The rise of apartheid in South Africa is arguably the single most defining event in the nation’s short history. Beyond the idea of segregation, apartheid represented the legal institution of white supremacy. During the period following independence from the British Crown, the South African Parliament passed a series of laws that limiting the economic development of the “native” population, the paramount of which was the Natives Land Act of 1913. These policies formed the basis of apartheid whereby the government was able to restrict the economic, political, and social development of the largest portion of the population. Despite the obvious racial, social, and religious overtones that dominated the public opinion of the institution, I argue that the role of apartheid was, more accurately, a tool of economy and capitalism. In order to explain this argument in greater detail it’s important to assess the historical context in which apartheid was able to flourish, starting with the formation of the Union of South Africa, and how the government’s portrayal of this system provided the white minority with a moral justification for its implementation.

Independence and The Segregation Era

Britain’s colonies had grown largely independent and, recognizing this, the crown granted independence to the Union of South Africa in 1910, following the passage of the South African Act in British Parliament. The existing four colonies were organized into a single independent state under the British Commonwealth. The Industrial Revolution in Europe had ripple effects on the global economy, and recent discoveries of gold and diamonds had sparked a similar economic turn in South Africa. Urban centers formed as result of these industrial complexes, which required a large workforce. Migrant workers from rural areas sought employment in the cities, which promised greater economic security. While there appeared to be greater economic prosperity, in reality, a majority of the population lived in poverty, including a significant portion of the White population, the Afrikaner farmers. Tensions between the Afrikaner and English populations grew during this time and up until 1948, when the National Party was elected to lead Parliament. During this period known as the segregation era, a series of acts were passed that helped the government consolidate and maintain power in the minority white population.

This consolidation of power was characterized by two political ideals expressed in Parliament. The first was the idea of paternalism, where by the Europeans felt entrusted to essentially father the “native” population through various Western institutions, to bring civilization to the darkest depths of Africa, the notion of Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden. The second, and undoubtedly, more significant movement was that of segregation. Many Europeans understood that in order to secure their place within a non-European dominated society, they had to establish a level of control that ensured the preservation of their political, social, and economic ideals. The newly formed Union of South Africa had adopted policies of segregation in the hopes of establishing a purely European dominated society at the tip of Africa.

Despite the overwhelming support for the segregation policies, there were still some who understood the significance and likely outcome of these policies. Senator Edgar Brookes, of the United Party, delivered a speech to Parliament in 1939, which expressed liberal ideas against the segregation legislation, but nonetheless his position was in the minority and not in full opposition to the segregation policies. Brookes’ critical opinion of racial legislation hinged on the essential underpinnings of what would become the apartheid system, essentially racial legislation is “a cheap and nasty substitute for careful thought on economic questions.” This is not to say Brookes was critical of the exploiting the lower class, but rather that he understood the inherent problems that would arise from such legislation, as Brookes also points out, “legitimate, and wise separation is one thing; rigid, harsh, unreasoning segregation, raised to the level of a religious dogma, is another.” The civil unrest was definitely apparent at the time, yet Parliament didn’t see this legislation as Brookes suggested, the creation of a divided South Africa of “hostile camps with the Europeans a heavily-armed, fear-ridden minority,” rather it was a means to and ends that was easily justified through ideals of religious and social reform for the “Native” and economic prosperity for the poor Afrikaner farmer.

Leading up to the election of 1948, the United Party and the National Party took different views on the idea of segregation. The United Party, the government of Jan Smuts, continued to recognize the idea of liberal paternalism, wherein the white man was entrusted as the caretaker. The Fagan Commission was formed to evaluate the policies of segregation in an attempt loosen restrictions regarding laborers in urban areas, which was seen by many in the National Party as going against the policies of segregation. The Commission prosed that it was necessary to “find a new formula” as it was clear that “idea of total segregation was utterly impractical” and “that the movement from country to town has a background in economic necessity.” Again, while the ideas of the United Party seemed to be liberal in contrast to the National Party, the legislation was motivated by “economic necessity.” The Fagan Commission also recognized this heavy opposition to the loosening of segregation policies and provided the concession that, despite allowing the “Natives” to take up permanent residence in urban areas, they are by no means extending the franchise to them. The debate was ultimately settled when the National Party gained a parliamentary majority in the election of 1948, thus marking the beginning of the apartheid era, a clear indication the that United Party was in fact too liberal, and that a majority of the white population sided with a stricter interpretation of segregation.

