Interest Groups in South African PoliticsP, B. HarrisA Methodological SurveyPolitical sociology is a new science in SouthAfrica; indeed it is true to say that the subject isalmost completely neglected in the Republic,where political studies are still conditioned byhistorical, legal and philosophical attitudes.'Teaching and writing and thinking in politicalscience is still beset with discussions about"sovereignty", "parliamentary supremacy", and"philosophy of law", as may be instanced in thedebate over the disenfranchisement of the CapeColoureds in 1951 ,aTo those who see political science as a livingsubject, closely related to sociology, psychologyand economics, this is a sad state of affairs, forthere are very many other rich fields of politicalinvestigation in South Africa. Empirical analysis ofpolitical data in the Republic of South Africa couldyield many fruitful results, not only for the politicalsociologist, but also for the serious student ofaffairs who seeks to understand some of themotivations in one of the most ebullient of modernpolitical situations."Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner", maynot quite apply in the South African situation, butat least, some need is felt to escape from theperennial and frequently arid discussions aboutideology whether emanating from circles close to,or opposed to, the government.3 An understand-ing of political forces should precede any final, orindeed, Interim judgment. There is considerableneed to elucidate the ingredients of the SouthAfrican political formula, to consider problemslike those of access and group politics.4Any survey of political bet?aviour in SouthAfrica, ought to begin with a consideration of therole of pressure groups or interest groups. Theterm "interest group" is to be preferred to "pres-sure group" because the latter has tended, interalia, to become a term of abuse, consequentlylosing some of its scientific potency,5 Once theinterest group analysis has been made, it thenbecomes possible to judge the party system, and,finally, the reaction of global governmentalauthority to the various pressures.There is no account of the origin of interestgroups in South Africa, indeed there is little uponthat aspect of behaviour at all.* What is perhapsone of the earliest examples of interest groupactivity in Natal is given in the Natal Guide, Agroup of so-called businessmen set themselves upin opposition to the proposed introduction ofcustoms duties designed to protect colonialindustries in 18677 None the less, the duties wereimposed. Pressure, however, continued and in theyear 1884, the victory went to the interest group.The report for the year modestly adds that the Billwas ultimately withdrawn.8 Here a pressure grouphad acted like a "fire brigade", putting out a firewhich had already started.if we scan through the pages of South Africanhistory, we can observe the growth of pressureson, firstly, the colonial government and, secondly,the Union government. As the wealth of SouthAfrica became to be revealed, so interests werecreated which sought, from time to time, to obtainconcessions from the various governments of theday. The missionaries, the gold miners, the dia-mond producers, the wine, sugar, wool, wattlemanufacturers and, later, the industrialists, allthese have striven to gain the ear of the govern-ment, We are, however, less interested in thehistory of groups but rather more in their impact onmodern South African government, particularlyunder a Nationalist government, now in its seconddecade of power. Yet, before studying the charac-teristics of interest groups as these obtain in theSouth African scene, it is worth defining interestgroups in general terms. An interest group con-sists of persons of like-mind, who, while refusingto accept direct responsibility for government, willyet make claims upon government for concessionswhich rebound to their own benefit.* South Africaninterest groups appear to have certain generalcharacteristics which must first be considered inorder to understand the peculiarities of the SouthAfrican scene. In the first place, some types ofinterest groups are inoperative, restricted, or evenforbidden. There is no existence for them, letalone a question of access. The position of tradeunions is noteworthy in this context. Trade unionsrequire by law to be registered. Employment itselfis subject to restrictive legislation, such as thatpassed in 1956 reserving certain trades for whitepersons alone.10 The policy of job reservation has,however, produced a new set of pressures amongstthose who consider the policy to be indefensible.11From the standpoint of 1965, it would appear thatthe policy of job reservation would become in-creasingly subject to these pressures. In thesecond place, some interest groups are (con-sciously or unconsciously), influential at thehighest levels in the land. In South Africa theseare the Dutch Reformed Church and its subordin-ate committees as well as organisations like theBroederbondŠa confidential inner groupŠde-voted to the Afrikanerisation of South Africansociety. At the time of writing, an investigationunder the single scrutiny of Mr. Justice Botha, hadrevealed no subversive threat from such "secretsocieties" as the Broederbond, Sons of England,and the Free Masons. The clue to the understand-ing of organisations like the Broederbond is notthe ethical issue of whether inner groups should orshould not operate at the very centre of power, butwhether these, consciously (rather than uncon-sciously), stimulate certain types of activity ofpurely governmental nature." There are, ofcourse, few governmental regimes in which themajority's party machinery has not captured themachinery of central government. Further, mostpolitical parties depend upon an inner "ethos"which serves as a cohesive force. Norms mustinevitably be established which, independent ofany formal machinery or constitution, serve as aset of rules of conduct acceptable to all members.The influence of Eton upon British Cabinets isnotorious," Other similar influences in othercountries may be mentioned. The American"New Frontier" of Kennedy was frequentlyattacked as being composed of Harvard professors,while de Gaulle has not unnaturally chosen sym-pathisers of a politique de grandeur to advise andsurround him. Michels apart, from Venice toViet-nam an oligarchy has traditionally held swayover the minds and actions of the many.14 TheBroederbond (as a pressure group) might reallybe a "philosophical society" as these were under-stood in the eighteenth century. Such societies,have, at certain periods, exercised an importantinfluence upon the leadership of political parties.The best example of this is perhaps to be found inthe French Radical Party in which the influence offree masonry in the period 1900-1910 and later wasvery widespread.15 The Broederbond is effectivebecause it presents a picture of a closely inte-grated group of about 6,700 self-perpetuatingoligarchs, operating through local divisions. Thewords of Duverger relating to the interplay ofideology and institution, mason and FrenchThird Republic