ASouth African Racial PolicyN. J. J. Olivier[ -tŁIj. 4INTRODUCTIONIt is an almost impossible assignment totreat, in a single paper, in a competent andsatisfactory manner, so difficult and com-plex a subject as South Africa's racial policy;and the magnitude of the assignment is onlymatched by what could perhaps justifiably becalled the unforgiveable presumptuousness onthe part of a person who makes the attempt,I must therefore ask for your indulgence andtolerant understanding for the many examplesof incompleteness Š the many gaps, in timeand in substance Š that will undoubtedly beevident in this presentation.One of the self-evident truths that shouldbe stressed in a discussion of this nature isthat we, all of us and each of us, are firstand foremost, the continuation of, and an over-lapping element in, the long line of geneticphysical procession of generation upon genera-tion. What we are, genetically, is no function ofour will or our wish, and this holds for all ofmankind, the Whites and the Blacks alike. Theincontrovertible inference from this seems to bethat it is entirely irrational Š leaving asidemoral judgments Š that any human beingshould be penalised, or privileged, in his capa-city as a citizen because of the fact of his birth,falling, as it does, outside the domain not onlyof his personal choice or his ability to changeit, but also of the entire human race to effectany change in our fundamental genetic make-up. Of course, we could always use the deusex machina formula of declaring by statuteourselves to be something else than we reallyare; but this would be the final admission ofour irrationality, the ultimate expression ofescapism from truth and reality.In like sense Š but with important pro-visos Š our mental make-up, in terms ofvalues, norms, beliefs, attitudes, is nothing elsebut a precipitate of the heritage transferredfrom generation to generation as an essentialpart of the process of socialization which appliesto all human societies and individuals. Notonly what we are genetically, but also what webelieve, how we judge, the framework of ourreference, the concepts of good and bad, ofbetter and worse, of more acceptable or less Šthese we derive as part of the social heritageof the society in which we grow up and liveand in which, for most human beings, we mustultimately find fulfillment of our material,spiritual and other needs and aspirations. Theimportant proviso, of course, is that whereasthere is nought we can do to change our geneticstructure, our social heritage is, or can be made,subject to conscious (or even unconscious)change; norms, values, beliefs, attitudes canchange, do change: how this is effected, in anyfundamental kind of way, is mostly a functionof a complex set of factors operating within andupon the society and the human individual.21The policy followed in any given society,be it in the field of politics, economics, socialissues or racial matters, is a reflection of theattitudes, beliefs, and norms prevailing in thatsociety, as part of the social heritage derivedfrom previous generations. It stands to reasonthat such policy could only be fully com-prehended if it is then seen in the perspectiveof historical events and forces and experiencesthat moulded these attitudes, norms and per-ceptions. There is of course, the temptation tomake the psycho-historical mistake of inter-preting history in terms of contemporary normsand insights; there is an even greater risk of in-terpreting history in such a way that it fitsinto our preconceived ideas, stereotypes or pre-judices, and provides justification for these.This ex post {ado treatment of history as ameans of strengthening and lending justificationfor contemporary attitudes and policies, is notlimited to our generation and to our problems.Apparently mankind has not learned yet thata knowledge of history helps us to understandŠ and is essential to effect such understandingŠ why a given situation is what and how it is,but that it cannot per se provide rationaljustification for its continued existence ormaintenance. South Africa's racial policy canthen only be understood in terms of historicalperspectives; indeed it would be more correctto talk about its policies, in view of the factthat, in historical perspective, in terms of geo-graphical differences, and in view of the multi-racial character of the society, it would bedifficult to describe all this as reflected in asingle consistent and single-minded policy. ItWould take us too far afield if we were toattempt to analyse fully the various historicalfactors that brought about the formation ofthose attitudes in white South Africans thatled to the formulation and implementation ofSouth African racial policy. The following,however, seem to be some of the more salientpoints:HISTORICAL BACKGROUND1. When the Dutch settled at the Cape in1652 there was a relative absence of racial orcolour consciousness. A distinction was madebetween Christians and Non-Christians; and,generally speaking, persons of colour who hadbeen baptized and accepted into the Churchwere accepted as equals and shared equallywith white Christians what rights and privi-leges were accorded to the community. In thefirst few decades baptismal acceptance into theChurch entitled slave children to their