Why did white minority rule last so long in South Africa?

Kris Breadner

The question of how the subjugation of the rights of the black peoples of South Africa lasted so long, is something that puzzles both historians and humanitarians alike. The extent of the racist and hateful policies implemented is within the living memory of even today’s young adults, and the brutality and dehumanization that these policies led to is known only too well. Yet with such apparent inequalities and violations of human rights, how did the system come to last until so late in the 20th century? Why was the system not overthrown and dismantled in the 1960’s when American black people were given their liberty with the advent of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement? These are all questions which have not yet been fully answered or understood, there are many possible reasons, disunity within the black peoples and the iron fist policies of the South African police are perhaps the two most prominent reasons that come to mind.

For the purposes of this essay, it is necessary to use the term ‘black’, as to say colored would distort the meaning of the essay, there being a distinction between ‘colored’ and ‘black’ in Apartheid policies. This is important, as the division between the black and colored peoples of South Africa was another factor in the continuation of the racist policies, and white rule, of the country. This will be discussed further later in the essay, yet it is worth noting that the failure to unite was a large upset in the struggle for racial equality in South Africa. It was much easier for the whites to rule over a divided mixture of peoples than it would have been if the oppressed peoples had been united. This is elementary of course when looking at the relative populations of white and colored peoples in South Africa, in 1978 the difference in population stood at 4.5 million whites to 19 million blacks. Any unified struggle on the part of the Black people would have surely been enough to overthrow the white regime.

The overriding principal behind the longevity of apartheid was perhaps the nature in which white Europeans and the African natives came to live together. From the outset it was an invasion of rich, modern cultures into a land where the peoples were comparatively uneducated in technological terms which are considered important in the developed world. White power stemmed directly from the advancement of those countries from which the white settlers had traveled. The riches and military skills of both the English and the Dutch had led them to take over in the first instance, and as such they had already gained the upper hand. It was apparent that the whites were more technologically advanced, combined with their ambition this would prove a major factor in the continuation of Apartheid into the late 20th century.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Apartheid not only had to be controlled by the white minority however, it had to have widespread support amongst the white peoples, it had to be a united effort by the whites against a divided black opposition. For this to happen, the policies of the government had to directly benefit the Afrikaners, and as such they would eventually inherit the countries power and wealth. The creation of the Afrikaner capitalist would inherently make apartheid appealing to the whites, whilst subjugating the blacks to the extent that they had no means counteraction. After the victory of the nationalists and the subsequent enactment, in 1949, of apartheid laws, the state quickly moved to intensify the material benefits f the Afrikaners. Preferential loans were given, as well as housing bonds and other financial benefits which would bring the nationalists into even greater favor with those whom they were appeasing. The social status of whites in South Africa would be elevated to a point where there removal would seem both dangerous and difficult, this apparent immovable nature of white domination would serve the continuation of Apartheid to a great extent. The necessity of specific ethnicity as a precondition for social mobility would become a dominating factor within South African society, the concentration of white power created by this disparity effectively ensured future white domination in the country.

Another factor in the creation of a apparently immovable white dominated capitalism was the fact that apartheid ensured, to an extent, guaranteed labor. By reducing black wages to (by 1970) 1/14th of average white earnings, black people were almost ensured to have a place to work. If wages were not so low, then unemployment would have risen proportionately, outside investment would have also decreased as production and sales prices rose. This dependency upon cheap labor was carried by the black peoples, yet was also another obstacle to dramatic change within South African politics. The Nationalists controlled almost every sector of the economy, they were totalitarian in their management of the country, as such it was very difficult for any changes to be made which were not sanctioned by the government. By controlling who worked where, it became easy for the Government to keep control for solely white purposes, even to the extent of creating ‘white only’ jobs after the Population Registration Act of 1950. This ensured that people were officially assigned to one of three groupings, whites, coloreds and blacks. The separation of the African native peoples from other colored ethnic groups was an important strategy, and effectively made the black peoples alien in their own country.

Another of the iron fist strategies employed was the Bantu Authorities Act, the idea of this was to effectively exclude Black people from the country’s politics. These policies were laid down in 1951 and were the basis for creating what were known as ‘Homelands’. These were areas where black workers would have to live, yet they were considered as being outside the country, which meant that those who lived in the Homelands were required to carry passports when in South Africa. Between 1976 and 1981, four of these Homelands were created, denationalizing nearly half of the black South African population. This was an attempt to place black peoples even lower on the social scale and further strengthen the white dominated state. Rights such as voting were restricted to the Homeland in question, therefore there could be no chance of Black interaction in South African politics. This was combined with the Bantu Administration Board who kept account of Black movement within the country through the influx control system, effectively, the government stranglehold on society was so strong that white rule would last for an exceptionally long time within the country.