may be useful to throw light on theBroederbond. "It is undeniable that at that time,Masons formed the leading strata of the party, thatFreemasonry provided the party with its frame-work, its unity and its general lines of policy; thatits influence was dominant in the Party Con-gresses, in its Executive Committees, and over itsleaders; and that, thanks to Freemasonry, theparty acquired an effectiveness and a power suchas it has never since recovered."16Such a situation cannot be unexpected; indeed,the social psychologist might welcome any formof group cohesion. Those who accept the grouptheory of politics must applaud those forces whichbind the group rather than those which serve tosplit it, for if the group constitutes the normalmode of activity, one must welcome coherencerather than division. A difficulty arises, however,with a change of government. Given a particular10party ethos a change in government results in achange in ethosŠand this may frequently be adisturbing factor. A removal of the Nationalistparty from power might easily result in a loss ofpurpose, until the new party established andsustained its inner contacts. In Britain, however,the public school ethos in the Civil Service, armyand public service generally and even in the uppermanagerial strata of private industry provides acontinuity of outlook which even the advent oflabour party rule does not impair. The Publicschools are still the most influential norm-bearersIn British society, and their Old Boys dominate theupper ranks of the Church, the Bench, the City,the Foreign Service, and the Cabinet. Thus iscreated the Establishment, defined by ChristopherHollis as "a body of people acting, consciously orunconsciously, together, holding no official poststhrough which they exercise their power, butnevertheless exercising a great influence onnational policy." In the third place, interest groupsin South Africa have tended to be grouped accord-ing to race. This is not surprising, bearing inmind the nature of South African society. Peoplesee the grouping in different ways. There are thosewho would insist on a rigid grouping according torace, in hospitals for instance, but there are thosewhose object is to break down barriersŠassocia-tions and clubs within churches for example.17These latter, however, might be described asgroups promoted "from above". Yet it is signifi-cant that even those groups who originate "frombelow" resolve themselve into racial categories.The blind, for example, will be organised as theBantu blind, teachers' associations will be, forexample, Indian Teachers' Societies, and thehandicapped will be Jewish Handicapped. Ofcourse, it can be argued that the categories per-mitted are already provided, as it were, by nature.Even political systems must reflect social facts.In some cases, however, it may be a question ofthe hen and the egg. Would the group voluntarilydevelop outside the permitted categories in theabsence of a firm government directive on thematter? Some indeed must so developŠforexample, the animals of all races must necessarilybe the concern of the S.P.C.A. Yet what of amotoring organisation such as the A.A. which hasa restrictive entry clause based on race?In this case, protection of the white motorist isprior to protection of the motorist. So it wouldappear that South African interest groups are self-generating normally within the racial context. Thefourth characteristic of South African interestgroups is that they have peculiar problems ofleadership. Leaders of South African society areproduced roughly as they are in Britain, that is tosay, according to the principles of an "Establish-ment" rather than a "Power Elite".18 The latteraccording to C, Wright Mills, constitutes an"elite in irresponsible command of unprecedentedmeans of power and manipulation", and the sug-gestion is that such an elite is devoid of traditionalethics and values which may, at times, transcendmore monetary rewards. South African elites dofrequently place traditional ethics and values abovethe mere pursuit of power. South African myths areas pervading as anywhere in the young countriesof the world. Moreover, as White South Africansociety is a society more on the defensive thanalmost any other society in the world todayŠhence its leadership problems are that much moreacute. Each of the two white groups subscribes toa psychological attitude peculiarly its own, so thatdecisions are not the result of the pressures andcounter pressures which take place between all theforces existing in society. Afrikaner and Briton areseparate sociological groups, and at the top ofthese groups operate respectively, the Broeder-bond, and the mores of the public school. Just asthe Clarendon public schools in England set thetone for English society, so do the South Africanequivalents for English-speaking South Africansociety. Yet, as R. M. Mclver pointed out, "Thepower a man has is the power he disposes; it isnot intrinsically his own. He cannot commandunless another obeys."20 Obedience is given toboth these sets of leaders in Afrikaner and"British" society, though more particularly to theformer. Hence, the concept of leadership in SouthAfrica is fundamentally different from that whichobtains in the U.S.A. where, it is confidentiallysaid: "No single trait or group of characteristicshas been isolated which sets off the leader fromthe members of his group." Moreover, in SouthAfrica, it does not appear to be true that leadershipis a purely "functional relationship which rules outthe possibility that all leaders have in common cer-tain 'traits' that set them off from the followers."21In the U.S.A. where this is true according to socialpsychologists, it is further possible to say that,"Leadership is not a quality which a man pos-11sesses, it is an interactional function of thepersonality and of the social situation,"" In aBritish-type society as is English-speaking whiteSouth Africa, leadership is a function of status.There are the pseudo-C!arendon type publicschools at the lower academic levels, though nosuch hierarchy compares with Oxbridge at theuniversity level.A final point of importance is that South Africaninterest groups are, a priori, likely to be lesssuccessful in their endeavours than are those inmost Western European countries. To put this inanother way, the counter-pressures, from above,will be such that an interest group in South Africawill find itself faced by special difficulties createdby strong or authoritarian government. SouthAfrican interest groups need not expect to findwarmhearted government reaction to their efforts,unless the efforts of the group harmonise with thepolicies of the Cabinet, Where the pleas of interestgroups for concessions elsewhere are met withsympathy, South African ministers take collectiveresponsibility seriously in that they do notcountenance any group purely on its own merits.The group conflict is not, in South Africa, anatural process, A bellum omnium contra omniumdoes not apply precisely, because order hasalready been imposed upon (or accepted) by thegroup state of nature.One important question relates