free-dom at the attainment of a certain age sinceit was considered contrary to the Word ofGod for one Christian to hold another in bon-dage. The result, one hesitates to say, predict-ably, was that fewer and fewer slave-ownerswere able or willing to allow their slaves andtheir slaves' children to be taught and baptizedin the Church, until eventually, it was decidedthat winning souls for Christ was more im-portant than freeing people out of bondage; itwas no longer considered necessary that bap-tism and teaching should automatically leadto release out of slavery. Economic considera-tions, and not for the first, and certainly notfor the last time, proved stronger than religiousor moral principles.It is also understandable that during thesedecades, there was no prohibition of marriagebetween Christians and Christians, be theyWhite or Coloured, and intermarriages betweenwhite colonists and the freed children of mixeddescent of the slave population were a fairlycommon occurrence. Regard must be had tothe fact that because of the relative scarcityof womenfolk, the self evident exploitativenature of the institution of slavery and thegeographical nature of the settlement, extra-marital intercourse between slave women andcolonists, soldiers and sailors took place on aquite extensive scale. There is even a recordedmarriage, with the full blessing of the authori-ties between a baptized Hottentot girl and awell-known colonist, as Dr. Davenport des-cribes. Attempts were subsequently made tolimit or prohibit mixed marriages and extra-marital miscegenation, with doubtful success.By the middle of the eighteenth century, as aresult of the increasing colour consciousness,a degree of social stigmatization seems to haveaccompanied such marriages and miscegena-tion.2. An important formative factor in theemerging racial attitudes was undoubtedly theincreasing economic competition between thecolonists, spearheaded by the Free Burghers in1657, and the Hottentots, and subsequently theBushmen and the Bantu, in the form of intense,and often bitter, rivalry for land. It is, perhaps,understandable that the Hottentots, the ab-original inhabitants of the Western Cape when22the Dutch came, looked askance at the in-troduction of a permanent farming element offoreigners in a country they regarded as theirown. It is equally understandable that, withthe growth of the white population and theA increasing need for agricultural products,particularly cattle, economic pressures forcedthe white colonists to expand, in a relativelyslow but irreversible movement, despite des-perate attempts by these aboriginal peoples toprevent it, to the point where more than 80per cent of the total land mass of what is nowj, the Republic of South Africa came into theirownership and subject to their economic do-main. The rest was either de jacto occupied byBantu, often set aside as reservations by thewhite governments, or regarded as crown land.The distribution of land between White andAfrican, a matter of major ideological and., * practical importance, was historically deter-mined in this fashion. That this was achieved,more often than not, as a result of the superiormilitary ability of the Whites, had the furthereffect that the African peoples had no optionbut to accept this distribution and to look to' the politically dominant white group for such# changes as the latter may deem advisable orexpedient. As far as the Hottentots and Bush-men were concerned, they eventually becameunimportant in this respect, either because theywere assimilated into the growing colouredpopulation at the Cape, or were decimatedby epidemics, particularly smallpox, or de-j. parted to other areas of greater tranquility,or were exterminated. The imposition of whiteŁi control and the distribution of land effectivelyprevented further expansion by the Africanpeoples; this in turn resulted in increasingnumbers of these people entering the labourmarket as agricultural labourers and domestic^ servants, and, in the developing economy ofSouth Africa, as labourers in the mines and in* secondary and tertiary industry.3. Although there was every intention on thepart of the authorities to maintain peacefuland friendly relations with the Hottentot and,subsequently, African tribes, the forces of^ economic and other pressures made this im-possible. Within eight years after the beginning> of the settlement at the Cape, war broke outbetween the colonists and the Hottentots, and! for many years thereafter there was a greater orlesser degree of tension with some or other ofthe Hottentot peoples. The fact that the Bush-men were regarded as being sub-human andtherefore fit only to be hunted, and the con-stant warring between the colonists and theroving Bushmen, who seemed to have de-veloped (either through greed or by wayof retaliation) a particular inclination todeprive the colonists of their cattle, constitutesome of the less attractive aspects of thisperiod of South African history. On a farlarger scale, over a far longer period, with afar greater loss of life and property, the con-flict between Whites and Africans dominatedthe South African scene for the greater partof the nineteenth century, resulting in theeventual undisputed imposition of white con-trol and government, the