SOUTH AFRICA’S PREVIOUS SYSTEM OF “APARTHEID” - EXPLAINED

SOUTH AFRICA’S PREVIOUS SYSTEM OF “APARTHEID”  - EXPLAINED

Stes de Necker

INTRODUCTION

South Africa’s previous “Apartheid” system is generally known and understood all over the world as one of the most oppressive systems that were ever designed.

‘Apartheid’ became a swearword and in many cases became a substitute for concepts like ‘oppression’, ‘discrimination’, ‘xenophobia’ and the like.

The true meaning and intention of the ‘apartheid system’ was however something completely different and to have any perception of this system, it is necessary to view it against the historical background of the history of South Africa.

The word 'Apartheid' came from the exact same Afrikaans word which literally means 'apartness' or being apart, or being separate. 

In other words, I will live and develop in my area, and you will live and develop in your area.

This is no new concept. In the United States we find almost everywhere areas specifically designated to the Amish,  Quakers, Portuguese, Irish, Indians etc.

In these areas, each group  live independently and governing their own affairs.

And the interesting part of such a dispensation is the fact that, while every group reside in their own designated area, each one of them are still immensely proud to be Americans! 

America just never gave this arrangement a name like South Africa did!

The first time ever the term 'apartheid' was use, was in 1947 with the run up to the 1948 elections.

Dr. DF Malan, then still leader of the 'South African Nationalist Party' first used the word in an election speech delivered in a small town in the Free State Province of South Africa, when he said,
'We support a system of apartheid where each ethnic group living in South Africa will have the opportunity to live their culture and raise their children in the traditional customs of that group.' 

And on that day, 3 April 1947, the word 'apartheid' was framed.

Dr. Malan was a convinced Christian and a God fearing man and on different occasions reiterated that the concept of apartheid must never be seen as a way to discriminate or alienate any group in South Africa from the other.

Unfortunately, this noble intention, like so many similar ideologies worldwide, was eventually also offered on the alter of political opportunism.

Talk to any elderly Communist, or Marxist, or Socialist and they will all tell you, 'there was nothing wrong with with the intention or ideology of the system, it was the way in which it was implemented.'

It was the way in which is was implemented that South Africa and its apartheid system became the black sheep of the international community.

PRE 19^th CENTURY

The meeting between whites (mainly of European descent ) and blacks (mainly African descent) , in the early 19th century, was also the beginning of the race issue in South Africa , which later would result in serious conflict , segregation and the subsequent policy of apartheid in South Africa.

With this meeting, two different, almost directly opposing cultural systems came together which would, for the next 170 years, lay the foundation of the political developments in South Africa.

Maintaining a Eurocentric social order by the whites , and keeping with the traditional Afrocentric norms and values ​​by the black people of South Africa, represented the struggle of this two traditional cultural systems that practically opposed of each other head on. That which was traditionally and culturally acceptable and correct for the one group, was totally unacceptable for the other, and vice versa.

Political ideologies are not only shaped by social and religious norms and values ​​, but also by a sense of nationality and solidarity expressed in terms of power and political survival. The longer the population is exposed to these aims of power and survival, the more these goals are elevated to a collective value system. Once it has become a collective value system, it becomes more and more difficult for the individual to be objective towards the system, which an individual is an integral part off.

For the English speaking white leadership in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the primary objective was to secure a distinct white (Eurocentric) system in South Africa. The main goal was the preservation of a system of European values ​​and norms. These aims later led to the establishment of the "South African Republic" (Transvaal) in 1852, and the Orange Free State Republic in 1854 .

Until 1910 the political and economic power were vested mainly in the Cape and Natal, which at that stage, were still under British control. With the discovery of diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1886, the British government decided to annex the entire South Africa territory which led to the ‘first’ Anglo-Boer War from 1880 to 1881.

However, the Boer Republics defeated the English, and in 1899 , despite strong opposition from the Liberal Party in the British Parliament, England decided to again invade South Africa, but this time they returned in far greater numbers than was the case before. 

THE BEGINNING OF THE 1900’s

The subsequent Anglo - Boer War which started in 1899, and the subsequent establishment of the Union of South Africa in 1910, the need for unique self - preservation among the Afrikaans - speaking whites only grow stronger.  After Unification, England retained the economic power in South Africa and the vast majority of Afrikaans - speaking South Africans , who previously have been making a living mainly from farming, were left poor and unskilled, and had to find work as laborers in a new and unfamiliar industrialized environment.

