IntroductionRace in Southern AfricaM. W, MurphreeKik *The objective in the organization of thisparticular series of lectures, given at theUniversity of Rhodesia's Vacation School in1972, was to provide a comparative perspectiveon the different formally sanctioned policiesregarding race relations to be found in variousrepresentative political units in Southern Africa.To this end several eminently qualified speakerswere invited to the School, and the Universitywas fortunate in obtaining the services of Pro-fessor S. B. Ngcobo, currently of Lesotho, Pro-fessor N. J. J. Olivier of the Republic of SouthAfrica, Mr. J, L. R. Torres of Mozambiqueand Senator W. R. Whaley of Rhodesia tospeak on the policies of their respective coun-tries. It had been hoped also to obtain theservices of an eminent scholar from Malagasyto provide a perspective from a Francophonearea in Southern Africa, but this attempt wasin the event frustrated by the repercussions thatthis participation would have had on the careerof the man in question, a fact which is in itselfan oblique commentary on the importance ata personal level of the subject of this volumeto the people who live in Southern Africa. Inaddition to the guest speakers menuoned, anumber of lectures were presented by membersof the staff of the University, and some of theseare included in this volume because of theapposite nature of their contents to the com-parative perspective involved.Certain points should be taken into con-sideration in the reading of these articles.Firstly, it should be borne in mind that theauthors do not necessarily personally representthe policies and perspectives that they present;the lecture series was an exercise in academicanalysis and the writers are to be personallyidentified only with those value judgementswhich they specifically espouse in what theywrite. Secondly, it should be remembered thatin their original form these articles weredelivered as lectures to an academically 'lay'audience which could not be presumed to haveany specialist background in history or thesocial sciences. Thus the lecturers had to delivertheir material at a relatively broad level ofgeneralization which did not permit an in-depthanalysis from their own disciplinary specialities.Finally, the lectures on which thesearticles are based are now well over two yearsold, and the reader has the benefit of knowledgeof more recent events which the writers couldnot at the time have predicted with accuracy.This gives the advantage of allowing us to testwhat was said in 1972 against the measureof subsequent developments; additional datais now available for analysis and we can per-haps improve on the understanding that ourauthors provided over two years ago. Onbalance, however, the conceptual tools that theyused, and the conclusions that they drew, standthe test of our subsequent knowledge remark-ably well. The comparative approach taken bythe series, covering as it does most of the con-temporary alternatives available for race rela-tions policy in racially heterogeneous states,has in this instance provided a good base forthe study of the subject as subsequent eventshave shown. In the 'slippery' arena of socialscience data, where a plethora of variablesconfront us in bewildering profusion, the com-parative method still remains perhaps our best,albeit imprecise, tool for giving insight intothe complex dynamics which motivate andinform our societies.This is not the place to give a detailedsummary of the points of analysis put forwardby our authors Š on this the articles speakfor themselves. I do wish however to point outcertain factors which are common to the treat-ment given in each paper, variables which pro-vide the comparative contrasts and similaritiesin the various societies studied. The first ofthese factors is the set of historical sequenceswhich have led to the present racially hetero-geneous populations of the polities underscrutiny. In each of these the sequence hasvaried but, as Torres points out (p. 40), theyhave all involved a period of colonization dur-ing which a fundamental division in society hasbeen created between the colonizer and thecolonized which has invariably placed the colo-nized in a subordinate position. Furthermorethis division of superordinancy/subordinancyhas a racial aspect in that it consistently corres-ponds to a segmentation that is defined interms of racial criteria. In a passage quoted byTorres (p. 41) Kennedy states: 'The first of theuniversal traits of colonialism is the colourline. In every dependent territory a true castedivision exists, with the resident white popula-tion separated from the native masses by asocial barrier that is virtually impassable. Thecolour line, indeed, is the foundation of theentire colonial system, for on it is built thewhole social, economic and political structure.'Even if one accepts Torres' caveats concerningthe universal applicability of all of Kennedy'sassertions, this statement must be taken ashaving a certain general validity, and the im-portance of the way in which the colonizer,racially defined, has historically reached hisposition is something which is acknowledged,either implicitly or explicitly, by all of ourauthors.A second important variable is the de-mographic one, a factor especially emphasizedby Ngcobo (p. 55). The intensity and thenature of racial conflict varies, he asserts, withthe relative numerical size of the different racialgroups within a population. Any comparisonbetween the different societies of SouthernAfrica must, therefore, keep this item in con-sideration.Finally, there is the factor of culture, thedifferent perspectives on man and society in-culcated by the ideologies and value systemsof the various parent societies of the colonizers,be they Anglo-Saxon, Iberian or Dutch inorigin. Refined and modified by the historicalsequences mentioned above, these various cul-tural traditions are held to be a critical variablewhich has differentiated the course of racerelations in the different societies of SouthernAfrica. Indeed Torres makes it the most import-ant of all his variables, and asserts that thelebenswelt of the Portuguese is so different fromthat of the British and the Afrikaners that 'itallows for contacts