subjection of thesepeople to white political authority and domina-tion, and the creation of a new political orderin which political power was vested, for allpractical purposes, exclusively in the hands ofWhites.Except on a severely limited scale in theCape Colony, there was no sharing of politicalpower between White and African. The stepstaken during this century to give Africans someindirect voice Š through the system of electedwhite representatives Š in the South Africanparliament, were eventually terminated interms of the policy of separate development,which provides inter alia for the constitutionaldevelopment of the so-called Bantu Homelands.Also the limited voting and other politicalrights that the Non-Whites (Coloureds andIndians) possessed in the Cape Province (theresult, basically, of the fundamentally egalita-rian policy followed by the British Governmentin respect of the Cape Province and Natal inthe middle of the nineteenth century) wereremoved, and the Coloured Peoples' Repre-sentative Council instituted as a substitute. Insimilar fashion (although perhaps with a greaterdegree of subterfuge) the Indians in Natal weredeprived in 1896 of the degree of politicalparticipation they had enjoyed up to that time.The existing Indian Council is, at present, awholly nominated body with purely advisoryfunctions. The imposition of white politicalsupremacy has, structurally and in fact, madethe possession and exercise of political andlegislative sovereignty the exclusive monopolyof the Whites, with the possible exception ofthe Bantu in their Homelands.4. At a very early stage of the settlement atthe Cape slaves were introduced and at certain23times the slave population actually out-numbered the colonists. Although initially arelatively liberal policy was followed in res-pect of emancipation for example, the psycholo-gical effect was to equate menial labour withcolour, and generally to strengthen the self-perceived role of the white man as an over-seer and supervisor. Manual labour on thewhole was regarded as being unsuitable forWhites; it brought about and reinforced a socialand economic stratification in which theWhites were regarded as superiors and Non-Whites as inferiors. And while slavery tendedto strengthen the Whites' feelings of self-evident superiority, it seemed also to havepsychologically conditioned many of the slavepopulation and its descendants to an acceptanceof inferiority as reflecting a natural order ofthings.As is understandable, this stratification wasimmensely strengthened and extended in thesubsequent economic development of SouthAfrica in which the white man's role was thatof entrepreneur, the provider of capital, therepository of know-how and the sole possessorof skills, while the Non-White was relegated tothe unskilled and semi-skilled work of manuallabourers. And where, under particular circum-stances, the employment of Non-Whites poseda threat to the Whites, or where Whites werecompelled to compete with Non-Whites for thesame jobs, the dominant political power of theWhites could always be used, and was so usedon occasion, to protect the interests of thewhite worker or to discriminate in his favour.5. As mentioned above, initially what differ-ence was made between people depended uponthe question whether they were Christians ornot. In the changing pattern of attitudes andnorms in the formative years of this country,as a result of a complex number of social andpsychological factors, Christianity not only lostits place as main determinant of a man'splace in society and as an instrument of socialstratification, but became positively identifiedwith the white group's culture and way of life.Being white became identified with being aChristian and with being civilized, in thewestern meaning of the term. Black (or Non-Whiteness) became identified not only withheathenism (paganism) but also with barbarismand cruelty. The Bible in truth became themain, and very often the only, source of learn-ing, and solace, in the ever-expanding move-ment away from the urban settlements. Underthese circumstances, these pioneers, relativelydivorced from influences from abroad, andeven from the comparatively few urban centres,equated to an increasing extent their ownpioneering struggle with that of the Israelitesof the Old Testament; and they came to seethemselves as God's chosen people, dependingupon and trusting in God for their survivalagainst the countless dark forces threateningtheir very existence, and seeing themselves asentrusted by the Almighty with the task ofbringing Enlightenment and civilization to thiscontinent.In the deepest moments of their despair,as on the Eastern Front, at Blaauwkrants,Weenen, Bloodriver and on other similar oc-casions, they turned to the only source of com-fort and succour they knew, but always con-vinced that God would only help them if theywere prepared to help themselves. The Biblein the one hand and the gun in the otherbecame inseparable partners in the struggle forsurvival and existence. So strong was this feel-ing of identification, that they resented themeddling attempts by overseas philanthropistsand missionaries to make common cause withthe non-white peoples of the land. The Philips,Reads and Van der Kemps became the detest-able symbols