The National Party and the Vision of Apartheid

The newly elected Prime Minister Daniel Malan ushered in the new era of apartheid and securing a majority say in parliament by forming an alliance with the Afrikaner Party. One of the main architects of apartheid was Dr. Hendrik F. Verwoerd, who was appointed the first Native minister under Malan. In his explanation of main features of the policy of apartheid, Verwoerd outlines the idea of separate communities whereby each racial segment of the population is provided the opportunity of self-determination. Apartheid provided not only an answer to the plight of Afrikaners and English, but also, in theory, it gave the same opportunities to Bantu, Indians, and Coloureds. Verwoerd was careful to acknowledge that under apartheid the government “believes in the supremacy (baasskap) of the European in his sphere but, then, it also believes equally in the supremacy (baasskap) of the Bantu in his own sphere.” On paper these ideals reflected consideration of individual political, economic, social, cultural, and religious entities, but in reality it was a means of controlling the country’s resources. Verwoerd recognized that the populations of Bantu, Indians, and Coloureds, were not equipped for outright independence, and as such this was taken into consideration when drafting the plans for apartheid. The government wouldn’t simply leave these undeveloped people to themselves; they needed help establishing the social institutions and their own economy. The government would provide help as long as it was needed, but that of course would depend on their “own industry and preparedness to grasp this opportunity offered by the apartheid policy for self-development.” Despite the government’s effort to avoid conflict by means of the Apartheid policies, they succeeded in creating a greater rift between the “Native” population and the Europeans.

The African National Congress

In the years following South Africa’s independence from Britain, it became clear that this independence did not extend to all members of the population, and in response, the African National Congress (ANC) was formed. The ANC’s main objective was to provide a voice for the majority of unrepresented Africans in South Africa in the hopes of gaining recognition by the government as equal citizens in the new Union of South Africa. However, the segregationist and apartheid policies that were enacted only continued to undermine the petitions of the ANC and similar organizations.

The ANC Youth League was also established with similar objectives in mind, but called on the use of non-violent protest and civil disobedience as a means of combatting the apartheid legislation. The ANC recognized “like all other people the African people claim the right of self-determination” in their Programme of Action (1949), the same principle that had established the National Party as the majority in parliament. This Programme of Action outlined their goals to achieve national freedom, whereby they called for “improvement of their standard of living,” the “establishment of national centers of education for the purpose of training and educating African youth,” and “to unite the cultural with the educational and national struggle.” Essentially, the ANC recognized the need for political representation, but more importantly they recognized the need for economic reform as a means of reestablishing social institutions of education and culture.

Natives Land Act and Group Areas Act

The primary concern of the Apartheid Government was to maintain possession of a majority of the country’s resources and land. The Natives Land Act and the Group Areas Act were policies restricting the use of land and resources for the Bantu, Indian, and Coloured peoples. The Natives Land Act (1913) prohibited the purchase of land by “Natives” outside of the reserves and prohibited sharecropping, and the Group Areas Act (1950) divided urban areas into various zones, restricted by race.

The economic motivations behind the Natives Land Act are evident, especially when considering the subsequent government schemes for land rehabilitation. In an interview with the Natives Affairs Department, Albert Luthuli, government appointed chief of the Umtoti Mission Reserve and later president of the ANC, discusses the underlying problem with the government policies regarding land. Probably the most revealing portion of the interview is when Luthuli is asked why the ANC opposes Government schemes for land rehabilitation. In his response Luthuli suggests that the problem stems of the Land Acts of 1913 and 1916 by offering “your [the Government] solution is to take our cattle away to-day because you took our land yesterday.” The overpopulation of areas meant farmers had less land for their cattle to graze, which in turn depleted the resources available for agricultural farming. It’s clear that the government had no real intention of providing the “Native” populations with the resources or help necessary to administer their own governments.