However, it is difficult to explain the longevity of white rule in South Africa solely in terms of the determination of the Afrikaner leadership. It is important also to look at the failure of Black protest and rebellion over the period of Apartheid. The first group to look at is the ANC, formed from western educated black African peoples in 1912, this would eventually become the group that would take the reins in post-apartheid South Africa. However, the group were often divided and indecisive in the period that led to the formation of Apartheid. They failed to take the lead during the economic boom of the years of World War I when increased class consciousness amongst Black workers could have been utilized to propagate rebellion and change. This trend continued throughout the 20’s and 30’s, when the abolishment of the Cape Franchise took place in 1936, the ANC did nothing and simply let the only Black Votes in the country disappear.

The reason that the Nationalist government experienced so little difficulty in establishing itself in the face of the ANC is perhaps the nature of ANC itself during the period leading up until the 1940’s. The Congress was definitely more bourgeois in outlook than was befitting of the majority of black peoples living in South Africa at the time. They had hoped to appeal to a middle class of peasantry that could be an acceptable and civilized front which could use constitutional means to bring about change in South African politics and racial policies. This is displayed in Dr. A. B. Xuma’s (the then president of the ANC) writings to the N.P:

“…we are anxious not to embarrass the government… We humbly

and respectfully request the Prime Minister to receive a deputation

from the ANC and CNETU to assist you toward settlement of

recent strikes and prevention of future strikes.”

Unfortunately there was little ‘middle peasantry’ to talk of in the country at the time, and the small amount that existed were rapidly dwindling. The ANC could not point to a single victory by 1935 when J.B Marks, head of the CPSA, pronounced the Congress as ‘literally dead’. They could boast no support in the working classes, and no victories as representatives of the middle class. However, Mr. J. B. Marks was not in a great position to slander the ANC as the left itself had produced very little of note, in fact the divisions within the CPSA led to their decline by the late 1940’s. So it seems that in such a critical period, neither the ANC nor the left were able to put up sufficient resistance to halt the formation of the all-powerful Apartheid based state.

A combination of both the strength of the white leadership and the inefficiency of black protestation is perhaps enough to explain the longevity of the rule by the NP over a predominantly Black South Africa. The rise of African Nationalism in the 1940’s and subsequent successful demonstrations do little to explain why white rule lasted so long into the 20th century. It is perhaps the fashion in which they were absorbed by the state that helps to prove that the white rule was indeed a formidably strengthened one. For example the concessions given to black workers in during the Alexandra bus boycott, by slightly appeasing the demands of the protesters, the government was ensuring that they could safe guard both the economy and their continuing power. However, the rise of the Youth League in the ANC and the rise in popular support that this caused would eventually lead to the downfall of the NP.

Another factor which needs mentioning, as it is an important part of the downfall of the NP, this is the eventual intervention from outside countries. During the period of relative inactivity amongst African protesters, there was little to grab the attention of governments outside of South Africa, particularly in the West from where pressure can usually be applied. The killings at Sharpville and the subsequent disinvestments were perhaps the precursors to the downfall of the racist policies of the Government. That is not to say that there was change directly after the event, in fact it caused the government to become even more repressive. This was combined with a growth in the economy in the late 60’s which gave the police the resources they needed to keep tight control. White power continued and to an extent strengthened during the 60’ and 70’s, yet after Sharpville, the eyes of the world were upon South Africa. The repressions also strengthened African Nationalism, and subsequently the need for more repressions, such as the repressions of the Sueto Uprising. Such brutality was enough for foreign trade to be significantly effected, and for the U.N to place trade embargos on the country. Weapons and intelligence equipment were withdrawn, and as such, so were the implements for repression.

White rule lasted due to its strength and brutality, and also its efficiency at dealing with black protests. However, it was this strength of brutality that would lead to its eventual downfall, it was only for so long that the NP could possibly keep a repressed people in such conditions. The strong tide of international anti-racism in a world where public access to proof is constantly available through the media was more than the country could withstand. Thankfully the white rule of South Africa was unable to withstand the world’s reaction to the nature of brutality enmeshed within the state which seemed to be trapped in the times of Emperial Europe.