of assimilation and egalitarian ism,incapable and unwilling to understand theWhites, ever active in besmirching their goodname and destroying the healthy relationshipsbetween White and Non-White. As a result,at least to some of these pioneers, Christianiz-ing and educating the black barbarians wouldamount to accepting them as their social equals,and for a long time this section felt uneasyabout the missionary work undertaken by someof their Churches. In actual fact, the missionarywork undertaken by some of these Churchesin South Africa and elsewhere on the continent,was of tremendous significance and impact.It has not always been their fault that theyfailed to realise that the Brotherhood in Christis fundamentally incompatible with compulsoryseparation and discrimination, within theChurch at least, and also, as many otherswould maintain, in a State which professesobedience to the will of God. Perhaps theEnglish Churches in South Africa have lessexcuse to offer.6. As the last, and probably the most im-portant, factor in the historical growth of race24Ł<Ł Vand colour consciousness in South Africa,attention should be drawn to the emergenceand development of this powerful, surging,irresistible force of Afrikaner nationalism.Considering the course of events in SouthAfrica, it seems as if there were compellingforces of such intensity and magnitude atwork that the development of Afrikanernationalism became an inescapable outcome.The two Wars of Independence, and particular-ly the war of 1899-1902, brought about, to afar greater extent than anything else before, asense of nationhood, the awareness of a com-mon language, a common culture, a commonheritage and a common future, and also acommon realization that what form their futuretook, would have to be determined by them-selves, and nobody else. For a long time therewas great bitterness in the hearts of thesepeople, brought about by their defeat, impo-verishment, humiliation and the destruction oftheir families and of their land; and there arcsome people in South Africa who would main-tain that the most vital aspect in SouthAfrica's political life today is still the unsolvedproblem of English-Afrikaner relations.But, over and above the bitterness, Afri-kaner nationalism arose as a positive force,not only to redress the wrongs of the past, butthrough the medium of Afrikaner conscious-ness and Afrikaner power (to use the termino-logy of today) to create a society that willallow for the full expression of Afrikaneridentity in all conceivable fields. And becausethis Afrikaner movement succeeded, for variousreasons, in gaining the support of the majorityof Afrikaners, it became possible for them togain control of the Government of the country(as happened in 1948 and ever since) and inthis way to provide for the fulfilment of Afri-kaner hopes, aspirations and ideals, and alsoto implement those policies which wouldaccord with their general attitudes, beliefs andconvictions. The race policy followed in SouthAfrica particularly since 1948 must be seen inthis light. The fundamental question of thislast quarter of this century seems to be simplywhether Afrikaner nationalism is going to re-main the positive and binding force it hasdeveloped into over the last three-quarters of acentury; and if so, whether it will be able toaccommodate the growing black consciousnessand black power seeking, as the Afrikaner did,for expression of black hopes and aspirationsin a society and in a country shared by both,I have just said that Afrikaner nationalism,once it achieved political power, wanted tocreate a society that would, as nearly as ispossible, correspond with its basic beliefs andattitudes, even if some of those beliefs mightbe ill-founded, and some of the attitudes restupon misjudgments, stereotypes and prejudices.This must not be seen as an attempt to ascribequalities of backwardness or ignorance to theAfrikaner, as if he is the lone exception in amodern world clinging to outmoded ideas andprinciples. The Afrikaner does not claim tohave a monopoly of prejudice. What 1 do wishto state, however, is that the policy followed inSouth Africa in this century and particular-ly since 1948, is basically an expression of theattitudes that developed over the last threecenturies. I have tried to indicate the historicalprocesses that led to the formation of some ofthose.MODERN RACE POLICYLet us now try to distinguish some of thebasic elements in the policy. Obviously, it willbe impossible for me to discuss this in detail,and we will have to confine ourselves, onceagain, to the more salient features. The basicdistinctions that could be made in the situationbefore and after 1948 could be summarized asfollows:I. Although prior to 1948 there were certainfields in which formal discrimination and com-pulsory separation were practised, this was notdone in pursuance of an ideology which aimedat regulating the entire area of human contactin South Africa. The policy of apartheid, asconceived during the 1940s and as applied bythe National Party after it came into powerin 1948, was an attempt to enforce separationbetween White and Non-White (and in certainareas between the var'ous Non-White groupsand even sometimes between the sub-groupswithin one of these groups) in as far as