to the relation-ship between the external influence of a countryand its ability to contain interest groups. Certaincountries which attempt to cut a figure in worldpolitics may be unable to contain internal pres-sures, as the case of France under the FifthRepublic amply shows,23 These pressures areprimarily economic, and may usually properly beregarded as a sinister influence (just as Rousseauregarded "partial wills"). Before 1939, economicpressure groups were normally regarded assomething sinister in the West, It is interesting tosee that since the war, such groups (inciudingtrade unions), have tended to be regarded as morerespectable hitherto. If they do exist, they areusually exhorted merely to refrain from "restrictivepractices"Šone of the key terms in political dis-cussions in the past decade.More recently, it would appear that socialpressure groups (e.g. the "Establishment"), havebeen regarded as more significant by students ofthe subject, in South Africa, interest groupsappear, on the whole, to be contained to an extentunthinkable in France.In setting out the interest groups themselves,recourse must be had to some conceptual frame-work. None has been formulated with regard toSouth Africa, indeed, many even of the discussionsof theory in America and Europe have yielded littlebesides booklists of theories.24Without wishing to enter into the argumentsabout theoryŠwhether interest groups are some-thing different from pressure groups, whethercategoric groups are non-political, whether theterm "Lobby" is a more accurate term than"pressure groups", or any other groupsŠit isproposed to analyse a few interest groups withoutany overall attempt to reduce the analysis to apreconceived pattern, though following Finer andBlondel, a distinction will be made between whatare called "promotional" and "protectional"interest groups.Promotional groups seek to appeal to the broadmass of the population, because they have a"cause", mostfrequently philanthropic or "moral",as Finer says of them, they are, "the societies forimproving this and pulling down that". Protectiveinterest groups have the task of assisting membersof an association or organisation to improve theirmaterial advantages, or, at least, not to sufferdiminution in these.South Africa contains examples of both varietiesof group, but because of the racial divisionswithin the country, it is difficult in fact for promo-tional groups to make a generalised appeal asmight be the case in a relatively more homogeneouspopulation. Protective interest groups are, conse-quently, more active, as they must be to protectinterests in a country whose tendencies towardsdivision have been more marked than the ten-dencies towards unity. Yet, irrespective of suchdivergency, in almost any situation, there will bedivided opinion regarding means, if not ends.Choosing at random any issue, this might seem tobe the case. For example, building a railway linemust inevitably involve clashes of interest based onmere economic interest alone which becomeinevitably more acute if the problems of race areencountered with regard to service or labour. Theposition was well put in a debate held in the Houseas Assembly on 27th May, 1963, when the UnitedParty Member of Parliament for Simonstown (Mr.L. C, Gay) declared (of a proposed railway venture,)12"in a job of this magnitude, there are naturallymany different interests at stake, interests whichdo not always see eye-to-eye"26 Economic andracial interests abound.Interests do not have to be created, as it were,in South Africa, they exist a priori. Nevertheless,the pattern of powerful interest groups in theeconomic field so much in evidence in Britain andin the United States continues to dominate theSouth African scene. There is a geographicalvariation in the disposition of the groups in theRepublicŠthus the K.W.V. (Co-operative Wine-growers Association of South Africa Limited),and the various wine interests are relatively moreactive in the Cape Province than is the SouthAfrica Sugar Association and the attendantsugar interest whose activities are centred more inNatal, It is proposed, therefore, to analyse protec-tive interest groups, industry by industry, in orderto assess the extent of their operations in so faras these are pertinent to political science. Beforethis is done, however, it is worth asking what sortof picture of the South African political scenemight be expected to emerge. A study of theactivities of the various groups might be expectedto produce a picture of Hobbesian conflict, groupagainst group, all involved in a vicious competitionfor power. Life becomes, in Finer's words, "arubber-stamping of compromise from the pushand pull of a swarm of competing groups", were itnot for the compensating factors of constitutionaldemocracy.27The instinctive reaction of the observer of thepolitical scene in South Africa is to embark uponan examination of ideology. The concept ofapartheid has become something of an invitationto a slanging match, an ideological shibboleth andthis at a time when, as Lipset puts it, "seriousintellectual conflicts between groups representingdifferent values have declined sharply."23 Whatremains in the West are myths rather than pro-found ideological clashes. "Interests" then, domi-nate politics, at least as much as ideas, as Homesuggested nearly two hundred years ago. In aclassic study, Thibaudet had warned however,"No hope for a party which writes on its banner'interests', if this is so, then it is reasonable to lookat South Africa as a nation which is an exceptionto the general Western trend. "Ideas" are stillas important as "interests", and the idea ofapartheid would appear to dominate the scene tothe exclusion of all else. Values still appear to flyin the face of facts. The Afrikaner clings to hisvision of a society of White Christian nationalism,steadfast and unchangingŠdogmatic and un-yielding.Political theory in South Africa can spurnsociological evidence. The moral beliefs of theAfrikaner are impervious to such evidence "notbecause their proponents do not adduce any insupport of their position, but because the con-clusions argued from the evidence rest upon aninterpretation which, if consistently maintained,can be guaranteed in advance to cover any factwhich the observer might bring back from thesociological study of the contingent world."29 Wemay, of course, succeed in controverting suchpeople on grounds of consistency (this has beendone time and time againŠapartheid can beshown not to be workingŠthe influx of Africansto the towns is an unreversable process). Yetpolitical beliefs are, as Runciman points out, notamenable "to the adducing of logical or empiricalevidence". Political argument in South Africa,therefore, frequently consists in an exchange ofboos and hurrahs. Thus those in the NationalistParty who cry "save the state" are accused bytheir enemies of having shouted "destroy thestate" before 1948 when the Nationalists came topower.In understanding the clash between differentinterests as part of the pattern of normal politicalactivity, one needs to consider some otherquestions.Is