Mutumwa Mawere

In response to my article entitled: "Pushing the envelope of knowledge - Cecil Rhodes"http://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-1472-Pushing+the+envelope+of+knowledge+Cecil+Rhodes/columns.aspx, Jojo commented that the choice of the title is rather a patronising way to put the point across as in his opinion my contribution does not expand the body of knowledge rather it is merely a different perspective or my opinion on various issues.

What is knowledge? It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total' facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation."

When I was growing up, my worldview was informed by the body of knowledge that was exposed formally and informally to me.

Accordingly, my role models were people in the academia or professional service providers like lawyers, accountants, doctors etc.

What I knew or was made to understand is that blacks were poor because white people had conspired to make it that way.

All I was informed was that settlers had constructively deprived blacks of their heritage and, therefore, independence was meant to restore the heritage of native

Africans where it should have always been vested.
I did not know much about the Rand Lords and their contribution to African heritage and civilization.
One cannot deny that a race-based political and economic system is bad and toxic to human development and progress.

However, the reality in Africa is that our past did little to prepare ourselves for the kind of challenges that need to be addressed for the continent to reduce the frontiers of poverty.

Colonialism brought with it a new way of doing business and exposed the real potential of Africa.

We have no choice but to learn from our past and by pushing the envelope of knowledge on our business heritage, the hope is that we can learn that capitalism has no colour and, if anything, we need to expand the body of knowledge on what kind of people we generally classify as capitalists are and what informs their actions.

It is only when we know the experiences of those that came before us that we can be guided in terms of appreciating how national progress can be best promoted and secured through financial and business literacy.

We just have to know our past for us to move forward. Our political heritage is well known and understood but our business heritage is less understood given the historical complex interplay between business and politics.

The knowledge about the life and struggles of the men and women who shaped Africa's corporate civilization is not generally available in the minds of the people who also want to do business in Africa and yet such knowledge is critical in determining business success.

What is different about the Rand Lords and the new class of post-colonial Rand Lords?

The Rand Lords understood that the colonial model had to be self sustaining and could not be underpinned by any aid from the mother countries.

Most of the Rand Lords unlike the majority of people who are in the diaspora had no intention of going back to their countries of birth but were determined to make it in the new territories.

The Rand Lords were men of conviction who knew what they needed to do to construct a new civilization that had to be underpinned by an institutional and human capital arrangement similar to the one they were familiar with.
In trying to appreciate what is wrong with Africa, I had no choice but to improve my own limited understanding of our business heritage.

Having looked at the story of Rhodes, it is all important to look at how his friends fared in business and their role in our heritage.

One of the most significant associates of Rhodes is Mr. Charles Dunell Rudd, born on 22 October 1844 in Hanworth, Norfolk and died on 15 November 1916.

Rudd studied at Harrow School and then entered Trinity College, Cambridge in 1863 but did not complete his studies opting to immigrate to South Africa, Cape Colony in 1865.

In 1872, Rudd and Rhodes became friends and partners in the diamond business. Rudd played a key role in Rhodes' business exploits.

Between 1873 and 1881, Rudd managed their business interests while Rhodes attended college at Oxford.
They formed the De Beers Mining Company together. Rudd was one of the directors of the company and also held large interests in the main machinery supplier for the mining fields.

In early 1887, Rhodes, Rudd and Rudd's brother, Thomas, registered Gold Fields of South Africa to focus on gold mining.

Although the company had other shareholders and directors in England, it was structured to favour Rudd and Rhodes who benefitted enormously as individuals from the activities in Southern Africa.

It was Rudd on 13 October 1888 that secured an agreement known as the Rudd Concession with respect to the mineral rights of Matabeleland and Mashonaland from Lobengula, the King of Matabeleland.

History records that Rhodes and Rudd had duped the British government and the investing public into believing that the Concession was vested in the public company when in truth and fact it was vested in a private entity.

The Concession was sold at a profit of millions of pounds to the public company, the British South Africa Company.

Although Rhodes and Rudd were extremely close, in 1895 they had major fallout leading to Rudd proclaiming that he would no longer work with Rhodes.

It is believed Rudd was unaware of the Gold Fields' conspiracy that motivated the disastrous Jameson Raid.

Notwithstanding, Rudd remained friends with Rhodes and a director of Gold Fields until 1902 after which he retired to Scotland where he bought the Ardnamurchan estate in Argyll, where be bought two houses, one of which, Glenborrodale Castle for his guests.

Rudd came to Africa with no money but returned to Europe a rich man. His friendship with Rhodes paid off and exposed how Africa can be good to be people who believe in it.

The role Rudd played in converting the mineral rights acquired in Zimbabwe into cash with the support and active participation of Rhodes is no different from the role that is being played by many fortune hunters in Africa today.

As justification for the exclusion of black people in the value chain was that corporate civilization was foreign to Africa and in any event, even if colonialism had not visited the continent, the minerals would have remained in situ with no alternative indigenous plan to identify and exploit them.

With the investment in exploration which is risk capital, it has been argued that the minerals would have remained hidden and the credit ought to go to the Rand Lords who were smart enough to convince Anglo American financiers that Africa was indeed well endowed with mineral resources.
Men like Rudd and Rhodes rejected the notion that the loot from minerals had to be shared with the natives.

They first cut a deal with Lobengula and then registered a public company with a promise of high returns from mineral rights to be secured in Zimbabwe fully knowing that such rights were already vested in the Rudd Concession in which Rhodes and Rudd had personal interests.

What lessons do we learn from Rudd? Rudd was loyal to Rhodes until the end. Rhodes was a master at what he did.

He understood the need for an institutional approach to development. He was responsible for setting up a number of companies that were then used as instruments to raise capital and develop the mineral and agricultural resources of Southern Africa.

He also knew that he needed Europe to understand the colonial project. Capital markets did respond to the call for investment.

Rhodes was acutely conscious that he needed to accumulate capital to do the kind of things that he is credited for.
Such wealth was not inherited as a consequence of his business acumen. Rudd by association became wealthy as well. The role of friendship and nepotism in business cannot be overstated. People do business with people they are comfortable with.