia sold tobacco products, meat and tea for the nearest countries and other colonies of the United Kingdom. Given the economical development of the region what showed the ability of the country to exist without the lieu of the control from the United Kingdom, the leadership of Rhodesia took the patient position which should have lead to the decision of the Queen to provide the independence (Mosley, 1982, p. 390). Besides, the Queen was awaiting for the decision of the majority of the population to request for the independence in order to prevent the existence of the military regime in the country. Furthermore, the stability of the region and its devotion to the democratic principles were not taken into account by the Queen of the United Kingdom. In fact, the Queen was afraid to loose new portion of the territory with the strong economical development that could undermine the influence and power of the United Kingdom over the rest of the colonies. From this point of view, the population of Rhodesia should have awaited for the new stage and moment when the independence could be received. Besides, the state bodies and political leaders of the United Kingdom were not expected that Rhodesia was ready for the independence and the population decided to refer to the military and active actions for the facilitation of the process of the receipt of the independence. In 1964, the new political party came to the power in Rhodesia. Ian Smith, governing the National political party, entered the negotiations with the Queen about the perspective status of Rhodesia as the independent country (Raftopoulos & Mlambo, 2009, p. 90).
However, the United Kingdom was not ready to take this step due to several internal and external factors. When Ian Smith took the position of the Prime Minister in Rhodesia, he has decided to gain the independence by virtue of any available instruments. His conduct may be found reasonable and logic, as the people of the South Rhodesia could not understand why the North region was provided with the independence regardless of the South Rhodesia. Until 1965, Smith could not reach the consensus with the Commonwealth Prime Minister due to the absence of the common view as to the further development of the region. In this respect, the United Kingdom was afraid of the regime realized by Smith so that Wilson introduced the sanctions against Rhodesia in order to prevent the possible exposure to the military and aggressive activity. At the same time, the representatives of the British Empire had the aim to find the balance in the satisfaction of the interests of the white people and black Africans. In this respect, in the territory of Rhodesia, in 1972 the British Empire created the centre for the consideration of the issues of the black Africans which was governed by the Pearce Commission. Furthermore, the struggle between the provident political groups in the country took place while the regime of Ian Smith was considered to be illegal one (Marley & Hancock, 1986, p. 458).
Despite the fact that the independence of Zimbabwe was satisfied only in 1980, this status could be received earlier. In particular, in 1960, the United Nations as the provident international organization that should perform the functions for the protection of the interests of the human, adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Counties and Peoples. The Britain did not accept the role of this legal act as the leadership of the country was awaiting for the adoption of the decision about the independence by majority of the votes of the national population of Zimbabwe. Finally, the independence of the country was received in 1980 upon the adoption of the constitution of the states jointly with the signature of the Bill of the Rights (Paul, 2015).
At the same time, in 1980 Ian Smith lost the control over the country as Mugabe won the campaign. In this respect, Ian Smith requested his opponent to work over the prosperity of the country in order to save the economical development after the independence. The main task of the new leader upon the receipt of the independence was to save the welfare of the population without shy harm to it. Besides, Mugabe as the new leaders was not concerned about the perseverance of the economic development as he was engaged completely with the idea to obtain the control over the life in the society by depriving his opponents in the political arena. It should be said that Zimbabwe was passing through the different ethnical wars and conflicts (Dashwood, 2001, p. 78). Mugabe was belonging to the society of Mashona which represent the significant portion of the population in the country. His opponent, Joshua Nkomo was a leader of ZAPU. With the victory of Mugabe upon the officer of the Prime Minister of the country, Nkomo understood that the democratic values and principles will not be respected. Given the fact that the major portion of the population of Zimbabwe belonged to African population, the people were guided by the rules of the war (Saul & Saunders, 2005, p. 953).
Furthermore, the population of the country has become the subject of the numerous repressions and prosecutions. Mugabe did not intend to guarantee for people the freedom of the expression and the legal framework for the satisfaction of the basic rights and freedoms. Therefore, any person which presented the attitude to the decrease of the welfare of the country was sentenced. Consequently the economy of the country entered the period of stagnation and crisis. The production capabilities of the country as the leader of the trade and export operations was diminished as well (Smiley, 1980, p. 1060). The national currency of the country was a subject of the high inflation, while the entire population felt the decrease in the development and the forthcoming disaster having the impact over the life of everyone. Accordingly, the civil war was started between white people and the people of color. Several white farmers were killed in the territory of Zimbabwe due to the fact that local Africans believed those people were guilty in the deepening of the crisis in the country and in the acquisition of the all resources of the state. In this respect, the farmers had to cease the production of the particular products what resulted in the the hunger. Moreover, the overwhelming amount of population had to leave the country and seek for the better place for living. All these events turned the country from the developing one into the poor state which became dependent on the import of the food products and other several goods from the foreign countries. Zimbabwe had no own resources to improve the welfare and eliminate the crisis. Several industries of the country appeared in the crisis, while Mugabe continued to worsen the situation and exercise his unlimited power. Finally, he removed the competition in the political arena of the country and introduced the amendments to the Constitution with the purpose to stay at the power and in the officer of the President of Zimbabwe forever. His ruling lasted till 2005, while the European countries preferred not to pay attention to the problems of the country. Europe and the rest of the world believe that the country should manage the situation with the spread of the dictatorship in the country based on the personal resources, so that there is no room for the interference from the another subjects of the international arena (Slinn, 1980, p. 1050).
