Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
No independence before majority rule (abbreviated NIBMAR) was a policy adopted by the British government requiring the implementation of majority rule in a colony, rather than rule by the white colonial minority, before the empire granted independence to its colonies.
The conference was dominated by the rebellion of the British colony of Rhodesia which was under the white minority rule regime of Ian Smith. Facing the possible collapse of the Commonwealth, with African states threatening to leave the association if action wasn't taken against Rhodesia, Britain agreed to a policy of No independence before ...
Britain, France and Belgium vastly accelerated their withdrawal from Africa during this period, believing colonial rule to be no longer sustainable geopolitically or ethically. The idea of "no independence before majority rule", commonly abbreviated to "NIBMAR", gained considerable ground in British political circles. [26]
The Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Rhodesia from the United Kingdom was signed by 12 ministers of the Rhodesian Cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Ian Smith, on 11 November 1965. Four junior members of the Cabinet—two ministers without portfolio , the chief whip and the deputy minister of information—did not sign, but were ...
When using the Hare quota, this rule is called Hamilton's method, and is the third-most common apportionment rule worldwide (after Jefferson's method and Webster's method). [ 1 ] Despite their intuitive definition, quota methods are generally disfavored by social choice theorists as a result of apportionment paradoxes .
The idea of "no independence before majority rule" gained considerable ground in British political circles as the UK, France and Belgium vastly accelerated their withdrawal from the continent. [13] Amid a flurry of bloody civil wars, military coups and other disasters, most of the new African countries became autocratic one-party states within ...
The policy of "No independence before majority rule" transformed the white community's relationship with the UK and increased its suspicions of the British government's untrustworthiness and duplicity in colonial affairs, especially since the latter had adopted NIBMR as a formal policy - the very circumstance UDI was carried out to avoid, and ...
Rhodesia's Case for Independence was intended to counter the Whitehall claim that Rhodesia's government lacked legitimacy for independence under Britain's recently adopted no independence before majority rule policy. British readers were asked to "support Rhodesians in their hour of need."