there firstly an interest of the nationŠwhichall groups might agree to uphold? Is it universallyand invariably held, standing apart from andsuperior to those interests of the various groupsincluded? Will people be content, once theyunderstand, rationally, what is involved, to takewhat a "given" political situation offers them? Isit possible to find the highest common factor ofall the different lobbies in South Africa, the wine"lobby", the sugar "lobby", the gold "lobby", themines interests, the A.A., the S.P.C.A., not tomention a host of other groups.The cancellation of the plusses and the minusesmight not result in a basic balance or harmony,what Finer calls the "Benthamite" solution.Cohesion depends then on the basic attachmentto the nation, more particularly to the SouthAfrican nation, so that the Benthamite solution is13not particularly appropriate to the condition ofSouth Africa, it is rather the notion of Rousseauthat there is a "higher law" than that of merelyadding together the selfish interests of competinggroups. The addition of such groups would not initself produce a body politic. It is the search forsomething greater than the mere synthesis of con-flicting components which bedevils South Africatoday. Bantu, Boer, and Briton or Indian, these arethe basic ingredients within which groups developand over whose strictly ethnical lives they fre-quently stray. Superimposed over the question of"what is the state" is the secondary question of"what is the nation". It was Rousseau who saw inthe nation the salvation for the disunity and dis-loyalty of mere sectional interests. The "humanatom" could directly understand the call of thenation whereas he despaired that mere aggregatescould ever claim separate moral validity. TheSouth African politician makes frequent referencesto "our nation", "our country", "the volk", as thefundamental authority to which all individuals mustand will render allegiance. For White SouthAfricans this is a call which transcends all otherdivisions, so that they can quite unselfconsciously,defend their country from external attacks, verbalor otherwise, in spite of their antipathy to govern-ment politics.Most interest groups are eager to point out thatthey are, what they call, "non-political". In thiscase, it would appear prima facie, that the interestgroup analysis would not belong to politicalscience because the interests themselves disclaimany connection with the political processŠrecentlythe South African Chamber of Industries declareditself to be "non-political" as well as the Chambersof Commerce and the Institute of Race Relations.in fact, groups desire to remain innocent of thepolitical taint, but their interpretation of political isparticularly restrictive. They might rightly claimthat they are not party partisan, in the sense thatthey support or finance a particular political partyfor its own sake. A Bottle Store Association doesnot a priori support, for example, the UnitedParty. Certainly some groups clearly see theirsalvation in supporting particular partiesŠparti-cularly in the Afrikaans sector of South Africansociety. "Non-political" can only mean that aninterest group does not wish to leave the shadowsof pressure-grouping and enter into the sunshineof the party arena. All interest groups want to gainas much influence in the legislature as they can,which involves the placating, rather than thenon-alienation, of the major parties. Thus theywill not align themselves permanently with oneparty as against another. When this happens andsuch a permanent alliance is effected, then aninterest group has become a mere party affiliate.Hence, interest groups must carry on politicalflirtations on the largest possible scale, or remainaloof from the whole exercise. The alternative toloose living is complete celibacy. A permanentliaison can only lead to a loss of identity. Nointerest group wishes to nullify its efforts hence,to use the somewhat picturesque words of Fineronce again, . . . "All that 'non-political' means insuch a context is that an organisation reserves theright to look a gift horse in the mouth and bite thehand of the party that feeds it."31In South Africa groups are more interested in"government" than in party politics. It is within thegovernmental process that the interest group canmost effectively operate. In discussions anddeliberations with ministers, one does not facethe open glare of publicity and polemics overprinciples; rather one depends upon gentlemen'sagreement, adjustment, compromise and theavoidance of acrimonious controversy.Government in the abstract is a "neutral", a setof practices and institutions within whose frame-work "politicians" operate. Its characteristics areanonymity, complexity, elementally and, fre-quently, delay, the time-curing tranquilliser ofbitter conflicts.Government, the constitutional apparatus of theState, is an impartial arbiter, an administrativemechanism which mediates interests by imple-menting the demands of various pressure groups.This does not imply that even in general termsgovernment is totally unresponsive to groupactivity. Indeed it has recently been argued that"it is impartial among a limited number of con-testants in a limited conflict between the preciseapplication of a general rule, principle, or policy.Apart from such cases, a government would beregarded as totally unresponsive if it were "im-partial".32While it is true that, in South Africa, even themachinery of government is responsive to itsenvironment in a high degree, it is none-the-lesspassive in comparison with group activity. Itwould not, therefore, be correct to see South14Africa as, for example, D. Truman sees thegovernment of the U.S.A. or as J, D. Stewart seesthe government of Great Britain as mere adminis-trative bodies which mediate between interestgroups by implementing their various demandswherever possible. The South African minister isvery well aware of the ethos which he would wishto see established in the Republic.His image will be that of the Afrikaner Nationalparty defended in Parliament as well as outsidewith complete devotion as the pages of Hansardtestify.In his everyday dealings, therefore, even inpurely administrative affairs, the minister of Stateis responsible in terms of the Afrikaner Weltan-schaung. None the less, even he, for much of histime is a passive instrument of policy whichinterest groups will try to manipulate to their ownends. Many complaints will be noted, in the pageswhich follow, from ministers who feel themselveshounded by one form of pressure after another.To the student of interest groups there is muchto discover in the operations of these socialpressures. In South Africa, as everywhere else,interest groups are capable of exerting consider-able power through their constant campaigns atthe weak spots of the government machine. Yetin South Africa too, the government can frequentlyexert counter pressure. There are possibly twospecial reasons for this. In the first place, thecentral government in South Africa possesses aremarkable degree of cohesion unusual even in asystem where collective ministerial