May 1964
The history of relations between black and white ever since they met on the banks of the Fish River in the Cape in the eighteenth century has been one of conflict. For the best part of 100 years after their first contact, the struggle took the form of armed conflict. With every weapon they had at their disposal the blacks tried to defend their country against white encroachment or invasion. But in the end they lost the fight which went in favour of powder and shot as against spear and knobkerrie. One tribe after another was subdued. The last major clashes took place in the 1870s, in 1877 with the Xhosa, in 1878 with the Tswana and in 1879 with the Zulus. Since that time the only serious military uprising was that of the Zulus in 1906, the so-called Bambata's Rebellion which was really a protest against increased taxation.
For many years thereafter the Africans reluctantly accepted the rule of the white man but endeavored to fight for the amelioration of their lot and the removal of the disabilities under which they labour by the usual democratic methods of persuasion and discussion. Instead of continuing to fight the white man with the weapons of days gone by, they put aside their spears and sticks and decided to learn the white man's ways. Through church and school, through working for the white man in varying capacities, in urban and rural areas, they thought that they might eventually earn for themselves a respectable place in the new civilisation which the white man had brought to South Africa. They formed political, social and industrial organisations or associations of various kinds, and through them made representations to the powers-that-be for the redress of this or that grievance. They fondly believed that the disabilities under which they laboured were due to their backwardness in the arts of modern civilisation and that as they adapted themselves more and more successfully to the new ways of life, they would be accorded more and more recognition as fellow citizens of the white man. For that reason they co-operated with South African governments in various official bodies especially set up for the ventilation of their views on matters affecting their welfare (as substitutes for direct representation in the Councils of State). The Cape Africans were the only ones who enjoyed franchise rights, but even they always exercised their franchise rights in such a way that no exceptions could be taken to the manner in which they exercised them. With the aid of their franchise some of the best white parliamentarians were sent to the Cape legislature before Union and to the Union Parliament thereafter.
In other parts of the country where Africans did not enjoy franchise rights, they lived in hope that some day they would also be granted these rights, but in the meantime they co-operated with the governments concerned in other ways.
AFRICAN RESISTANCE: PARLIAMENTARY MEASURES
Thus, when the Union government established local or district councils in the areas set aside for Africans, they accepted these Councils, although they were not satisfied that through them they could achieve what they wanted to achieve, namely full citizenship rights. When the Native Conference was established under the Native Affairs Act of 1920 in terms of which the government periodically called together African leaders to consult them about proposed legislation affecting Africans, they co-operated with the government until the government itself ceased to convene those conferences. When the Advisory Boards were established in the urban areas in terms of the Natives Urban Areas Act, the Africans, although they did not believe that advisory bodies would achieve anything, nevertheless did what they could to show that they were prepared to give the system a trial. The same applied to the system of separate representation which was set up under the Representation of Natives Act of 1936. The Africans opposed that legislation most vigourously, but once it was placed on the statute book, they gave it a fair trial and thereby showed that it did not fit the bill.
Apart from co-operation with the government in official bodies specially set up to deal with African affairs, the Africans established their own non-official bodies through which they directed their requests to the government. Among the most important of these has been the African National Congress established in 1912. The history of the ANC since its inception has been marked by deputations and petitions and resolutions addressed to various Ministers of the Union government. ANC deputations have gone overseas to plead the cause of the African people. The first went to England in 1914 to protest against the passing by the Union Parliament of the Natives Land Act of 1913, a law which led to the eviction of hundreds of African families from European farms in different parts of the country.
The second overseas deputation of the ANC was the one which went to the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919. This deputation was inspired by President Wilson's Fourteen Points and in particular the idea that the war had been fought to bring about "Self-determination for small Nations." Among the small nations that needed self-determination, in the view of the ANC, were the African people of South Africa who had been deprived of their land and their citizenship rights by the white man in South Africa. Therefore they wanted the Peace Conference to look into their case.
The last big deputation to which reference might be made was that of 1942. This deputation, under the leadership of Dr. A. B. Xuma, then President-General of the ANC, interviewed Colonel Denys Reitz, the Minister of Native Affairs in Cape Town, and discussed with him a wide range of problems relating to the African position in South Africa. Among the points on which the Minister appeared to agree with the deputation was the necessity for the relaxation of the Pass Laws and the recognition of African trade unions. Since that time, far from the pass laws being relaxed, they have been consolidated, their enforcement tightened and they have been extended to African women. Instead of the recognition of African trade unions, a system was developed under which disputes between employers and African employees are settled by the intervention of government officials who are more concerned with the punitive measures they are empowered to employ than with the advancement of the cause of the African workers.
