South Africa Apartheid History - Article Example

South Africa- Apartheid History Apartheid was one of the most difficult and cruel periods in the history of South Africa. Thus, Mr. Boydell defends apartheid stating that there is “nothing sinister, cruel or oppressive in it”. He interprets ‘apartheid’ in terms of its original meaning and defends positive changes caused by separation and self-identification of diverse national and ethic groups inhabited South Africa. Thesis The main weakness of Mr. Boydell’s arguments is that he takes into account only one meaning of ‘apartheid’ but omits racial oppression and violence, segregation and social inequalities which formed the system of apartheid. Apartheid (1948-1994) cannot be considered as ‘the best solution’ for the country because it violated human rights and freedoms of black populations and caused separation between white minority and black majority. Primarily, apartheid was one of the main forms of racial discrimination, separation of white minority and black majority. Social divisions in this colonial society increasingly took on a rigid racial character1. Between 1950s – 1970s white power was used to forge one of the most extreme forms of racial discrimination in the twentieth-century world. For instance, whereas the strength and size of the settler population in the United States or Australia meant that race relations were for many years relegated to the peripheries of national historiography, race was an abiding concern even in the most inward-looking settler histories of South Africa2. Apartheid cannot be the best solution for South African because this term coincides with the concepts of racism, segregation and oppression of black population. Segregation in South Africa encompassed many different social relationships. It is often discussed as a series of legislative Acts which removed and restricted the rights of ‘non-whites’ in every possible sphere. Segregation was more than a set of restrictive legislation: it refers as well to a composite ideology and set of practices seeking to legitimize social difference and economic inequality in every aspect of life3. For instance, "Coloured" was the official apartheid designation for persons of mixed race“4. Many of the spatial and social elements of segregation, such as the division of churches on the basis of color, were initially governed by convention rather than law. It is important to mention the exclusion of blacks from skilled work, and especially from the exercise of supervisory functions over whites, was determined by custom as well as legislative bars. Apartheid was the system of control which devolved substantial local control to African chiefs who were seen as the best guarantors of a stable social order. The system of apartheid limited social freedom of black communities and controlled their social, political and economic life. The system of segregation and oppression established in South Africa was similar distinctively British colonial racial ideas5. Rather like the practice of indirect rule elsewhere in colonial Africa, its form resulted from the relative weakness of the colonial state and its dependence on the taxation of African peasants. Likewise, in the decade after the Nationalists came to power, its hold was rather more fragile than was apparent in the interlude between the Sharpeville uprising of 1960 and the Soweto revolt of 19766. The main weakness of Mr. Boydell’s arguments is that ‘separate’ or ‘apart’ did not mean ‘equal’. The black communities were ‘separate’ but they were not ‘equal’. For instance, the era of ‘high apartheid, roughly from 1960 to 1976, was a period in which the government engaged in a massive process of social engineering. Relatively rapid economic growth for much of this period provided the apartheid state with the opportunity to put its ideas into practice. The most striking policy development in this respect was the attempt to turn the existing reserves into self-governing ethnic statelets or ‘homelands’7. Debates about the homelands have been central to critiques of apartheid. The very word ‘homeland’ has been rejected because it seemed to lend legitimacy to the state’s policy of balkanization and exclusion. Opposition forces preferred instead to retain the word ‘Bantustan’, which suggests the artificiality of configuring geographical regions so as to correspond to supposed ‘tribal’ divisions. Economic growth over previous decades strengthened the position of urban black ‘insiders’, entrepreneurs and professionals. After the Soweto rebellion of 1976 it became increasingly difficult for the state to contain protest and insurrection. The deference which whites expected in the high apartheid years gradually gave way to a distinct culture of opposition, shaped in particular by the emergence of the black consciousness movement and the inspiring leadership of figures like Steve Biko8. Brutal oppression and violence were the most negative causes of apartheid and white dominance. Popular anger were provoked by the many acts of oppression which accompanied Botha’s reforms. It was not least the violent reaction by the urban youth against those who looked to benefit from reform that eventually forced further compromise9. The state mostly failed in its quest to find black urban allies who would take their place alongside homeland leaders. For instance, F.W.de Klerk’s