Role of the Internal and International Factors in Achievement of Independence
Zimbabwe takes roots in African region under the title Rhodesia. It should be said that the achievement of independence by the population of Zimbabwe was just the matter of time. Under this statement one should understand that the United Kingdom needed time for the adoption the decision about the independence of the country as the nearest territories were granted successfully with the independence. In addition, the country was developed economically enough in order to survive without the control of the United Kingdom and its interference. Moreover, the histrorical evolution of the region shows the evidence that the development of the country was launched without the interference of the United Kingdom, while the elaboration of the industries in the country did not draw the attention of the Crown. In this regard, in comparison with the other territories in the region, Rhodesia should have obtained the independence in any way as the country was separate from the economical point of you long ago before the status of independent country. Furthermore, the location of the country did not create any impediments for the United Kingdom in order to prevent the fight of the country for the independence. It means that Zimbabwe does not cover any strategic objects that may be valuable for the trade of the companies situated in the United Kingdom. In case the Crown was not awaiting for the separation of the population in Rhodesia into two separate groups, which figth turned in the civil war, the independent status could have been received earlier.
Furthemore, Zimbabwe had all internal factors that led to the receipt of the independence. These factors include the existence of the civil war between different political groups in the country, maintenance of the relations with the United Kingdom where the representatives of the country acted respectfully. In addition, the country has the internal organizational structure set by Rhodes and the governors of the United Kingdom so that it was easy to pursue the Indepence. With that, the majority of the population desired to obtain the independence.
Besides, it should be said that regardless of the fact that the country is independent and separate, the struggle for the independence continues. Under this statement one should understand that the population of Zimbabwe failed in the actions towards the receipt of the independence. Initially, the people had the aim to decide upon the political and economical country freely without the satisfaction of the conditions of the United Kingdom. Today there is no interference of the Crown, while the people should continue struggle to survive in hard and devastating living conditions. Moreover, the stability in the political arena should be achieved with the further improvement of the welfare of the population.
Conclusion
The overview of the historical development of Zimbabwe presents the evidence that the people of the country has a long-lasting fight for the independence which is lasting even nowadays. From the early beginning of the formation of the settlement with help of Rhodes on behalf of the British Empire, the country had numerous owners which exercised the power without satisfaction of the interests of the local population. In fact, Rhodes acted in the protection of the interests of the local people, while the British Empire than changed this approach and did not consider the option of the granting independence for the country for years. Accordingly, the country has passing through different civil wars as the population of Zimbabwe is divided silently into two categories based on the color and race. However, the country initially had a great potential that was created and seen by Rhodes. The British Empire did not appreciate the economic development of the country, while the local population was not able to save it due to the ruling of Mugabe for years.
Today Zimbabwe is an independent and separate country in the international arena, but the world does not treat it as the valuable and reliable partner in the trade relations or any other. Zimbabwe is passing through the economical and political crisis, while the Western countries have no intention to provide the assistance to Zimbabwe for the development of the democratic principles within the state. Moreover, the experience of Zimbabwe shows in what way the strong country being the autonomy may turn into the weak one due to the fights for the power within the country between the leaders. However, maybe in some time the position in Zimbabwe will be improved and the country will be developed better and return to the reliable country producing the goods of high quality. In case this happens, the West will pay more attention to the political situation in the country as it may influence the situation in the world. Until the crisis is continuing without any consequences to the region and Europe, no actions from the developed states will be taken for the resolution of the political and economical crisis in Zimbabwe.
References
Dashwood, H. (2001). Mugabe, Zimbabwe, and Southern Africa: The Struggle for Leadership. International Journal, 57(1), 78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40203634
Gerhart, G., & Charlton, M. (1991). The Last Colony in Africa: Diplomacy and the Independence of Rhodesia. Foreign Affairs, 70(3), 185. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20044905
Hill, P., Yudelman, M., & Clayton, E. (1966). Africans on the Land: Economic Problems of African Economic Development in Southern, Central and East Africa, with Special Reference to Southern Rhodesia. The Economic Journal, 76(301), 134. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2229063
Maguire, K., Nyangoni, C., & Nyandoro, G. (1980). Zimbabwe Independence Movements: Selected Documents. ASA Review Of Books, 6, 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/532634
Marley, A., & Hancock, I. (1986). White Liberals, Moderates and Radicals in Rhodesia, 1953-1980. Canadian Journal Of African Studies / Revue Canadienne Des Études Africaines, 20(3), 458. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/484461
Mlambo, A., & Raftopoulos, B. (2009). Becoming Zimbabwe. A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008 : A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008. African Books Collective.
Mosley, P. (1982). Agricultural Development and Government Policy in Settler Economies: The Case of Kenya and Southern Rhodesia, 1900-60. The Economic History Review, 35(3), 390. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2595658
Paul, S. (2015). Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Rhodesia: Fifty Years On. The Round Table, 104(5), 619-621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2015.1090784
Phimister, I. (2009). “Zimbabwe is Mine”: Mugabe, Murder, and Matabeleland. Safundi, 10(4), 471-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17533170903210996
Raftopoulos, B., & Mlambo, A. (2009). Becoming Zimbabwe. Harare: Weaver Press.
Saul, J., & Saunders, R. (2005). Mugabe, Gramsci, and Zimbabwe at 25. International Journal, 60(4), 953. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40204093
Slinn, P. (1980). Zimbabwe achieves independence. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 6(3), 1038-1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050718.1980.9985594
Smiley, X. (1980). Zimbabwe, Southern Africa and the Rise of Robert Mugabe. Foreign Affairs, 58(5), 1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20040582