The exclusion of white South Africans from the economic power base and the continued strive among white South Africans for a unique (Eurocentric ) social dispensation, was the main driving forces that led to the formation of the National Party, (at that time a coalition between the National Party Dr . Malan and African Party of Mr. Klasie Havenga ). 

With the election of 1948, the United Party of General Jan Smuts was defeated and the South African National Party took over the political power in South Africa. This coalition later became known as the National Party. 

The continued preservation of the white culture after 1948, led to the promulgation of a number of segregation Laws aimed at exclusive political participation, freedom of movement, protection of employment for whites, and blocking social integration of blacks, which were already accounted for the majority of the population at that stage.

In 1960, South Africa left the British Commonwealth, and in 1961 the Republic of South Africa was established.

THE BEGINNING OF APARTHEID

Due to the overwhelming imbalance in the numbers of the white and black population, and for fear of black domination in a Western democratic political system, the South African Government, under the leadership of Dr. HF Verwoerd, decided to introduce a system of SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT, where each distinctive community can develop independently and separately within its own territory. In order to facilitate this concept, a variety of "homelands" were created to accommodate the various ethnic communities.

These homelands are listed below with the ethnic group for which each homeland was designated.

Four were nominally independent (so-called TBVC states of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, and the Ciskei.

The other six had limited self-government:

1.  Independent states

Transkei (Xhosa) – declared independent on 26 October 1976

 Bophuthatswana (Tswana) – declared independent on 6 December 1977

 Venda (Venda) – declared independent on 13 September 1979

 Ciskei (also Xhosa) – declared independent on 4 December 1981

2.  Self-governing entities[edit]

 Gazankulu (Tsonga [Shangaan]) – created self-government in 1971

 Lebowa (Northern Sotho or Pedi) – created self-government on 2 October 1972

 QwaQwa (Southern Sotho) – created self-government on 1 November 1974

 KaNgwane (Swazi) – created self-government in 1981

 KwaNdebele (Ndebele) – created self-government in 1981

 KwaZulu (Zulu) – created self-government in 1981

The implementation of these policies, however, necessitated the expropriation of land for the creation of such homelands and the subsequent forced relocation of communities, displacement, alienation, and the subsequent disintegration of families. Breadwinners were now forced to find jobs far removed from their homes and were separated from their families for long periods of time.

It is estimated that 3.5 million people were removed from their homes from the 1960s through the 1980s, many being resettled in the Homelands.

ESSENCE OF THE APARTHEID SYSTEM

While there was principally not much wrong with the concept of separate development, the National Government did not took cognisance of the practical implications atrocities’ which the implementation and execution of this policies would harbor. Deeply rooted Afrocentric values ​​of the black people, mainly because of ignorance on the side of white South Africans, were not taken into account. The result was that infinite and irreparable harm was imposed on millions of black South Africans, affected the system.

The policy of separate development also had a suppressed secondary objective namely, once the policy had been successfully implemented and every ethnic group was officially recognized within their own territories, there could no longer be talk of a white minority government in South Africa.   Whites would then have been the majority in the allocated "white" area, just as every other ethnic group would have been the majority in their separate areas.

On 7 February 1978, the then Minister of Plural Relations and Development, Dr. Connie Mulder (currently leader of the VF+ Party in South Africa) told the House of Assembly: “ If our policy is taken to its logical conclusion, as far as the black people are concerned, there will be not one black man with South African citizenship ... Every black man in South Africa will eventually be accommodated in some independent new state in this honorable way and there will no longer be an obligation on this Parliament to accommodate these people politically. 

But this goal was however never achieved. Only about 55% of South Africa's population lived in the Homelands while the remainder continued lived in South Africa, many in townships, shanty-towns and slums on the outskirts of South African cities.

Throughout the existence of the independent Homelands, South Africa remained the only country to recognize their independence. Nevertheless, internal organizations in many countries, as well as the South African government, lobbied for their recognition.

For example, upon the foundation of Transkei, the Swiss-South African Association encouraged the Swiss government to recognize the new state. In 1976, leading up to a United States House of Representatives resolution urging the President to not recognize Transkei, the South African government intensely lobbied lawmakers to oppose the bill. While the bill fell short of its need two-thirds vote, a majority of lawmakers nevertheless supported the resolution.