suchseparation was practically possible. Some ofthe measures taken were obviously simply acontinuation of previous policy. There is hardlyan area of public life that was left untouchedbv this ideology of separation. In order toeffect this separation it is essential to know towhat group a person belongs: the instrumentcreated for this purpose was the PopulationRegistration Act, providing for the classifica-tion of each and every South African in one25of the following categories: White, Bantu andColoured. Provision is made for the sub-division of the Bantu group into its variousmajor tribal groupings, and for the sub-division of the Coloured group into seven sub-groups (Cape Coloured, Malay, Griqua,Chinese, Indian, Other Asian, Other Coloured).These sub-divisions do have practical signific-ance in that an Indian, for example, is notallowed to occupy land in a 'Group Area' setaside for Coloureds.For the purposes of our discussion we willhowever, confine ourselves mainly to the ap-plication of separation as between Whites andthe other two Non-White Groups (the Bantuand the Coloureds.) In terms of the GroupAreas Act, compulsory residential separationis enforced, and large numbers of people havebeen moved to their own 'Group Areas', inwhich the occupation and ownership of pro-perty is restricted to members of the group forwhich the group area has been proclaimed. Inthe case of Africans, pre-1948 legislation hadalready provided for their separation intoseparate African townships, although theGroup Areas Act did affect them in some ways.But the Act particularly affected Colouredsand Asians, many thousands of whom werecompelled to move into other areas. The Act,however, does not only regulate the creation ofseparate Group Areas; in conjunction with theAct on the Provision of Separate Amenitiesand other Acts it regulates the use of and accessto countless public facilities, such as trains,buses, taxis, beaches, government and munici-pal offices, railway stations, cinemas, theatres,cafes, restaurants and hotels, entrances, parks,benches, courts, trade unions, other associations,sports grounds, hospitals, schools, universities,lifts in buildings, and toilet facilities. Some-times some of these forms of separation arereferred to as 'petty apartheid'. There is nolegal compulsion upon the Government, orother authorities, to provide these separatefacilities on a basis of equality. These measuresof separation have been justified generally bythe formulators of the policy on the groundsthat separation of the groups will lessen thearea of conflict and is essential to bring aboutharmonious relationships. It follows almostautomatically that in such a scheme of things,extra-mirital intercourse and marriages be-tween White and Non-White would be out-lawed.II. As is almost inevitable in a situationwhere the Whites are in exclusive political con-trol, differentiation between White and Non-White (and sometimes within Non-Whitegroups) would be a matter of common occur-rence, sometimes amounting to factual dis-crimination. In the provision of funds, forexample, it is to be expected that the Govern-ment of the day should first and foremost con-sider the interests of those people who have thepower to vote them in or out of oflice. Inthe provision of social services, it has thus farbeen an almost axiomatic principle that lessis being spent on the Non-Whites than on theWhites. An equitable distribution of the wealthand other resources of the country as betweenthe various groups is probably impossible aslong as Non-Whites are not represented inthose bodies making the relevant decisions.III. In the general labour field the traditionalpolicy (leaving aside, for the time being, thepolicy of decentralization of industry) has beento protect the interest of the white workersagainst possible competition by Non-Whites.The Colour Bar has operated effectively, untilfairly recently, to keep Non-Whites (particularlyBlacks) out of skilled work; the so-calledcivilized labour policy discriminated againstNon-Whites even when they were doing thesame kind of work as Whites. Blacks are notallowed to become members of recognizedtrade unions, and are thus excluded from parti-cipation in the machinery provided by theIndustrial Conciliation Act. Alternative machin-ery, on a totally different basis, has beenprovided for African workers in terms of theBantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act.However, the Wage Act stipulates that theWage Board, which lays down minimum wagesfor unskilled workers, may not discriminatein its determination on the basis of colour.Legal provision has been made for the separa-tion of existing trade unions along colour lines.The Job Reservation clause of the IndustrialConciliation Act provides that employment incertain jobs may be restricted to members ofa particular group; in general this had beenapplied to the benefit of the white workers.The facilities for training for Non-Whitescompare unfavourably with those available forWhites. The general principle has been statedthat this Government will not allow a Non-White to occupy a position of superiority vis-a-vis a white worker, that is no white worker26will be placed in a position where he has toreceive instructions from a Non-White. Theeffect of the