responsibilitynormally exists. It is conceivable that externalpressures assist or have even produced the highdegree of cabinet solidarity typical of most of thelast two decades of South African history. Themotto or device of South Africa (seen on all coins),is Eendrag maak mag (Unity is Strength).In constitutional terms, South Africa's unity isproduced by the parliamentary system, by theconvention that "winner takes all", the leader ofthe majority party becoming Prime Minister andthe party, the guardians of government and state.Hence, while there is a two-party system operatingin the Republic, the majority party holds firmcontrol over the machinery of the state as it mustdo in a parliamentary type system.33 It might besaid, however, that there is no sign of the elector-ate's wishing to transfer its allegiance to the majorOpposition party (particularly bearing in mind thechange in the electoral representation in theTransvaal).Further, the South African constitutional systemappears to be developing a state of mind known tothe early Boers as the "laager mentality"Šthespirit of union and defiance reminiscent of theold dangerous days when the Boers contrived todefend lives, homes, property and families againstall enemies. The combination of this laagermentality (which is Boer) and the principle ofcollective responsibility (which is British) is aunique mixture of the earthy and the sophisticatedwhich greatly assists governmental cohesion.The second reason why government in SouthAfrica is able to withstand external social pres-sures derives from the structure of governmentitself. The South African governmental system,like the British, has relatively few points of access."Indeed, it may be asserted that, the minister of thestate is the unique point of access. The pre-eminence of the minister's position is explained intwo ways: in the first place, South Africa is aunitary and notafederal state (despite all evidencesto the contrary), and there are no subordinatefederal units with sovereign powers in dulyspecified areas of activity, as there are, for example,in the U.S.A. In the second place, there are onlyseventeen cabinet ministers (as of early 1965)excluding the Prime Minister, many of whom holdan amazing array of portfolios.33 One deputyminister might be responsible (in a deputy capa-city) for four "deputy" portfolios.36 This reducesthe points of access still further, so that when aMinister says "no", much discussion is perforceterminated which might otherwise have con-tinued for some time.What caps the whole structure is a remarkablegeneral homogeneity of outlook which persistsfrom the dedicated National party worker at thebottom to the topmost levels of the Cabinet.Backbench revolts are rare if not non-existent. Inshort, what obtains in the party-governmentstructure in the Republic of South Africa is anearly complete ideological consensus. In conse-quence of this, the government is able to presenta united front to the world at large outside. Henceany study of interest groups in South Africa willhave to record many struggles and many failuresand only a few victories.15Some Aspects of South African Interest GroupsProtective groups Indeed dominate the scene inSouth Africa. The Chamber of Mines, for example,has been described as "one of the great influencesin South Africa",37 The concessions which suchan interest group can obtain from the governmentmay be gauged from the fact that the Chamber ofMines has obtained for itself the particular privilegeof special access (a concept beloved by politicalsociologists), to the parliamentary lobby in CapeTown, so that it may lobby Ministers at any time.This is a privilege which it shares with the Chamberof industries, the Afrikaansesakekamer and theAfrikaansehandelsinstituut. Lobbying, is of course,a basic right which exists in a parliamentary type ofgovernment, but large and powerful interestsfrequently make full use of it. No doubt this was inPresident Truman's mind when he made hisfamous, if somewhat question-begging comment,". . . we must get politics out of the hands ofpressure groups and into the hands of the people".The clue to understanding what passes for muchof the political activity in South Africa, lies inknowing that neither pressure groups nor peopleare in control. South African Ministers havetrained themselves to turn a deaf ear to the pleaswhich come from many quarters. Sport is animportant case in point.3" South Africans are greatlovers of sport, but the policy of apartheid in sportin South Africa itself, has not been modified, inspite of moves by the Government, in mid-1967,to relax certain stringent rules about racial mixingin competitive sport outside the country.Another example consists of television, whichhas for long been prohibited in the Republic. Thecampaign to introduce television has been intri-guing, in all senses of the word. For a variety ofreasons, ideological, economic, and social, theSouth African government has been implacablyopposed to the introduction of television, in spiteof the fact that 81 countries in the world nowpossess this particular means of communication.3*There are technical reasons why television shouldhave not yet been introduced into South Africa,for example, the important consideration that thecentres of largest population concentrations arewidely dispersed,40 Yet one who studies the state-ments put out by the various Ministers, both in theHouse and outside, must come to the conclusionthat television is withheld from the South Africanpublic for ideological reasons. Television isregarded with grave suspicion by the leaders ofAfrikaner thought and opinion. It is seen as apurveyor of a way of life inimical to Afrikanerdom,The observer from Britain or America must beamazed at the quiescent nature of the SouthAfrican public with regard to television, or the lackof it, in the Republic. There is no public clamour fortelevision, there is no campaign mounted for itsimminent introduction, there is no "lobby".41 Intruth, the campaign of the South African govern-ment against television is stronger than thecampaign for its introduction. From time to timethe question of the introduction of television intothe Republic has been raised in Parliament. Athorough discussion took place during a debateon 27th April, 1964.42 The Prime Minister, Dr.Verwoerd, found himself involved in heatedexchanges with the Leader of the Opposition, Sirde Villiers Graaff, The Opposition had intimatedthat the Government wished to protect the Afri-kaans press (in which the Prime Minister was acommanding influence), by opposing the intro-duction of television.Dr. Verwoerd announced that "it would be theeasiest thing in the world for us to use televisionto enrich our undertakings". Yet he emphaticallydenied that such a thought had ever sullied thephilosophy of the National Party. The Minister ofPosts and Telegraphs, Dr. Albert Hertzog, whoseright-wing tendencies had attracted considerablecomment, and who set himself up against tele-vision on grounds of principle, pointed to thedeleterious effects of television upon youngpersons." Reference was made to various studieswhich "proved" his contention. Others, less proneto rely on more academic viewpoints, saw tele-vision as a Trojan Horse, bringing highly undesir-able influences into the country. The member forPretoria East, Dr. J. C. Otto, felt that, when tele-vision was introduced, "we shall find communistsand liberalists sneaking in". He went on to saythat, "we dare not sell our national soul and thatat the high cost of the introduction and mainte-nance of television".