The ANC and other African organisations have of course not only made use of the weapon of the deputation and the conference resolution, they have also made use of the weapon of litigation. They have conducted or supported test cases in the law courts such as the famous case of Letanka in which the right of the Transvaal Provincial Administration to impose a poll tax on Africans was successfully contested in the Transvaal Supreme Court. But Africans found that the use of the law courts did not advance their cause to any appreciable extent. Not only is this method very costly financially, but the fact of the matter is that court victories in South Africa tend to be only temporary because when the government loses a case in court all it has to do is to amend the law suitably and the courts which must apply the law as they find it are rendered powerless to assist those adversely affected by the law.
Another weapon which has been used at different times by Africans is the strike weapon. This has been used mainly in the economic field. Here again the efffectiveness of the strike weapon as far as Africans are concerned is nullified by the fact that for most types of African workers it has been made illegal for them to strike. So when a strike does take place the police intervene.
Finally, mention must be made of the fact that in recent years Africans have also resorted to the weapon of passive resistance. The biggest effort in that direction was the campaign known as the Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws which was launched by the African National Congress in June 1952, and was directed solely against certain laws such as the Pass Laws which are based on racial discrimination. In launching this campaign, the ANC invited all organisations and individuals, whatever their race or colour, to join with the Africans in the struggle to rid South Africa of racial discrimination. The Indians under the leadership of the South African Indian Congress, a few Coloureds under the leadership of the South African Coloured People's Organisation, and a few Europeans under the leadership of Patrick Duncan, the son of a former Governor-General of the Union, identified themselves with the campaign. During the campaign, more than 8,000 volunteers, including the top flight leaders of the movement, were arrested and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment with hard labour, while some of the younger volunteers were punished by flogging. None of the men and women arrested offered any resistance to the treatment meted out to them, for when they volunteered, they took a pledge to observe the principles of non-violence and to suffer for the cause. All volunteers were expected to undergo a period of training and to observe a code of discipline based on moral and religious principles.
AFRICAN RESISTANCE: EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY MEASURES
This taking of the extra-parliamentary road has of course been forced upon the people. Year after year they have seen every session of Parliament piling one restriction upon another, one burden upon another, without any relief. How could they in the circumstances be expected to continue to look to Parliament as the source of their salvation? It has ben drummed into them by deeds as well as by words that Parliament has nothing in store for them and that their salvation, if any, must be sought outside the walls of this august body which wields supreme power in South Africa. This turning away from Parliament has been interpreted in some quarters as meaning that the non-whites want to work for the overthrow of Parliament and that therefore organisations like the ANC must be looked upon as subversive organisations out to undermine the independence and safety of the State. For that reason, since the Defiance Campaign there has been a great deal of loose talk about looking for evidence of treason by African individuals and organisations. The minister of Justice justified searches by Security Police of the homes and offices of individuals and organisations on the ground that they are searching for evidence of treason. This culminated in the Treason Trial of 1956-1961. The fact of the matter is that the African people are a highly loyal and law-abiding people. To attempt to persuade them to engage in activities directed against the independence and safety of the State would be no mean task for any group or individual that undertook it. When the African people say they are embarking upon extra- parliamentary methods, they do not mean thereby anti-parliamentary. For them extra-parliamentary means "outside Parliament to draw the attention of Parliament to our condition." For them it means "as we are precluded from influencing Parliament from within, let us see if we can influence the powers-that-be from without. Other South African citizens make use of press campaigns, protest demonstrations, processions, public meetings of protest, and the like, and nobody suggests that by these means they intend to overthrow the State but according to the Union government, if this sort of thing is done by the non-white groups, especially by the Africans, then it amounts to subversion.
But the effect of Government attacks on African leaders and African political organisations is that they have been driven underground. As no public meetings among Africans are allowed except for weddings, funerals and religious services, private meetings are held and they conduct their business just the same. If the public opposition to Government measures is prohibited, private opposition which can be much more dangerous, must and will be organised. Until recently all the outstanding leaders of the Africans stood by the policy of non-violence in achieving their aims. But with the passage of time as this policy appears to the ordinary man not to yield any results, the leaders who stood for non-violence and for co- operation between black and white on the basis of equal opportunity, are being replaced by leaders who do not. The intransigence on the white side of the colour line is being met with similar intransigence on the black side of the colour line. Unable to get the ear of public authorities in their own countries, the non-whites have begun to look beyond their own borders for inspiration, guidance and direction. Already events in other parts of the continent of Africa are having a tremendous impact on the man-in-the-street in South Africa. Already he sees that people in other territories in Africa are on the march towards independence, some of them obtaining independence by peaceful methods, while others have had to fight to gain their freedom. It is not surprising that he begins to say to himself, "If we cannot achieve our freedom by peaceful means, we may have to resort to other methods." The question at the moment is not whether the latter methods will succeed, but whether they begin to appear to the African in South Africa as the only methods open to him.