between White and Blackto take place on a level of tolerance andequality that has never been possible in SouthAfrica, or what was British Central and EastAfrica' (p. 51).In laying such stress upon the culturalfactor, Torres is in danger of obscuring whatis fundamental to all racial contact situations,the fact that race relations are power relation-ships, that racially defined groups meet asgroups representing segmental interests, incompetition for the same scarce resources. Agood illustration of this fact is to be found inTorres' own article, where he shows (p. 48)that in spite of ostensible egalitarianism inlabour legislation in Mozambique, the non-black-dominated labour syndicates havemanaged to exclude large numbers of Blacksfrom qualifying for open competition in certainsectors of the labour market. Olivier's articleillustrates the same point. The historical se-quence he describes for South Africa shows(p. 24) how menial labour came to beassociated with Non-Whites, a process whichstrengthened 'the self perceived role of thewhite man as an overseer and supervisor.Manual labour on the whole was regarded asbeing unsuitable for Whites; it brought aboutand reinforced a social and economic stratifica-tion in which the Whites were regarded assuperior and Non-Whites as inferiors'. Theracial differentiation had an economic objec-tive, an objective implemented by the manipula-tion of political power. Thus Olivier states:'As is almost inevitable in a situation wherethe Whites are in exclusive political control,A "*-!differentiation between White and Non-White. . . would be a matter of common occurrence,sometimes amounting to factual discrimination.In the provision of funds ... it is to be expectedthat the Government of the day should firstand foremost consider the interests of thosepeople who have the power to vote them in orout of office' (p. 26).The colonizer, racially designated by self-definition in various historical sequences, isthus in a politically and economically powerfulposition. He has, however, also the problemof maintaining his position in the face of in-creasing pressures, both internal and external.As Dixon puts it (p. 63): 'Unless their interestscan be protected, the minority has no reasonfor existence in the Southern African environ-ment; they will lose their individual and col-lective identities'.In seeking to preserve these identities variouspolicies have been evolved by the whitesuperordinate minorities which are described inthis volume, notably Separate Development andMultiracialism. Both have their own sets ofproblems. Separate Development has its econo-mic inconsistencies, which are discussed byOlivier. Multiracialism has its own conceptualinconsistencies, perhaps best illustrated byWhaley's article, where at one point (p. 32) itis stated that, 'The belief is that the co-existenceof people comprising a number of groups canonly be achieved when groups and communitieshave the rights and the opportunities to preservetheir own identities, their own traditions andtheir own customs', and at another (p. 32) it isstated that, 'The hope is that with the passageof time the boundaries of politico-racial cleav-age may become blurred and finally eliminated.'How, one is led to ask, is the hope to be realizedwhen legislation is shaped to reinforce thebelief?Much more damaging, however, lo theviability of Multiracialism is the inherentinstability of a society built upon this principle.Dixon's article, in my opinion, well sub-stantiates this point of view.There is left, among the alternative policiesprovided in Southern Africa, that of Non-Racialism, described by Ngcobo. Is it a viablealternative, or is it, as Dixon implies (p. 65)simply another guise for racial sovereigntyŠ black racial sovereignty in this case?Perhaps only a further development of thisparticular historical sequence can yield ananswer. Human societies have a ubiquitouspropensity to segment themselves into interestgroups stratified according to differential accessto rewards and to opportunities. Where suchsocieties are comprised of more than one racialgroup the alignment of interest groups andthat of racial groups seems almost always tobe inevitable. A racial interest group in asuper-ordinate position then evolves a racistideology to buttress its position. The racialinterest group in a subordinate position thenevolves in response a counter-ideology leadingto further conflict, as Patel describes.In such societies there appear to beonly two viable long-term alternatives. Onealternative is to make such a society mono-racial. This is the kind of solution thatGeneral Amin in Uganda is movingtowards. Another variant of this solution ispartition or fragmentation. The other possibilityis to create within the society new cross-cuttinginterest groups in which the racial visibilityfactor is less significant. There is some evidenceto demonstrate that in some countries, parti-cularly since the Second World War, this kindof approach has produced new social and poli-tical alignments in replacement of older andracial ones. R. W. Mack's study, 'Race, class,and power in Barbados' (in Social Change inDeveloping Areas, ed. H. R. Barringer et al.,Cambridge (Mass.), Schenkman, 1966, 131-54),indicates the emergence of certain status ag-gregates which cut across racial boundaries,even though they are aggregates of personssimilar in income, education, occupation, reli-gion and amount of social power. None ofthese was an integral part of the old statusstructure, but their presence is vital to explainthe mechanisms of change. Because of thesimilarities in the life-style of members, thesestatus aggregates are gradually becoming statusgroups, and as they do the emerging classstructure obliterates the old meaning of race.In citing a Barbadian case study I am ofcourse suggesting a wider comparative studythan that presented in this issue of Zambezict.It is a necessary one, for we must constantlysee Southern Africa in a wider, global context.But to do so effectively, we must first gain anunderstanding of the policies that exist here,and the dynamics that have shaped them. Itwas towards a contribution to this understand-ing that this series of lectures was first designed,and is now published.