*4 These arguments were,however, a useful smokescreen for those who hadmost to gain from the prohibition of television,among which may be numbered drive-in cinemasand cinemas generally, it was clearly to their16*advantage that the Minister repeated, up to 1965,that television was a "permanent non-starter".The television debate in South Africa, in fact,can tell us a great deal about the nature of thegovernmental process. A stand may be freely andfrequently made on the grounds of principle.All types of groups, in so far as they exist toexert pressure upon the political process, are ofconcern to the student of political science. Whilepromotional groups are largely inhibited by racelegislation regarding "mixed gatherings", it isclear that there is no shortage of protectiveinterest groups. Yet even Afrikaner groups are notnecessarily able to influence government thinkingon any and every issue as the cause of the gamb-ling lobby has shown.*5Among the more powerful protective groupsin the Republic are those connected with thealcohol and hotels lobby. Research shows a vastand intricate network of interests and sub-interestsoperating in the Cape in the orbit of the grape.44The major interest within the alcohol lobby are theCooperative Winegrowers' Association (K.W.V.)situated at Paarl, and the various brewers' interests(with the ubiquitous Dr. Rupert in the latest ven-ture, that of introducing Whitbreads into theRepublic).Interests operate on the side of alcohol produc-tion which seek the ear of government, but thereare extremely tenacious interests on the side ofdistribution also. The bottle stores and the generalliquor distributors have ferociously defended theirrights to share in the lucrative trade in alcohol. Allpotential rivals in the distributive field have beenvery severely attacked as the interlopers whichthey undoubtedly were. There is a delicate balanceof interest between the forces of production and ofdistribution, as may be evidenced from the re-marks of the-then Minister of Justice (Mr. B. J.Vorster), during the debate on the Liquor Amend-ment Bill, on 10th June, 1963.The Minister said: "The moment one comesforward with such a liquor Bill there are so manyconflicting interests which one has to reconcilewith one another, conflicting interests which veryoften do not even want the sun to shine on theothers"." He discounted the view that the Govern-ment was the tool of the wine farmers of SouthAfrica.4" He went on to castigate "certain liquorinterests", in particular, the Bottle Store Owners'Association, for their methods, including the useof circulars, allegedly to misrepresent the Govern-ment's case.As the debate proceeded, various other interestswere revealed, inter alia, the hotels, the cateringtrade, temperance societies, church interests,breweries, bankers, and industrialists of all sorts.Certain promotional groups, in particular thetemperance societies, showed themselves just aseager to press the Minister to their way of thinkingas did the more obvious protective groups.4* Oneespecially interesting alliance is that establishedbetween the Dutch Reformed Church and theSouth African Temperance Alliance which provedto be embarrassing to the government.50A South African interest group of the highestimportance is the railway interest. Giving employ-ment as it does to 22,000 workers, it is, in fact, anenormous monopsonist. Yet to question theefficiency of the South African railways is regardedas an unpatriotic act. Such critics are roundlycondemned in Parliament and are shown for whatthey are. Many M.P's. of course, have railwaymenas voters and they sometimes frame their speecheswith that fact in mind.The railway interest groups were described inone Sunday newspaper as a "state within a state",and as the "railway empire". The railways in SouthAfrica clearly have the ear of government, they are,indeed, constitutionally entrenched, and theGeneral Manager is one of the two public servantsin South Africa who cannot be retired, except byResolution of Parliament."Opposed to the railway interest is the RoadFederation itself, the protective organ of the road,interests, the Federated Chambers of Commerce(in so far as this was free to express an opinion),and those parts of business which are sympatheticto the roads case. There are many facets to thisconflict, economic, social, and political, but thefundamental issue was seen as being "freedom"(represented by the roads), as against "mono-poly", represented by the railways. The railwayshave resorted to many different types of tactics inorder to ensure the maximum number of difficultiesfor road competitors. Lobbying over the road-railcontroversy took on the nature of a crusade, asthe railways interests pleaded "national interest"and depicted the roads group as "un-SouthAfrican".The railways have had the ear of government fora long time, but the margarine lobby has not been17so fortunate," In the case of the conflict betweenmargarine and butter, the margarine interestshave been singularly unsuccessful. According toan Act passed in 1918, the sale of margarine con-taining any milk, fat, or colouring matter is pro-hibited." Hence the butter producers, the SouthAfrican Dairy Industry Control Board, havesuccessfully managed to frustrate much potentialcompetition from margarine manufacturers.54 TheDairy Control Board may be regarded as the voiceof the Dairy lobby, and one which has won asuccessful battle against the encroachments ofmargarine. In this context of South Africa, it isperhaps worth remarking that something "co-loured" should make headway as against some-thing "white".There is another interest in the Republic whichfound itself embarrassed in 1966. In late 1964, theParity Insurance Company went into liquidationand many motorists found themselves to be lack-ing the legal requirement to be covered against"third party" claims. The Government brought outa Bill in 1966 proposing that only 11 companiesshould be permitted to deal with the business ofThird Party. Accusations were made in Parliamentthat the Minister had selected his political friendsin the insurance world to run his scheme. More-over, it was alleged by Opposition M.P's. that theseselected insurance companies had been guaran-teed a present of R2,000,000 of public moneywithout any fear of loss. The excluded insurancecompanies lobbied intensively but without muchgeneral success. The Bill became law.5SThe suggestion is sometimes made that theGovernment in South Africa has favoured Its ownpolitical allies and associates on every possibleoccasion. Representative M.P's. and sponsors ofthe wool lobby actually