Property Rights Systems and the Rule of Law, page 9 initially be thought. Both the variance and the difficulty of bold pronouncements abou the qualities of a legal system that demonstrate adherence to or departure from the rule of law can be seen in comparing the situations in Zimbabwe and the United States-one system that appears strongly in derogation of, and one that appears to operate strongly in accord with the rule of law Property Rights in Land in Zimbabwe In 1965, the white minority government of lan Smith declared the British colony of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) independent of Britain. The Smith government repre- sented white citizens(who were a very small minority of the population, perhaps two or three percent)and sought to maintain white supremacist policies. Policies long in effect in rhodesia had limited the right of black African citizens to own land, except in certain designated reserves, and land ownership consequently was heavily skewed toward whites. The breakaway from Britain in 1965 sparked an armed struggle between the Smith government and two black nationalist movements, known generally in the West by the acronyms ZANU(Zimbabwe African National Union) and ZAPU (Zimbabwe Afri- can Patriotic Union). The inequality in land holdings was both a symbolic and pragmatic factor in the civil war The war ended in 1979 with the victory of the nationalist groups and an agree- ment(the Lancaster House Agreement) negotiated among the warring groups and the government of the United Kingdom, the former colonial power. The UK, which had not recognized the Smith governments claim to independence and had imposed sanctions gainst the regime, formally recognized Zimbabwe as an independent Commonwealth nation in 1980. ZANU and Robert Mugabe won elections to form the new government,Property Rights Systems and the Rule of Law, page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ initially be thought. Both the variance and the difficulty of bold pronouncements about the qualities of a legal system that demonstrate adherence to or departure from the rule of law can be seen in comparing the situations in Zimbabwe and the United States – one system that appears strongly in derogation of, and one that appears to operate strongly in accord with, the rule of law. Property Rights in Land in Zimbabwe In 1965, the white minority government of Ian Smith declared the British colony of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) independent of Britain. The Smith government repre￾sented white citizens (who were a very small minority of the population, perhaps two or three percent) and sought to maintain white supremacist policies. Policies long in effect in Rhodesia had limited the right of black African citizens to own land, except in certain designated reserves, and land ownership consequently was heavily skewed toward whites. The breakaway from Britain in 1965 sparked an armed struggle between the Smith government and two black nationalist movements, known generally in the West by the acronyms ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union) and ZAPU (Zimbabwe Afri￾can Patriotic Union). The inequality in land holdings was both a symbolic and pragmatic factor in the civil war. The war ended in 1979 with the victory of the nationalist groups and an agree￾ment (the Lancaster House Agreement) negotiated among the warring groups and the government of the United Kingdom, the former colonial power. The UK, which had not recognized the Smith government’s claim to independence and had imposed sanctions against the regime, formally recognized Zimbabwe as an independent Commonwealth nation in 1980. ZANU and Robert Mugabe won elections to form the new government