The Suppression of Communism

One of the first punitive laws introduced by the Nationalist government was the Suppression of Communism Act (1950). Under this law ministers of justice were given the power to silence anyone who was suspected of being a communist. Nelson Mandela along with one hundred and fifty-six members of the Congress Alliance “were arrested on a charge of High Treason and charged under the Suppression of Communism Act” during the ANC’s Defiance Campaign. It was argued that the ANC was a communist organization and was attempting to establish a communist government in South Africa by way of military violence.

Similarly, Masabalala Yengwa, the secretary of the Natal branch of the ANC Youth League, was placed on trial for treason in 1960 for wanting to “destroy the capitalist structure of society.” It’s clear that the Nationalist government saw all threats to their way of life as somehow infringing on not only the political structure, but also more importantly the economic structure. During his trial Mr. Yengwa was repeatedly asked about his involvement in with Communist organizations and his campaigns “directed at preparing the masses for the overthrow of the State by indoctrinating them with Communist propaganda.”

The government espoused the idea that the ANC was violent as a result of its obvious ties to Communists, who are known “throughout the world…to overthrow exiting social conditions in non-Communist countries by force.” When in reality the ANC was non-violent, so much so that members broke off and formed the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), which encourage military action, but despised all Western ideals including Communism.

Breaking with the Commonwealth

As a former British colony, South Africa was a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, including other former colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; however, the policies of the National Party evoked a strong response from many in the British Parliament, denouncing the policies. On February 3, 1960, British Prime Minister Sir Harold Macmillan addressed a joint session of the South African Parliament regarding Britain’s position on the policies of apartheid. Macmillan appealed to the members of parliament, urging them to reevaluate their policies as they were not in agreement with Britain’s “own deep convictions about the political destinies of free men.” Macmillan also made it clear that it would be economically difficult should a country (South Africa) choose not side with the Britain on these particular issues of policy, “the fact is that in this modern world no country, not even the greatest, can live for itself alone.”

Subsequently, in 1960 the government held a Referendum to withdraw from the Commonwealth, which led to the establishment of the Republic of South Africa. In Nelson Mandela’s statement provided at the Rivonia trial in 1964, one of the issues brought up was the fact that, “Africans, who constituted approximately 70% of the population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed constitutional change.” The government saw it was necessary for the government to maintain their valued policies of apartheid and the benefits it provided economically, so much so that they were willing to dissolve their economic and political ties with the Commonwealth and Great Britain.

Footnotes

  1. Edgar Brookes, The Limits of Liberalism, 1939 (Part 4, § A, Doc. 1, p. 246)
  2. Fagan Commission, The United Party Reviews Race Relations, 1946 (Part 4, § A, Doc. 2, p. 248)
  3. Ibid., (p. 251)
  4. Hendrik F. Verwoerd, The National Party Native Minister Explains Apartheid, 1950 (Part 4, § A, Doc. 3, p. 254)
  5. Ibid., (p. 255)
  6. The ANC Programme of Action, 1949 (Part 4, § B, Doc. 3, p. 262)
  7. Albert Luthuli, Albert Luthuli Is Removed as Chief of the Umtoti Mission Reserve, 1952 (Part 4, § B, Doc. 4, p. 265)
  8. Nelson Mandela, Nelson Mandela Explains the ANC Struggle, 1964 (Part 4, § C, Doc. 2, p. 300)
  9. Mr. Trengove (Prosecutor), A Treason Trial Defendant Is Questioned About Communism and Violence, 1960 (Part 4, § B, Doc. 9, p. 288)
  10. Ibid., (p. 289)
  11. Ibid., (p. 288)
  12. Harold Macmillan, The Winds of Change, 1960 (Part 4, § C, Doc. 1, p. 295)
  13. Nelson Mandela, Nelson Mandela Explains the ANC Struggle, 1964 (Part 4, § C, Doc. 2, p. 301)