admitted that Governmentprice policy had prevented the wool farmer frombecoming a "poor white".56 By way of gratitudevotes were presented to the National Party. Thosewho gained diamond and fish concessions inSouth West Africa were similarly grateful."Evidence about South African interest groupssuggests that what above all is required is anunderstanding of the proper relationship betweenbusiness (for that is where the interest groupsare), and Government. Granted, the granite-likedesire of South African government to resistencroachment upon its political aims, what, wemay ask, can business do to deter or deflect anyunwelcome legislation?. The further questionarises, does the political dog wave the economictail? Can the Government of South Africa containeconomic forces, or are these irresistible in thelong run? Those who wait for a Marxist-typealignment of economic and political forces assumethat the economic facts of life are making non-sense of preconceived social ideology. The usageof job reservation determinations has been fre-quently cited as an example.58The relationship between business and govern-ment is clearly equivocal. While Business isafraid that the Government will "interfere", it isnot averse to using Government as a crutch, andas a concession-granting machine." Business isquite prepared to work as closely with the National-ist Government as is necessary and desirable."A government contract may make or mar abusiness concern, yet Commerce and Industry isprepared to live out its complicated existence inconstant dread of government.To what extent do interest groups constitute ameaningful opposition in South Africa today?Clearly those groups which have the ear of theGovernment are no opposition at all, and these are,consciously or unconsciously, allies of authority.As for the groups (from student groups to Defenceand Aid) which, consciously or unconsciouslyfind themselves in opposition, their activities arekept under constant surveillance. Yet what mustconstantly surprise the outside observer is themanner in which potential opposition groups failto form in spite of the strength of the convictionsof their advocates. What indeed is surprisingabout South African life is its lack of spontaneity.In the field of popular entertainment, it is trulyremarkable to note the way in which young peopleaccept restrictions. Quarters close to the govern-ment maintain a constant hostility to certainmodern styles of popular entertainment, particu-larly when these are associated with supposedlydegenerate outside influence. The Beatles, as apopular singing group, were banned from the airon account of a supposed remark by one of theirnumber which was taken to be blasphemous. Theirmusic has not been heard since 1965. Again, greathostility has been shown towards the moderntrend to folk-singing, on account of its associationwith the American Civil Rights movement. Whilethere is no lack of popular music heard on theS.A.B.C., one has the impression that the govern-18ment will strike (sometimes logically, sometimesnot) at any agency which It feels to be inimical toits interests. The Government counter presses thepressure group.NOTES1. An examination of the syllabuses for political science in the various universities of the Republic shows that, of sevenuniversities which offered the subject in 1963, not one required a knowledge of political behaviour, and all requiredsome coverage of political philosophy, usually with a historical bias.2. S.A, 428 (A,D.) Harris versus Minister of Interior (1952), See R, Kilpin, Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa 3rded. (1955), p. 140 f.n. 29, for detailed (legalistic) bibliography.3. Dr, C, de Wet estimated in a debate in Parliament, that, in his experience, 85% to 90% of all bills were non-contentiousin any case. See Hansard (Republic of South Africa), House of Assembly, Col, 6690 {No. 18) 1963,4. South Africa could benefit from studies like those made in Great Britain by S, E, Finer, Jsan Blondel, Richard Roseand Robert McKenzie, and in the U.S.A. by writers like David Truman, Edward Shils, V, O. KeyŠand above all thepioneer of all these studies, Arthur Bentley,5. Natal doctors were described as a "cheap (sic) pressure group", over their efforts to secure Addlngton Hospital,Durban. The term "cheap" as well as qualifications like "they were only a pressure group" suggests a false distinctionbetween legitimate political activities and improper political activities.Clinton Rossiter's words on the subject are interesting: "We call them 'interest groups' when we are feeling clinical,pressure groups when we are feeling critical, and 'lobbies' when we are watching them at work in our fifty-onecapitals." Parties and Politics in America (Cornell) 1960, p. 21.6. An interesting exception to this is a short piece by E.G. Brookes under "Parties" in the Encyclopedia of Social Scienceswhere an attempt is made to link up social and historical forces with party alignments in South Africa up to 1933.7. The Official Natal Guide, 1963 edition, p. 177.8. ibid, p. 177.9. S. E. Finer Anonymous Empire. Second edition, 1962, p, 76, who abstracted the term from the Financial Times, 29thApril, 1957.10. See Hansard, 3rd June, 1963 (Assembly), cols. 7109-12 for details of registered unions.See also D. Hobart Houghton, The South African Economy, p. 147 for an explanation of the relevant legislation.11. Opponents of job reservation include the Progressive and Liberal parties, as well as the more obvious interest groups(the non-European trade unions (South African Congress of Trade Unions)). The Association of Chambers ofCommerce, opposes the policy of job reservation on economic grounds, A particular industry's problems in thisregard are very clearly set out in the Memorandum to the Commissioner of Enquiry into the Hotel Industry (1963)Part I, paras. 20-35.12. For example, how far would a "confidential" pressure group cause particular types of legislation to be enacted.13. See H. Laski, Studies in Law and Politics (1924), and Sir Ivor Jennings, Party Politics, Vol. III. A thorough survey isW. L. Guttsman, The British Political Elite (1960) and also in H. Thomas (ed.) The Establishment (1959).14. R. Michels Political Parties (ed. S. M. Lipset, 1962), passim, and the critique by C. W. Cassinelli in American PoliticalScience Review XLVII, pp. 773-84.15. On societies de pensee see M. Duverger, Political Parties (1954), p. 149, and on the Radicals see F. de Tarr, TheRadical Party passim.16. Duverger, op. cit., p. 149.17. One cause celebre involved a European man, injured in an accident who was taken to a non-European hospital (KingEdward VIII Hospital in Durban). One European lady wrote personally to the Prime Minister, Dr, Verwoerd, protestingagainst this transgression of the principles of apartheid,18. For the distinction between an Establishment and a Power Elite, see Jean Blondel, Voters, Parties and Leaders (1963)chapter 9, and see C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (1957), p. 277. See also A, Sampson Anatomy of Britain (1961), andB. Inglis, Private ConscienceŠPublic