GOVERNMENT POLICY: SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT
The government has for some time now decided that the only way in which to maintain contact with the African people is through the Native Commissionar, on the one hand, and the tribal chief on the other. Occasionally in addition to these personal contacts between individual chiefs and individual Native Commissioners, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has held meetings with groups of chiefs from certain defined areas _ chiefs of Zululand, chiefs of the Northern Transvaal, chiefs of the Transkei, etc. These gatherings known as "Indabas" have given the minister the opportunity to expound at great length various aspects of the policy of aprtheid and he has apparently been advised or has decided on his own that as long as he does that, he is keeping in touch with African opinion and need not worry himself about any other sections of African opinion. Unfortunately, these "Indabas" have not been the success that it was hoped they would be. They have not produced the peace and harmony which was hoped for in the Northern Transvaal from which indaba-ridden area more chiefs have been deported than from any other area. Chiefs supposed to be loyal to the government have not been able to produce the miracle of acting like Pied Pipers of Hamelin blindly followed by their people. The people have not hesistated to repudiate the chiefs where the latter have not adequately represented their views. This troubled state of affairs on the Reserves the government has attributed to the activities of the now banned ANC, thereby tacitly admitting that the ANC has a greater influence over the people in the Reserves than the so-called traditional leaders of the people. The fact of the matter is that the modern African "Chief" is not a chief "by the people" as he was hitherto, but a chief "by the government." The people do not regard him as their spokesman at all. They look upon him quite rightly as a government man _ government appointed or government recognised. If he does not express "his Master's voice," he is liable to be deposed forthwith, and therefore, poor man, how can he be expected to express the views of the people, when he is not really a leader of his people but a servant of the government? It is this method of consultation which has resulted in the establishment of the Bantustan in the Transkei where a state of emergency still obtains.
The Nationalists believe that the peaceful way out is the way of separate development. This involves taking the Native Reserves as they are at present and converting them, however small their area, into a national home for the Africans in which they can, with state assistance, develop to their heart's content and enjoy all the rights in their own areas which the white man enjoys in his side of the country.
AFRICAN RESPONSE: FRUSTRATION AND DESPERATION
At the present moment thinking Africans look upon apartheid like a wolf in sheep's clothing, as something which must be recognised for what it really is and not for what it pretends to be. They look upon apartheid, whatever the form in which it appears, as a technique of domination, a system of maintaining the present baasskap (boss-ship) of the white man on a permanent basis. The white man is, of course, entitled to strive to maintain what he has gained for himself in the course of his stay in Africa, but what he really cannot expect is that the African should give his blessing to a state of affairs under which he always gets the worst of things. Being under the domination of another group is not exactly a pleasant thing for those who have to suffer it, and there is nothing else for the latter group to do but to continue to fight against domination until they overcome it.
South Africa has a European population of three million whites, many of whom have been established in Southern Africa for three centuries, and it can be taken for granted that they would be prepared to resort to violence in order to maintain their privileged position in the sub-continent. The non-white groups realise this and have hitherto always excluded the use of violence as a method of obtaining the redress of their grievances. They recognise that in any armed clash between black and white, the whites would be at a tremendous advantage, certainly at the outset, and that African loss of life would certainly be heavy. Responsible African leaders have always warned their people against any idea of resorting to arms in their struggle for liberation. But the question is whether they will always be prepared to listen to responsible leaders. There is more and more talk among the younger leaders about whether the method of non-violence will work in the South African context.
Some are beginning to suggest that the possibility of a resort to violence should not be ruled out altogether. They point out that in any case, as the struggle proceeds and is intensified, it will not be the African people but the government and its supporters who will resort to violence, and that it would be futile to expect the people assailed not to defend themselves in the best way possible. This is largely a counsel of desperation born out of the situation in South Africa in which the non- white groups are faced with a white population which is apparently impervious to the democratic processes of persuasion and discussion.
In view of the fact that there seems to be no possibility of the white man changing his outlook in this regard, all that remains is for him to be allowed to carry out his policy of separate development and for its impracticability to be established in the process. The doctrine of natural consequences seems to be the only one that can be followed with the white man who has decided to harden his heart against all appeals by the African for a reasonable approach to the problems of the country. Taking this road will undoubtedly bring much suffering upon many people and will delay the development of harmonious relations between the peoples of South Africa for decades, if not generations, but it seems that this futile attempt at turning back the clock of progress will have to take place before there can be a forward move in the national affairs of the country. Things will have to get worse before they can get better.