labour policy has been to makeit impossible for private enterprise to employNon-Whites in skilled categories traditionallymanned by Whites; although shortage ofskilled labour is gradually bringing about achange of attitude on the part of the Govern-ment employers and white workers.In government service, and in the publicservice generally, the employment pattern isalmost exclusively white (barring manuallabour, and jobs such as messengers), except inthose branches of the public service createdspecially for the Non-White groups, in theBantu Homelands, and in fields such as Col-oured, Indian, and African education.IV. In the political field, the general policy,as I have indicated above, has had the effectof eliminating all Non-White participation inthe various legislative institutions, both centraland local. Participation in these bodies wasalways relatively minimal, except in the CapeColony, where great dissatisfaction was causedby the removal of the Africans in 1936 andthe other Non-Whites in 1956 from the com-mon voters' roll, and the eventual removal oftheir limited ind'rect representation from Par-liament and the Cape Provincial Council. Pro-vision has now also been made for removalof Non-Whites in the Cape Province from themunicipal voters' roll in terms of the Govern-ment's policy of Separate Development.SEPARATE DEVELOPMENTThe philosophical basis of the policy ofSeparate Development is that the populationof South Africa consists, not of a single nation,but of a number of nations each having identi-fiable and separate interests and aspirations;and that there is a duty upon the Governmentto give recognition to this fact of multi-nationalism, and to provide the machineryand the opportunities for each of these variousnational groups to develop according to itsown wishes and along its own cultural lines;that it is a fallacy to assume that there is asingle common society or nation in SouthAfrica; or that such a common society will evercome about; that the white national group (in-cluding all Whites in South Africa) will neversurrender its right of political self-determina-tion, or share political rights with Non-Whites(considering especially the disparity in numbers)in such a way that it may lose control of itsown political destiny; that, in order to avoiddiscrimination, and to provide opportunitiesfor political self-expression, the only way is todevelop political institutions for the variousNon-White groups, these institutions eventuallyexercising full control over the separate andseparable interests of the group concerned.For this purpose, the Non-Whites are seenas consisting of a Coloured Group, an IndianGroup, and about eight separate Black AfricanGroups each having its own Homeland or areaof traditional occupation. The goal of thispolicy is to lead each of these African Home-lands to constitutional independence, if it sodesires. To this end, provision has been madefor the creation of legislative institutions ineach of these regions and for a governmentservice to undertake the administration of suchservices as may be transferred to the Homelandgovernments. These institutions have limitedlegislative capacity at the moment, but thePrime Minister has made it clear that theGovernment is willing to assist these HomelandGovernments to achieve full constitutional in-dependence when they so desire. In this wayavenues of political expression and decision-making are created in a way that will avoidconflict and confrontation between White andBlack and will lead to the eventual eliminationof all forms of racial discrimination.If this policy is to achieve its objective,it is in terms of government policy essential thatthese Homelands should be seen by the Afri-cans as the areas in which they will be ableto exercise full political rights, in which employ-ment opportunities will be available to increas-ing numbers of them, and in which a growingpercentage of them will be permanently domi-ciled. Official policy, therefore, is based on thefollowing principles amongst others:1. The settlement, on a permanent familybasis, of Africans outside the Homeland shouldbe discouraged, and steps should be taken todecrease the numbers already residing in theso-called 'white' area. For this purpose controlover the movement and residence of Africanshas to be maintained and rigidly enforced.2. Africans living permanently outside theseHomelands are politically integrated into thepolitical structure of the Homelands; that isXhosas living in the urban areas, for example,have the right to vote for members of theTranskei Legislative Assembly. In this way the27national unity of the particular African peopleis strengthened and any African, wherever helives, is recognized as belonging to a particularnational entity and has to find the satisfactionfor his political aspirations through his nation-al group. For this reason policy should aim atpromoting the sense of belonging and identifica-tion; this is done by various means, such asthe 'National' character of the African univer-sities, the policy pursued for the last decadethat all new secondary and high schools shouldbe erected only in the Homelands, the applica-tion of the ethnic principle in urban townships,and the liaison machinery between urban Afri-cans and Homeland