Morality (1964).19. Clarendon public schools are the nine schoolsŠEton, Rugby, Winchester, Westminster, Charterhouse, MerchantTaylors', Shrewsbury and St. Paul'sŠwhich were the object of a Royal Commission headed by Lord Clarendon in1864. See Blondel, op, cit., p. 40. The "public schools" in South Africa are, inter alia, Michaelhouse, Hilton in Natal,Bishops in the Cape.20. R. M. Mclver, The Web of Government (1947), pp. 107-8.21. Truman, op. cit., p. 189, quoting W, O. Jenkins: "A Review of Leadership Studies with Particular Reference to MilitaryProblems", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 1 (January 1947), p.p 74-5.22. Cecil A. Gibb "The Principles and Traits of Leadership" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 42, No, 3(1947), p. 284.23. A short account of de Gaulle's conflict with pressure groups may be seen in D. Thomson's France since Evian,reproduced in The World Today, Vol. 20, No. 5 (1964), particularly the remark "The Gaullist State still has a considerableway to go before the President's authority is asserted over the sectional interests which he claims to override,"op. cit., p. 195.24. The greatest problem for interest group theorists has been to find a universally acceptable theory which will takeaccount of and allow for the collection of data. As each new case-study is made, the process of theorising becomesmore difficult, Nevertheless, it must be made, in order to give coherence to case-studies,1925. Blondel, op, cit., pp. 14-16 and pp. 160-1. H. Finer in Anonymous Empire, p. 112 and also the latter's article The Lobbiesin The Twentieth Century, October 1957 (Vol. 162, No. 968), p. 372, where he defines the term 'Lobby' "generically"... "it means all associations in so far as they go in for influencing public bodies", but yet distinguishes between thetwo sorts, those which "promote" and those which "protect". A. Potter, Organised Groups in British National Politics(1960) distinguishes similarly between Spokesman Groups and Promotional Groups.26. Hansard, Col. 6674, 27th May, 1963.27. Finer, op. cit., p. 37.28. S. M. Upset, Political Men, Chapter XIII, The End of Ideology?29. W. C. Runciman, Sociological Evidence and Political Theory in Philosophy, Politics and Society (Second Series 1962)p. 36, ed. P. Laslett and W. G. Runciman.30. Finer, Anonymous Empire, p. 40.31. op, cit., p. 44.32. R. S. Downie, Government Action and Morality (1964), p. 64 has a footnote in which the author confesses that heregarded government as an "impartial arbiter" but was persuaded to the viewpoint quoted by discussion with Profes-sor Graeme Moodie of Glasgow University.33. The essential requirement for a two or more party state is that there should be a pendulum permitting a swing fromone party to another and that it should swing. See J. P. Mclntosh, The British Cabinet (1960) and an article in TheStatist, June 14th, 1963, by William Pickles. It might be said that South Africa is becoming a "voluntary" one-partystate because there is no sign of that essential feature of two-party government, viz. that there should be a pendulumand that it should swing, albeit slowly.34. The concept of access, now firmly established in political behaviour analysis has been defined by Truman, op. cit,,p. 264, as "the facilitating intermediate objective of political interest groups".The concept of access involves the notion that a complaint is not effective unless the person capable of remedying(or assisting in the remedying of) the complaint is accessible.35. Examples are the portfolios of Posts and Telegraphs and Health of Bantu Education and Indian Affairs (as distin-guished from Bantu Administration and Development). Also bracketed together are Coloured Affairs, CommunityDevelopment and Housing.36. He was the Deputy Minister of the Interior, of Education, of Arts and Science, of Labour and Immigration.37. G. Carter, The Politics of Inequality, p. 171. The Chamber of Mines has, however, never been successful in breakingthe industrial colour bar.See The Political Economy of South Africa (1967), p, 7.38. South Africa is not a participant in the Olympic Games.39. See Hansard (House of Assembly) Question XI Government Policy Against T.V., Column 17, 19th January, 1960.40. Dr. Verwoerd as Prime Minister, assessed these points in Parliament on 9th March, 1960.41. In January 1966, the author interviewed the United Party M.P. for Orange Grove who has taken a particular interest inthe question of television, and who said that the trouble was that there was, in South Africa, no television "lobby",42. Hansard (S.A.), Columns 5019-21, 27th April, 1964.43. Hansard (Assembly).44. Hansard (Assembly) No. 17, Column 6517, 22nd May, 1963.45. Some government supporters (Afrikaners as well as members of the Nationalist Party) attempted to lobby the govern-ment regarding the institution of a national lottery and legalised gambling. They were met with by a personal rebuffby the last Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd.46. One M.P. declared that the " 'wine lobby' ... is ... a lobby more powerful that the oil lobby in Washington".47. Hansard (Assembly) No. 20, Column 7533, 10th-14th June, 1963. The speech was delivered in Afrikaans.48. He also said: "It is true that it (the Bill) will rebound to their benefit. I make no apology for the fact."49. Hansard, op. cit., Columns 7624-95, and, in Committee, Columns 7793-7974.50. The Annual Report South African Temperance Alliance, 1964, gives indications of the close liaison between the twoorganisations.51. Many stories are told of the way in which railway authorities move railwaymen into strategic areas in order to tip thebalance of votes in favour of the National Party. The railways were being used as a means of trying to solve the"poor white" problem, providing a safe employment for those who could have most to fear from a lowering of thecolour bar.52. G. Marais, Butter and Margarine, a comparative study (1967).53. Dairy Control Act as modified in 1918,1930 and 1950.54. In the mid-part of 1967, the margarine companies retained the services of a firm of public relations as a prelude topressing the claims of margarine amongst Ministers and M.P.s. In 1967, Professor G. Marais of Pretoria Universityproduced his book op. cit. which argued the case for a removal of restrictions on the sale of margarine, mainly fromsocial and economic standpoints.55. The details may be read in Hansard (Assembly) (2) and (3) of 1966,56. Hansard (Assembly).57. See Newscheck, 1st July, 1966, for details of the career of one important Cabinet Minister in this connection.58. Exception to job reservation provisions have been made in many sectors of the economy, particularly in the buildingindustry.59. The words of Lord Snow in Corridors of Power are interesting in this concept.,. "There are always going to be somegovernment contracts. For some of our friends that carries its own simple logic." p. 200.60. Miss G. Carter stated that business was moreover "quite ready to work closely with the Nationalists whether with theHertzog or Malanite variety," op, cit,20