Each TBVC state extended recognition to the other independent Homelands while South Africa showed its commitment to the notion of TBVC sovereignty by building embassies in the TBVC capitals.

In January 1985, State President P. W. Botha declared that blacks in South Africa would no longer be deprived of South African citizenship in favor of Homeland citizenship and that black citizens within the independent Homelands could reapply for South African citizenship.

F. W. de Klerk stated on behalf of the National Party during the 1987 general election that "every effort to turn the tide [of black workers] streaming into the urban areas failed. It does not help to bluff ourselves about this. The economy demands the permanent presence of the majority of blacks in urban areas ... They cannot stay in South Africa year after year without political representation." In March 1990 de Klerk, who succeeded Botha in 1989, announced that his government would not grant independence to any more Homelands.  

Under the previous leadership of Verwoerd and later Adv. John Vorster, the South African Government were steadfast in their resolve to ensure that the Government’s policy of separate development was implemented and executed at all levels of society. Patriarchal social structures like Universities, Schools, Churches, Government  Institutions, organized Trade and Industry, Sports, Agriculture, Military, Police , Security Police, etc. were tactfully yet seriously cautioned not to tolerate any rebellion against, or opposition to, the policy of Apartheid, and were placed under immense pressure to ensure that all requirements and regulations of the government were meticulously carried out and adhered to.

As a child, during the fifties and sixties, growing up in a strict Dutch Reformed house and attending a purely Christian National school, I was never allowed to think for myself, leave alone criticize the Government! And watch out for the poor youngster who did try to think for him or herself. Such a youngster was quickly singled out as being "different" and being labelled as different was simply not acceptable.

It was certainly never needed of me to think for myself, because:

The school decide how I had to cut and comb my hair and what school uniform I will wear;

The teacher decided for me what I will learn or will not learn in school;

Government Regulations decided for me in which rows I should stand at which entrances and parks I could go;

The church decided for me which sport I practice on what days;

The Publications Sensor Board decided for me what I could read and I cannot read and what I could see or could not;

The University decided for me what I need to study;

And finally, my first employer decided for me how I should do my job.

By the time I was 25 years old, I was a professional conformist! 

‘HOMELANDS’ AND ‘APARTHEID’

The term "Homeland" has been used in a number of non-South African contexts, generally to refer to actual or perceived attempts to create ethnically based states or regions. Its connection with apartheid has meant that the term is now generally used in a pejorative sense as a form of criticism.

In the Middle East, in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, critics of Israeli Government policies have stated that Israel seeks to implement a "Homeland model" for the Palestinian territories. Some critics provided a map of the Taba offer, showing Israeli settlements and Israeli settlement roads in the West Bank. However, mediating parties during the Taba negotiations state that these maps were false, and no such Homeland plan existed. (See Israel and the apartheid analogy for a fuller discussion of this comparison.)

In South Asia, the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka has been accused of turning Tamil areas into "Homelands". The term has also been used to refer to the living conditions of Dalits in India.

In South-eastern Europe, the resulting numbers of small states in the Balkans, following the breakup of Yugoslavia, have been referred to as "Homelands".

"As a region where, during the last hundred years, all the modern political forms have been tried out, from empire to revolutionary republic, from multi-national federation to nation state to protectorate, a series repeated in the last century's decade as in an abridged, though not more successful edition, skipping revolutionary republic, while adding self-imposed homelands."

In Canada, one Ottawa Citizen newspaper editorial criticized the largely Inuit territory of Nunavut as being the country's "first Homeland, an apartheid-style ethnic homeland."

PROTECTING ECONOMIC POWER

Besides the protection of political power, the second goal of the National Government was to secure the economic power, which at the time vested mainly in the hands of English-speaking South Africans, as soon as possible.

Achieving the South Africa’s Government's economic objectives lead to the promulgation of a further number of apartheid laws including the employment limitation of blacks in the public service and prohibition of certain technical trades.

This legislation caused many whites, especially unskilled and illiterate individuals, finding their security politically entrenched and abnormally privileged. In most cases, skincolour, and not qualifications or technical skilling, secured their survival in the labour market. 

The subsequent isolation and marginalization of black people was the main reason that there came an awakening of an Afrocentric self - preservation among black South Africans and the ANC became the official representative of the black people in the struggle for political and economic self – preservation in 1994.