dramatic release of Nelson Mandela from prison in February 1990, together with the unbanning of the ANC (African National Congress) and other liberation movements, amounted to a recognition of the political stalemate10. Nevertheless, it took more than four years of tortured negotiations and heightened levels of violence before a non-racial election could be held in April 1994 and power formally transferred11. The South Africa’s first democratic election unveiled deep social contradictions and social differences. Despite allegations of ballot-rigging in some regions, the overall results of democratic election broadly reflected the spread of popular feeling. Contrary to expectations, the dramatic process engendered a remarkable sense of euphoria throughout South African society and its influence led to a significant decrease in levels of violence. The majority of African people supported the African National Congress, which won over 60 per cent of the total votes cast; most whites remained loyal to a reformed National Party which polled 20 per cent of votes overall. Colored people in the Western Cape voted in sufficient numbers for the Nationalists to ensure their victory in that region. Inkatha secured about 10 per cent overall although the scale of their victory in Natal region has led to suspicions of systematic electoral malpractice. Far right groupings, the liberal Democratic Party and the radical Pan-Africanists were all marginalized. The demise of white rule is unlikely to signal the end of racial division, ethnic identity or economic inequality in South Africa12. Although African people voted overwhelmingly for a party which sought to unite them and the country under a common non-racial nationalism, voting followed the lines of color to a significant degree and Inkatha survived as a specifically Zulu force. The academic debate on these issues must remain central to historical writing on the country because the troubled conflicts which it addresses are by no means resolved; discussion helps to frame appropriate questions about political and ethical decision-making in the future as well as the past. It is possible to say that segregation and apartheid primarily served white interests13. However, critical explanations elevating the Afrikaner heritage or the imperatives of a cheap labor supply are clearly inadequate in themselves, although both are of critical importance in clarifying the particular form taken by segregation and racial ideology in South Africa. African societies in the region were conquered but never entirely dominated. Many fought to defend themselves from full incorporation into colonial and capitalist society. In economic sphere, if the goal of whites was to preserve their high standard of living, then allowing some apartheid policies to lapse in order to preserve economic growth while allocating greater rights to blacks to quell unrest are rational actions taken in an effort to preserve the economic status of whites14 Ethnic identification occurs most strongly where a collection of individuals come to consider themselves communally deprived and believe that mobilization as a group would improve their position or where persons seek to protect the privileges they share with others against those who do not have them or whom they are exploiting collectively. The Afrikaners have known all these: the gradual awakening of ethnic consciousness, the leaders who fostered or fragmented it, the bitterness of being a despised minority, and, at present, the challenges to the privileges they enjoy as the dominant group in a deeply divided society15. In sum, the balance of power in South African society, the nature of African responses, and the salience of ethnicity among blacks as well as whites demonstrate inability of black population to form its own state and resist white dominance. Ethnic groups require leaders who inspire them to think and act collectively in politics. Such leaders in turn depend on favorable social conditions in which men could be persuaded to shelve their individual and class differences for the sake of group mobilization. Mr. Boydell does not take into consideration ideological differences and social inequalities which ruined national and ethical identities of African people and deprived them a chance to build up ‘a Bantu or native state’. Bibliography 1. Bell, T., Ntsebega, D.B., Ntsebega, D.B. Unfinished Business: South Africa, Apartheid and Truth. Verso, 2003. 2. Carton, B. Unfinished Exorcism: The Legacy of Apartheid in Democratic Southern Africa. Social Justice 27 (2000): 116-117. 3. Clark, H.L., Worger, W. South Africa: The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. Longman, 2003. 4. Lowenberg, A.D., Kaempfer, W.H. The Origins and Demise of South African Apartheid: A Public Choice Analysis. University of Michigan Press, 1998. 5. Saunders, Ch. Peter Alexander, Workers, War and the Origins of Apartheid: Labour and Politics in South Africa. Africa 72 (2002): 322. 6. Seidman, G. IS SOUTH AFRICA DIFFERENT? Sociological Comparisons and Theoretical Contributions from the Land of Apartheid. Annual Review of Sociology (1999): 419-420. 7. Schneider, G. E. Neoliberalism and Economic Justice in South Africa: Revisiting the Debate on Economic Apartheid. Review of Social Economy 61 (2003): 23. 8. Thompson, L. A History of South Africa. Yale University Press, 2001. Read More