leaders.3. Further economic development of SouthAfrica should be geared towards this objective.A positive policy of decentralization should befollowed, with the emphasis on developmentof industries in the so-called Border Areas,enabling Africans to reside permanently in theHomelands, and to commute, on a daily orweekly basis, to their places of employment.To this end Government policy, by way of avariety of enticements and privileges, aims tolure industrialists to move existing factories,extensions and new undertakings to those areas;and restrictions mostly through the PhysicalPlanning Act, are placed (in terms of the em-ployment of African workers) on existingindustries in the non-border areas. Specialmachinery has been created for econo-mic development within the Homelands, suchas the Bantu Investment Corporation, and theXhosa Development Corporation; and private(white) industrialists are encouraged to locatetheir industries within these Areas, but actingas agents of the Bantu Investment Corpora-tion in keeping with the official policy adoptedsome fifteen years ago and still lingering on,that private white capital and initiative shouldnot be allowed in these Homelands. Assistanceis g:ven to Bantu entrepreneurs, and special andcontinuous attempts are under way to improveagriculture, health, social and educational ser-vices.4. In pursuance of the ideological basis of thepolicy of separate development, the presenturban African population is regarded as resid-ing in the urban areas on a temporary basis,to be removed to the Homelands when theeconomic and social development there hasreached a stage that would enable these peopleto be absorbed in these areas without majordifficulty or dislocation. Urban Africans are,consequently, not entitled to rights that wouldrecognise their residence in the urban areasas being permanent, such as ownership of land,long lease of land, trading rights, local govern-ment, educational and training facilities, wel-fare and other institutions.5. The Government has recognized that it isimpossible to talk of eventual independencefor the Homelands as long as they are geo-graphically fragmented as they are today; theTranskei is the notable exception, but even sothe Transkei government has made it clear thatthey will not ask for, or accept, independenceunless some of its territorial demands aremet. Government policy aims at achieving asubstantial degree of 'consolidation' of each ofthese Homelands, but many people doubtwhether in terms of these plans, some of theseHomelands will ever be viable from a politicalor geographical point of view.There are many people, in South Africaand elsewhere, who doubt whether this policycould really be implemented, at least to thepoint of independence, and who feel that theWhites in South Africa will not be preparedto make the financial, geographical and ideolo-gical sacrifices that are prerequisites for thesuccessful implementation of the policy. Thereis no doubt, in my own mind, that the Govern-ment is sincere in its attitude. I am not con-vinced that the Government, or the Whitesof South Africa, have a clear picture of allthe steps that will have to be taken to im-plement the policy to its logical conclusion,and of all the implications of independencewhen it is granted. There are certain nebulousideas of forming a kind of confederation ofSouthern African States under those circum-stances or a kind of commonwealth of SouthernAfrican nations, but this is not part of acceptedGovernment thinking.The Coloured and the Indian groups haveno traditional separate 'Homelands' of theirown, although a few misguided voices havebeen advocating, during the last few years, acreation of such a separate Homeland for theColoureds. This has been rejected by the Gov-ernment. The policy of Separate Developmentas far as the Coloureds are concerned consists,at the moment, mainly of the following:(i) A Coloured Peoples' RepresentativeCouncil, with an executive authority, havingcertain defined legislative powers to deal28with a number of subjects specificallyaffecting the Coloured group. This Councilhas 40 elected and 20 nominated members;great dissatisfaction was caused when, afterthe last election, the Government used itsnominating powers to give the minorityelected party a majority in the Council.A special department of Coloured Ad-ministration has been created to deal withthose aspects transferred to the Council,such as education, social welfare, and com-munity development. And also a Depart-ment of Coloured Relations to serve asliaison between the Council and the Govern-ment and other government agencies,(ii) Separate residential areas for Colouredshave been created under the Group AreasAct. Provision has been made for the in-stitution of a Coloured Management Boardwhich will have some local governmentpowers in respect of their townships, andwhich will have to co-operate with the ad-joining white municipality. Whenever suchManagement Boards are instituted Col-oureds lose the right to vote for membersof the white municipal council,(iii) The South African government, throughParliament, allocates funds to the ColouredPeoples' Representative Council and theDepartment of Coloured Administrationfor the execution of the functions trans-ferred to those