Political Commentary
The Unwelcome Choice
By DAVID WATT ,
It follows that by the spring British Ministers must either have negotiated and introduced a Southern Rhodesian Independence Bill or have prepared themselves and their followers for the consequences of a Southern Rhodesian version of the Boston tea-party. Either way there is going to be trouble. The Tory Party is a witches' caul- ci:on of emotions and reflexes when it comes to this subject. On one side, solid for Independence without any fuss, stand perhaps 100 members— the rump of the Central African lobby, the 'can't- let-down-our-kith-and-kin' brigade and in general the right wing of the party. On the other are the Younger 'progressives,' probably not more than thirty of them, who find themselves clinging with many a longing backward glance to Mr. Mac- millan's `wind of change' policy and the doctrine that bloodshed and chaos will certainly follow where self-government is granted to those who do not command the support of the majority of their populations. In the middle are the great mass cf Tory MPs who are torn between vague feelings of guilt about the Central African kederation and acute anxieties for the future of the Commonwealth and the monarchy.
Even the most ardent supporters of Southern Rhodesian independence are resigned to the fact that Southern Rhodesia cannot be granted it within the Commonwealth. The African Com- monwealth members would never allow her to Join unless there was the prospect of an almost im- mediate African majority in the Southern Rhod- esian parliament. What has therefore been pro- posed to the Prime Minister by Mr. Patrick Wall, the leader of this group, and his friends is that Sol thern Rhodesia should be offered indepen- dence outside the Commonwealth. And since the Southern Rhodesians themselves are desperately loyal to the Crown they would be prepared to make 'reasonable' concessions to the Africans if the Queen could retrain Head of the State out- wk. the Commonwealth. What constitutes a reasonable price for the Queen is hard to say,
but these MPs are talking in terms of a declara- tion against racial discrimination and the grant- ing of a few more African seats in parliament.
The objection to this solution is that, apart from breaking the progressive doctrine about self-government, it would cause almost as much difficulty with other Commonwealth members as irdependence inside the Commonwealth. The prospect of African States walking out of the Commonwealth en bloc and subsequently taking part in the arraignment of Britain at the United Nations can be contemplated, I should estimate, by not more than a third at most of Conservative MPs. Even if it seemed likely that the African Commonwealth would stand the strain for the immediate future there would still be a highly damaging public row in which the thirty or so progressives, joined no doubt by a well-known former Colonial Secretary, would refuse to sup- port the Government and give the Opposition their field-day.
There is therefore the strongest possible tempta- tion to do nothing and to let the Southern Rhodesians take their independence amid loud and relieved cries of denunciation from the British Government. This at least would solve the immediate problems within the Tory Party. Not more than a tiny handful of members would dare to join in the inevitable Opposition accusa- tions that Britain had connived at the v.et and very few indeed would stand out for any positive sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. One can't help sensing that a majority of Tory MPs would be relieved if it turned out like this.
The Prime Minister has evidently still to make up his mind. He listens courteously to Mr. Wall, he actively canvasses the views of the Younger Members' Group, he evades on the floor of the House. He may well be thinking of some kind of deal with Mr. Field, for he emphasised last November that in his opinion the present Scuthern Rhodesian constitution is already 'in accordance with the principles of majority rule' ana he added that the issue was one of pace. He has also told a number of inquirers privately that he believes Mr. Sandys's estimate that in twelve years the present constitution will pro- duce an African majority (a gross underestimate according to the progressives), but I understand,
on excellent authority, that unfortunately no,effort was made to point out to Mr. Field on his visit last month the serious disadvantages for Rhodesia of 'going it alone' and Mr. Sandys himself has let it be known that after recent events in East Africa he hasn't the heart to press the Rhodesians t3 a radical constitutional advance.
And yet the Prime Minister must be aware that whether he drives a less' than very hard bar- gain with Mr.. Field or whether Southern Rhodesia seizes independence without British re- prisals the whole Conservative African policy of the last eight years will fall in ruins. This is a dilemma from which only great political courage or a snap March election can rescue him.
The mass lobby of MPs by the Young Socialists last Thursday about youth unemployment was worth anyone's money. It provided some vig- nettes that will long be cherished in the memory —Mr. Konni Zilliacus explaining modestly to a group of adoring Trotskyites that he couldn't N ery well come.and give them support for whole- sale nationalisation unless he was actually invited; Mr. Peter Tapsell, in his most impeccable Tory MP's outfit, breasting the wave of jeans and cor- duroy in piteous search for even a single Young Socialist from West Nottingham to lobby him.
But the occasion also showed us an absorbing duel between the official Labour Party and its ' most implacable opponent—the enemy within. The Young Socialist Movement has become a Frankenstein's monster which the Labour Party has never learnt to control satisfactorily. The average YS rank-and-filer is an earnest and in- tensely idealistic character who wants the mil- lennium now—or else; and his frustrations pro- vide the perfect opportunity for extremists. In the Thirties the movement was deliberately in- filtrated by the Communists; now it is the turn of the Trotskyites (though one doubts whether Trotsky would have recognised the astonishing mixture of syndicalism and plain bloody-mind- edness which now bears his name.).
This situation explains the caution with which Transport House approached the idea of the Lobby. The pundits suspected that the Trots, after the decline of CDN, were looking for an- other big cause to take over. The prospect of a mob of howling teenagers besieging the Palace of Westminster and battling with the police in front of the TV cameras was enough to make even the stout-hearted Mrs. Braddock, chairman of Labour's Youth Sub-committee, quail.
Massive indoctrination, pep-talks and the presence of practically every Labour youth officer in the country kept the outing in line, as it turned out. The march and the subsequent visits to the House of Commons in small groups were a miracle of orderliness. It is doubtful, however, whether this could have been achieved without the brilliant notion (which originated in the fertile brain of Mrs. Barbara Castle) of having a marathon meeting at the Westminster Central Hall to keep everyone amused throughout the long afternoon. The Trotskyites' riposte was to organise their own meeting at 6 p.m. just when Mr. George Brown was due to provide the highlight of the afternoon at the Central Hall. To the extent that the official meeting was one big yawn, with MP after MP appealing for solidarity, while the rival gathering really addressed itself to the problem, the Trots had q big success. Yet Transport House had the last laugh, for they were able to maintain that they could control their followers—and what matter that the rank and file were receiving poison in their ears providing they were too busy to burn down Big Ben or unbreech the Serjeant-at-Arms?
Previous page