The trouble about this hardening of the heart against common sense and reason is that it evokes a similar response among those against whom it is directed. The African who believes that in the end reason will prevail is becoming a rarity. It is to be feared that by the time the white man is ready to adopt a reasonable attitude, he will find himself against a blank wall of black opposition. He will find that what he calls the "extremists" have taken over the leadership of the African group. Already the slogan _ Africa for the Africans _ which had been largely discredited when the Marcus Garvey movement was at its height in the twenties _ is coming back into popularity in some African circles, and he would be a bold man who would dare to predict that it will not catch on this time. After all, the trend of events all over the African continent is that the time is more than overdue for Africans to be freed from old-style colonialism and imperialism, and that in most African territories means "Africa for the Africans." The undiscerning will not stop to ask themselves whether such a policy is appropriate for South Africa with its large population of settled Europeans. What they will content themselves with is that it would be intolerable for a pocket of colonialism and imperialism to be allowed to remain in South Africa when the rest of the continent is free from it.
Recent developments in South Africa have shown the extent to which Africans have already travelled along the road to violence. Three distinct movements have emerged which show that significant sections of the non-white population, supported by some whites, have decided to abandon the way of non-violence. The first movement of which mention must be made is POQO. This seemed to include within its ranks a number of frustrated young men who decided to hit out wildly at anyone they believed belonged to the ranks of the oppressors, white or non-white. Their actions were classic examples of frustration and aggression in which the victims of their ill-will were chosen haphazardly without regard to any objective other than pointless destruction. Another movement is that of the YU CHI CHAN CLUB which apparently flourished in the Western Province, mainly among the coloured people. In the case against Dr. [Neville] Alexander and others who were alleged to have been members of this club, it appeared that their activities were in the stage of study and planning, but if the verdict of the court is to be accepted, the accused had decided to go the way of violence.
The movement about which the most authoritative statement has been made is UMKONTO WE SIZWE _ The Spear of the Nation. Dealing with the origin of this movement Mandela, its chief spokesman, in a moving document, extracts from which have been widely published, has said: "At the beginning of 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non- violence when the government met our peaceful demands with force. Umkonto was formed in November 1961. Umkonto was to perform sabotage and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start that on no account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out operations."
Dealing with the background of the movement Mandela states: "It is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence _ of the day when they would fight the white man and win back their country and we, the leaders of the ANC had nevertheless prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us met in May and June 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial state by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism."
It is clear that Mandela and his colleagues were still inspired by the spirit of non- violence. They reluctantly recognised that violence was inevitable, but they were convinced that if it did come, it was their duty as responsible leaders of the people to take certain steps about it, namely to ensure (1) that such a movement should be under the guidance of responsible leaders like themselves imbued with the spirit of non-violence; (2) that it should be carried out without any loss of life, but should be directed against installations which did not involve danger to life.
There is no indication anywhere in the statement that it was the aim of Mandela and others to overthrow the state as such. Their movement remained a movement of protest against the disabilities under which their people laboured.
As he says: "Basically, we fight against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and lack of human dignity. South Africa is the richest country in Africa and could be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and remarkable contrasts. The whites enjoy what may well be the highest standard of living in the world, while Africans live in poverty and misery. The lack of human dignity experienced is the direct result of the policy of white supremacy. White supremacy implies black inferiority. Legislation designed to preserve white supremacy entrenches this notion. Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing and not work which the government declares them to be capable of. Africans want to be allowed to live where they can obtain work and not to be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in places where they work and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own. Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettos. Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know that this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy. But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division based on colour is entirely artificial, and when it disappears so will the domination of one group by another."
Another matter to which Mandela draws attention is the commonly held assumption that when Africans fight for their rights they are inspired by Communism or directed by communists. As he states: "The ideological creed of the ANC is and has always been the creed of African nationalism. It is not the concept of African nationalism expressed in the cry "Drive the white man into the sea." The African nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfillment for the African people in their own land. It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans with an ingrained prejudice against Communism to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accept Communists as their friends. But the reason to us is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were preared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us, talk with us, live with us and work with us. They were the only political group which was prepared to work with Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with Communism."
The many trials that are going on in South Africa and the thousands of Africans who have been detained either under the 90 day "no trial" law or under Transkei Proclamation 400 of 1960, testify to the fact that a radical change is in process in the attitude of many Africans towards the possibility of bringing about political change by ordinary political processes. They also show the determination of the government representing the white population to crush with every means at its disposal, both legal and military, every movement among Africans for their liberation. The dilemma confronting African leaders as well as those who have their welfare at heart, is whether they should continue to urge their followers to stand by the methods of persuasion and discussion in the face of increasing and relentless force with which their attempts at the amelioration of their lot are met by the government. When the flower of African youth represented by men such as Mandela or Dr. Alexander are being sentenced to long terms of imprisonment during peace time, for fighting for their legitimate rights in what they believe to be the only ways open to them, can we say that the Christian thing to do is to advise them to acquiesce in their present situation and wait, Micawber-like, for something to turn up?