bodies,(iv) Special measures have been taken toassist Coloured entrepreneurs in thesecoloured townships to develop their ownbusiness, and in general, to develop someof the natural resources in the rural areas.Such assistance is rendered through TheColoured Development Corporation.The position of the Indian group approxi-mates to that of the Coloured except that thepresent Indian Council is a purely advisorybody, although the system of an entirelynominated membership is to be changed.CONCLUSIONAs indicated, the official policy is based onthe concept of the multi-national character ofthe population structure of South Africa; itseems that this concept is being used, to anincreasing extent, to get away from some formsof racial discrimination and separation. Multi-racialism as a concept remains in officialthinking, so it seems, as unacceptable as ever;multi-nationalism, it is maintained, simplygives recognition to the realities of the SouthAfrican situation, and within the frameworkof this concept it is possible for White andNon-White to mix and to co-operate in jointaction and endeavour. So far the new approachhas brought about quite fundamental changesin the traditional South African sports policy,and also in other respects. It is my assumptionthat within the framework of this rather scienti-fically nebulous but practically very usefulconcept major changes in a number of fieldswill be effected in the foreseeable future.In concluding this brief survey of a complexsubject, I would like to give my own views oncertain aspects of what I have described.I believe that the policy of compulsoryseparation and discrimination on the basis ofcolour or race, is untenable; it is degrading andhumiliating to the people affected and an affrontto human dignity. A radical change is essentialif South Africa is to have continued peace andprosperity. It is also obvious, to me in any case,that a much more ambitious and energeticprogramme for the constitutional, economic andsocial development of the Homelands wouldhave to be pursued if the policy is to achievesome of its stated objectives. It is also clearthat the Homelands policy does not cater ade-quately for the needs and aspirations of thepermanently urbanized African population. Afundamental change of policy is required,based on the principle that those Africansform an integral and inseparable part of thepopulation structure of the so-called whitearea. There seems to be little doubt in theminds of most thinking people that the presentpolicy framework as applied to the Colouredand Indian groups is inadequate, and that, sincethese groups do not have their own Homelands,other machinery will have to be created fortheir full participation in our political life.It is essential that there should be a sharingof the decision making process by all thosewho are citizens of South Africa; how this isto be achieved is a problem of major magni-tude, but there are at least various possibilitiesthat merit investigation and consideration. Onething is clear: South Africa can no longer bedescribed as a static community. Major changesare under way, brought about by a numberof factors: South Africa's economic develop-ment and the economic inter-dependence ofall its people; the relative scarcity of white29labour, and the compelling need, for the sakeof the economy and in the interests of all, tomake better use of South Africa's availablemanpower resources; the growing concern feltin many circles in South Africa about the lesssatisfactory aspects of present policy, and therealization that the primary aim of policyshould be to create a situation wherein thepeoples of this country can look to a futureof relative peace and co-operation and absenceof destructive conflict and confrontation; theincreasing and genuine consultation betweenthe government and the leaders of the variousnon-white groups; the pressure from Afrikanerintellectuals; the new power structure createdby government policy itself, whereby the ex-pression of their feelings and frustrations, theirambitions and demands by non-white leaderscan now take place through the establishedand accepted institutionalized channels; theemergence of Black Power and Black Consci-ousness and other influences, some of them notso obvious. There is no doubt that the Whites,and particularly the Afrikaners, are facing thegreatest challenge of their entire history. Thisis equally true of the other population groups.I personally believe that commonsense andgoodwill will prevail, difficult as the road maybe. We all have too much to lose, and animmeasurable amount to gain.RHODESIAN JOURNAL OFECONOMICSThe Rhodesian Journal of Economics is published quarterly in March,June, September and December by the Rhodesian Economic Society. Itscontent mainly relates to the Rhodesian Economy but contributions are alsopublished concerning neighbouring states and theoretical issues. The Journalhas been published since June 1967 and a full index is available on requestat a cost of US$1,00 per copy.The annual subscription to the Journal itself is US$7,50c (plus postage)for subscribers abroad and Rh$4,00 for Rhodesian subscribers.Inquiries and subscriptions to:The Secretary,The Rhodesian Journal of Economics,P.O. Box MP 167,Mount Pleasant,Salisbury,Rhodesia.30