I PLAYED a small part in the transition in 1980 from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. There were a number of reasons for this — I was chief economist in the largest agricultural group in the country along with the chief economist in government and the professor of economics at the local university. GUEST COLUMNIST: EDDIE CROSS As such, we were used to try and prepare the new government for their responsibilities and then to guide the State in the run-up to the first crucial donor conference. We were emerging from 90 years of minority government by the small white community drawn mainly from the UK and South Africa. The previous two decades had been very turbulent — the break-up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland; then the Unilateral Declaration of Independence; the banning of the nationalist parties and the imposition of mandatory UN sanctions supported by the closure of the Mozambique border. While all that was going on we slipped into a civil war and a counter insurgency programme that took our armed forces deep into neighbouring States. I had been a part of an initiative to try and persuade Ian Smith — the Prime Minister at the time, to appreciate that he could not win a fight against the whole world. We drafted a memorandum that set out our thinking and sent it to him. He responded with a request for a meeting that was held at a private home in Harare. There were 35 of us in that group and we knew what we were talking about. He listened to our case and then responded that he saw no reason to change course, “we” were going to win. In six months only seven of us remained in the country. Three years later, in 1976, an international initiative led by the United States, Britain and South Africa, forced Smith to accept what we had argued for in 1973. After that the Smith regime was basically finished and although we fought on for another three years, the game was over and on independence night I sat on the podium in Mbare, just behind the President of India, and watched the flags change. In 1994, like the rest of the world I watched the dramatic changes in South Africa, again initiated from outside Africa but managed by local South African elements. Out of a chaotic process involving 19 political parties but with only two of any significance, a new South Africa was born and Nelson Mandela emerged as the first black leader. For me, the management of the transition had been the key to the outcome. What were the key elements in these two transitions in Africa? They were many but I list the following as the principal features that resulted in a relatively non-violent transition to a new democratic era:  Major international powers gave the problem their attention and had individuals with local knowledge and understanding advise them and when necessary they used their power to support change;  They dealt with the parties to the situation who held real power in order to effect change irrespective of their own view of the situation;  They worked with regional and continental leaders with influence and power; and  They ensure